ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

12 years ago - Tom Green

It's much the same in music. I get asked all the time to copy an existing piece of music so closely that the 'kudos' of the original remains intact (ie, recognisable) but the copyright magically becomes mine. I refuse all of them. Merely mucking about with an existing image won't do it. If you can find out who took the pic, go ask, a lot of the time (if it isn't Getty) they may be more reasonable than you expect. Otherwise (as you now know) you'll be in a heap of doo doo.

12 years ago - Dan Selakovich

Listen to Joe. You might, in fact, be in even bigger trouble if you alter the image. For a doc, you probably fall into the new copyright act. If you don't know what that is, do a search: new digital millennium copyright act. BUT that doesn't stop people from suing. Plus, any image you use without permission can result in the subject or photographer or owner of the copyright to enjoin your film. Which means you can't show it anywhere until the case is settled. On the really practical side, I've never seen a festival, much less a distributor, show anything without ALL permissions in writing.

12 years ago - Joe Wilkes

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a clear ruling, due to the many variables involved. Is your picture credited, are there rights stipulations, and what is your intended platform for release?

As a film maker (sort of), I've not been down this road, but as a professional designer for national titles, this issue crops up on a daily basis. The only time the use of work originated by others is not either paid for, or credited is when the owner of that work, or the copyright, cannot be found. But even then, it is presumed that some effort must be shown that you tried to establish both of those things in order that the owner's terms and conditions are not breached. Many photographers will stipulate that a picture is not altered, or used in a specific territory, (online or otherwise) without prior permission. When work is published online, these T&C's don't go away and if nothing else, intellectual copyright would be your biggest hurdle. I have fallen foul of this in producing graphics for print and regardless of what I have done to change the image, it was argued that I would never have been in the position to do that if the photographer hadn't gone out and taken the photo in the first place (incurring expenses along the way).

Additionally, from the film making side, the lack of sufficient property release might just prevent your film being shown.

I'm guessing this probably isn't what you want to hear, but in a nutshell, I'd steer clear of of this, unless you can prove that permission has been granted to change the work. Worst case scenario: you show your finished film, the picture is seen (unlikely but possible) and then you get dragged through the courts and the film is shut down.

Though, like I said, there are loads of variables, and I'm happy to be corrected on any of this.

Good luck....!

12 years ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Can you get your own sketch artist to characterise them? Not based on any particular photo but identifiable for their distinguishing features

12 years ago - Peter Ward

There really needs to be a dedicated SP FAQ for intellectual property questions! Anyway,what you need to find out is what rights the copyright holder/s claim. If they haven't explictly claimed any one should assume all rights reserved. Whether the owner will take you to court is another matter. The creator of an amature Youtube video most likely won't have the inclination or means...so it's more a question of ethics.

12 years ago - Saranne Bensusan

Short answer is not without permission from the photographer. You would need to have a written consent form on file otherwise your film may not get screened, and definitely will not get distributed. You will need errors and omissions insurance for distribution and you won't get it if you are using other people's intellectual property without written consent.