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

Blisterman · 2013-03-07 13:46:01

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…

07-03-2013 02:46PM

#1

Blisterman

Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,530 ✭✭✭

Join Date: August 2002

Posts: 6885

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?

0

Comments

#2 07-03-2013 03:08PM

Paulw

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,270 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2001

Posts: 12456

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.

0
#3 07-03-2013 03:11PM

NoQuarter

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 ✭✭✭

Join Date: August 2007

Posts: 4278

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.

0
#4 07-03-2013 03:18PM

valleyoftheunos

Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 2278

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.

0
#5 07-03-2013 03:36PM

KoukiKeith

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 98 ✭✭

Join Date: October 2012

Posts: 97

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.

0