Hello , just wanne share with you !

[challe]

Thank u guys , But I think its better not to use this picture !
I always ask before I use them !

Thank you and Have Fun !
Challe /

Originally Posted by Corvette63

So you think that I can pick some photo for example from Toxic Flame's gallery and make some modifications for it and sell it with my own copyrights for different companies? No way.. I think that the photographer would get really pissed..

You are very much allowed to do so. It has to show clear difference between your work and the original image. At the end of the day it is up to the judges to say if it is done right or not, it's a very thin line...

[Wormie]

Originally Posted by Toxic Flame

I am holding copyright to every photo i have taken in my life without c watermarkings or visual copyright markings on them. All kind of commercial abuse is prohibited by finnish law. It is simple as that.

Yes, you have copyright to your photos. BUT if I make a drawing based to your photo I have ALL RIGHTS to that drawing. Even if you can clearly show that I have re-created your photo. By the Finnish law (case Ojutkangas).

I'm not against private / personal use but if somebody is making money with my pictures then i am willing share of that part too. (If it is original photo work of mine.)

You couldn't share other ppls income like I said above.

But if somebody is making drawings thru my work and selling them, i'd only ask them to send me a one free copy because that is fair enough for my point of wiew.

That's right thing to do, coz' he who makes drawings has all right to those drawings. It doesn't matter if they are "copies" of your photos. Notice that I wrote "copies" not copies. Why? Because those drawings are considered as new independet creations by the Finnish law. No matter if they are direct copies from someones copyrighted photos.

[Wormie]

Originally Posted by challe

Thank u guys , But I think its better not to use this picture !
I always ask before I use them !

Thank you and Have Fun !
Challe /

If you are using pen and paper (or watercolors etc.) to create your pictures you can use any photo as a model. By the Finnish law it is. And you have full rights to your drawings/paintings. BUT it is very good to ask photographer if he permits the use AND give credits to original photographer. If photographer says no, it's up to you if you make drawing or not. If u make it, it's not illegal.

[Toxic Flame]

Originally Posted by Wormie

You couldn't share other ppls income like I said above.

I wasn't talking about somebody elses drawings. I was talking only about my own prints as a photowork. You have to modify them pretty harsh/radically to get copyright on your side. Over +60% i'd say by the book of law. In theory. In real life that differs. Like Groovy said it's a very thin line.

Harha said:

"If the picture is posted to a public forum without any notice of copyright...? Why not."

This is wrong. If the art is in internet doesn't mean that they are yours and you can use them as you want. If you take somebody elses property without permission, it's called stealing. You can do it but don't get caught.

[Wormie]

Originally Posted by Toxic Flame

I wasn't talking about somebody elses drawings. I was talking only about my own prints as a photowork. You have to modify them pretty harsh/radically to get copyright on your side. Over +60% i'd say by the book of law. In theory. In real life that differs. Like Groovy said it's a very thin line.

Sorry, I misunderstood your point of view. Yes, it's not defined how much/little you should modify the original and every case is individual. But (normal) photoshopping usually doesn't fill up the criteria. Even if you prove that you have changed over 60% of the pixels and your re-producted looks (too much) like the original, you have violated copyrights. But if you create exactly original-like picture with pen and paper you don't violate copyrights....

This is wrong. If the art is in internet doesn't mean that they are yours and you can use them as you want. If you take somebody elses property without permission, it's called stealing. You can do it but don't get caught.

Basicly yes, it is like you said. Copyright must be in effect. If photo has been taken over 50 years ago, it can be used UNLESS it's an artistic photo. Artistic photograph has copyright for 70 years after the creators death. All photographs are not artistic photos in the eyes of the law. But anyway, safe way is NOT to use photos without permission of the photographer.

[Harha]

Originally Posted by Toxic Flame

Harha said:

"If the picture is posted to a public forum without any notice of copyright...? Why not."

This is wrong. If the art is in internet doesn't mean that they are yours and you can use them as you want. If you take somebody elses property without permission, it's called stealing. You can do it but don't get caught.

...The sender has according to my understanding agreed with him/herself that anyone can use the picture... and has by the way accepted the risk of the picture being abused...

[Toxic Flame]

Originally Posted by Harha

...The sender has according to my understanding agreed with him/herself that anyone can use the picture... and has by the way accepted the risk of the picture being abused...

So if you park your Corvette outside of your door you will exept that it can be stealed and being abused? Am I Right? Yes.

You understandind in this case is different that finnish copyright law.

"Tekijänoikeus syntyy aina luotuun kirjalliseen tai taiteelliseen teokseen tekijöille."

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekij%C3%A4noikeus

But in U.S these laws are not quite so simple. For example Ford Motor Company steals your copyright. If you take picture about Ford Mustang you are not holding copyright to that art. It's Ford's property.

There is some same kind of examples in Europe too. Like Tower of Eiffel.

[Harha]

Originally Posted by Toxic Flame

So if you park your Corvette outside of your door you will exept that it can be stealed and being abused? Am I Right? Yes.

I accept the RISK.