Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

At what point is altering a digital image no longer infringing copyright?

Options
  • 07-03-2013 2:46pm
    #1
    Blisterman
    Registered Users Posts: 7,451 ✭✭✭


    I posted this thread, and it got me thinking something else:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056897392

    It's copyright infringment to use someone else's digital images in your own work without permission.

    But at what point is this so? If I were to copy and paste a single pixel, would I be infringing copyright? At that point all you're doing is copying a colour, and surely you can't copyright a colour? What about 2 pixels?

    On the other side of the scale, what if you were to alter the brightness of an image slightly, so that every pixel was a minutely different shade, and thus 0% of the original image was intact, though it looks almost exactly the same. Would that be infringing copyright?

    Finally, what if someone was to meticulously redraw an image on a blank page, pixel by pixel so it was exactly the same as the original, yet there was no actual copying involved?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Blisterman wrote: »
    On the other side of the scale, what if you were to alter the brightness of an image slightly, so that every pixel was a minutely different shade, and thus 0% of the original image was intact, though it looks almost exactly the same. Would that be infringing copyright?

    Finally, what if someone was to meticulously redraw an image on a blank page, pixel by pixel so it was exactly the same as the original, yet there was no actual copying involved?

    Yes, the first instance is a breach of copyright.

    As for the 2nd, it may not be a digital copy, but a visual copy, and would still be a breach of copyright.


  • Options
    #3
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    You need to read a few articles on "originality" in relation to this thread and your other one. Essentially, a work must be sufficiently original to not be breaching copyright. This involves an exercise of labour and skill. You asked about a map in the other thread, it would have copyright attaching to it because the creator of the map has used a sufficent degree of skill and labout to make the map. Similar to a journalist reporting facts of something or a company could copyright a phone book.

    Have a look at the Copyright & Related Rights Act, 2000 too.


  • Options
    #4
    valleyoftheunos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭valleyoftheunos


    A graphic designer pal of mine once told me that its accepted in those circles that if you alter or change 10% of a work it is sufficiently original to call your own. How on earth you decide what 10% of a work is or how a court might decide on it I don't know.


  • Options
    #5
    KoukiKeith
    Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭KoukiKeith


    Touching on NoQuarter's post - It is not uncommon for copyright holders to deliberately insert mistakes/traps into their work. It's therefore extremely important that you exercise the requisite level of 'originality' as if you were to plainly lift an other person's work who contained such a trap, there would be a smoking gun.


Advertisement