Internet picture scam ?

[Eater Sundae]

For digital pictures though, they're just a 2D array of RGB values. I'm curious, how much do you have to change an image, before you get to a point where it's not considered the same as the original, for legal copyright purposes?

 

Is this something that is clearly defined, or do judges just make it up as they go?

 

But surely by manipulating someone else's copyrighted photo, it is still their copyrighted photo that you have used. Even if you changed 99% of it, it is still theirs.Although by that stage, nobody would know, simply because they wouldn't recognise it.

[charmer]

So you use someone else's work to promote your business and earn money from it and you use the word scam. Isn't it a bit hypocritical?

[Mr Bloke]

But surely by manipulating someone else's copyrighted photo, it is still their copyrighted photo that you have used. Even if you changed 99% of it, it is still theirs.Although by that stage, nobody would know, simply because they wouldn't recognise it.

I agree, but what I don't understand is why any reputable website would use something they don't have a right to anyway.

 

It's not as if the image in question is any great work of art, and the effect could quite easily be re-created by "smudging" any old photo of a van in Photoshop (other s/w is available).

 

The fact that it's been used by so many sites seems to imply to me that it is a stock photo that has been "released" under license, but if it has been used without paying for that license then that is wrong.

 

If I was the OP I would chase their website designer for the answer...

[Waldo]

But surely by manipulating someone else's copyrighted photo, it is still their copyrighted photo that you have used. Even if you changed 99% of it, it is still theirs.Although by that stage, nobody would know, simply because they wouldn't recognise it.

 

If you discard any meta data, and just consider the image purely as a 2D array of RGB values; then any one image can be said to be a modified version of any other 2D image.

 

Say I manipulate a photo you own, it is a photo of a horse, I change 99% of it, it is now a photo of an apple. Is it still your photo?

 

I'm not explaining my point well here, let me pose it this way...

 

Someone is writing a program that compares 2 digital images, lets say, of the same size. What algorithm does the program use to detirmine if one image is breaching the copyright of another?

[Mr Bloke]

If you discard any meta data, and just consider the image purely as a 2D array of RGB values; then any one image can be said to be a modified version of any other 2D image.

 

Say I manipulate a photo you own, it is a photo of a horse, I change 99% of it, it is now a photo of an apple. Is it still your photo?

 

I'm not explaining my point well here, let me pose it this way...

 

Someone is writing a program that compares 2 digital images, lets say, of the same size. What algorithm does the program use to detirmine if one image is breaching the copyright of another?

I understand what you're getting at...

 

... but the photo here does not seem to have been changed in any way.

 

I would consider anything that is "still visibly recognisable" as the original to be breaching copyright, but that's just my opinion.

[Eater Sundae]

If you discard any meta data, and just consider the image purely as a 2D array of RGB values; then any one image can be said to be a modified version of any other 2D image.

 

Say I manipulate a photo you own, it is a photo of a horse, I change 99% of it, it is now a photo of an apple. Is it still your photo?

 

I'm not explaining my point well here, let me pose it this way...

 

Someone is writing a program that compares 2 digital images, lets say, of the same size. What algorithm does the program use to detirmine if one image is breaching the copyright of another?

 

I'd say that the apple photo you created was based on my horse photo and I own the copyright. You should pay me for the use of my copyrighted photo. However, if I never realised that it was my photo that you had used, then you'd be safe.

 

I don't know if there is a way of determining the original source of the photo,but that wouldn't alter whether or not there was a breach of copyright, only whether the person committing the breach would be found out or proven.

 

As an aside, I though there were plenty of databases containing free from copyright images, so it shouldn't be hard to find a generic one that suits a person's needs

[Vague_Boy]

some sites may have a license from the copyright holder to use that image

 

Yep, I use a copyright image on my site. I purchased the rights to use it (on a web site only) via Shutterstock.

 

If the copyright holder queried it, I can prove the legal right to use it.

 

Very popular Shutterstock images may pop up again and again I would imagine.

[Waldo]

I'd say that the apple photo you created was based on my horse photo and I own the copyright.

 

But then, from a technical perspective (I am a programmer), every photo is based on every other photo. My apple photo, is also identical (digitally) to the Mona Lisa, given enough modification to the RGB value of most pixels in the image.

 

I guess my point is, there is, and can be, no clearly defined line for determining if one digital image is a modified version of another image. It's something that I image is left to the subjective decision of a judge.

[tzijlstra]

However lovely the technical debate is, your final statement is correct: it is down to the judge. Hence why my first post said what it said

[Waldo]

Yep. Completely appreciate I'd gone off at a bit of a tangent to the threads main purpose. Am just curious though; you'd think with the law being the law, they'd have more clearly (precisely) defined ideas of what is legal and what is not (or what constitutes a breach of copyright).