Anyone with knowledge of copyright law?

[nigel_b]

I guess if you copy exactly the background as well as the subject then it would be clear to a casual observer that it had been copied from a specific print but if you just copy the details of the subject, who is ever going to be able to prove (and what would they seek to gain) that it was copied from a specific print?

[snowdrop]

I think if the use of ones intellectual work being used in order to make money, would be open to question.....Gosh, Where did that stuffy sentence come from? LoL.
What I mean is, although someone makes a sweeping statement allowing the use of their work and at some time in the future a particular piece made, in one way or another, money for the user, couldn't that cause problems for the owner, taxwise?.......Gosh, another stuffy one. I blame the home made soup I've just eaten.

[Jenny W]

Again, thanks all for your comments!

Originally Posted by Jason Green

Now, I think this is quite simple, really. Jenny, you asked a website owner for their permission to use their photographs of carded specimens on your site. They failed to answer so you now wish to draw their pinned coleopteran pics for use on your site. Therefor essentially you will be drawing a dorsal view of these insects. Correct? If so, it is simply that - dorsal views, and not as if their photos were taken in the field and you copied them exactly including perhaps artistically-captured backgrounds! So it's not copying in my opinion, simply using their images as a base to copy the insect's aesthetics that you could get another way.

Originally Posted by nigel_b

but if you just copy the details of the subject, who is ever going to be able to prove (and what would they seek to gain) that it was copied from a specific print?

This is what I thought, as you say they could be anybodies carded specimens I had drawn from - it's just whether to risk it or not, I wouldn't want to be accused of copying even if there was no way of proving I had!

[Jason Green]

Originally Posted by Jenny W

This is what I thought, as you say they could be anybodies carded specimens I had drawn from - it's just whether to risk it or not, I wouldn't want to be accused of copying even if there was no way of proving I had!

The drawings wouldn't need to be even show that the insect was carded, would it? (though you may not be thinking this...) I mean, if you wanted to draw a pinned one, then - without having any knowledge of preserving specimens - maybe they could argue 'But that's my pin's location - so you've copied!', but not otherwise!

I think it would look equally good drawn without the pin in the back - maybe even with a natural, vegetation background? No one would have to suspect it...

Again, my thoughts only! Oh, and what family?

[eeyore]

jeff's the lawyer amongst us so I wouldnt want to disagree with his learned opinion but my feeling is that whether a drawing based on a photo is a derivative work would depend on how similar the photo and the drawing are.

if they are substantially different, then i doubt that the derivative issue applies - if they are nearly identical on the other hand it definitely does.

[ChrisJB]

This thread could help me too. The other day I was at the local studies library trying to get a copy of a photograph taken in 1949, yet was told I couldn't because one has to wait 50 years after the person who donated the photograph has died! This seemed ridiculous to me. Is this correct?

Regards, Chris

[A-daisy-a-day]

Originally Posted by ChrisJB

This thread could help me too. The other day I was at the local studies library trying to get a copy of a photograph taken in 1949, yet was told I couldn't because one has to wait 50 years after the person who donated the photograph has died! This seemed ridiculous to me. Is this correct?

Regards, Chris

How would you know when they'd died?
And if the work wasn't for commercial gain and maybe for your own use does that matter?

[Words]

Just to add to previous posts: artist reference shots (which is what these are) are covered by copyright. So while you may get away with it, it is potentially a breach. Photo agencies make money from photos used by artsits, so there is commercial value here. In my own expereince artists usually ask first and I usually say yes, but with a rider that if the painting is then used in further commercial work (eg ad campaign, greetings card) they need to renegotiate with me for a fee.

On the library question, the copyright is complicated and I'm not entirely sure ther library advice is entirely accurate. There's a useful guide at the end of this page.