Is this intellectual property theft or imitation/inspiration?
It's a grey area that'd have to be determined in court. However, the claim itself would be worth less than the court fees I'm sure (if this is your work.)
It's a dangerous line to tread and either way, its just a shitty piece that looks bad in your portfolio and makes you look like an unreputable hack.
I'm not fixed on copying it, I'm relaxing while putting a few back at home and I don't have my sketch pad so I needed a reference, that's why I was asking if it was too close or not. That and I was genuinely curious as to where the line in the copyright sand is drawn.
OP again. I should also assert that I think you are incorrect. In the automobile and firearm industry there have been many lawsuits regarding an approximate design that has the same keystone fundamentals but peripheral uniqueness. But who knows, I'm probably just a full of shit asshole.
As much of a copy as a chevy engine is to a ford, yep.
I reposted because of spelling and grammatical errors, but the same post is right above you here
No legit lawyer would take a case like this or one similar to my examples, there is precedent for this stuff. Every art or technology, physical or silicon is built off of references. It's appalling difficult to prove infringement considering the realm of IP is such a convoluted facsimile of law to begin with. In fact most of our advancements are simply augments of existing public IP.
>it's not copying
>i just traced the legs and changed their location
you are a fool
you are the one that came in here asking...
sorry you don't like the answers you got
would you feel better if we just sent this screen cap to RAsutdio and let them decide?
To reiterate, since it seems I need to. I am not asking your moral opinion of this work, I'm asking whether or not legally, I have violated copyright laws.
Clearly I referenced and copied parts of this design, I thought that was explicitly clear since the OP, apparently I over estimated the critical thinking skills of the /gd/ audience.
So, assume I am a scumbag hack for the sake of argument, do you believe the produced results are indicative of theft? Or simply a result of new IP born of imitation?
Feel free, I'm quite sure their lawyers would tell them they have no legs to stand on, and to salt the wound, this was made by me for me, no one is buying it, but please, make them aware. Maybe one day I'll sell the piece after you vet me :)
if you are so sure then why did you make a thread faggot
>Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.
>majority of the art is different
oh you mean the minor change you made after tracing it?
you'd have to prove that the goat you copied is considered Fair Use, meaning you'd have to show proof that there are many other goat images that are equally as similar as yours is to it.
>oh you mean the minor change you made after tracing it?
There is a distinct amount of variation, you are so wrong it's sad. D:
I'd love to see you reference a case when anything even close to this had won. Guess what, you can't produce it. Because this is clearly unique IP with references to existing work, but not violating that existing work.
Keep trying to play at semantics to alleviate your insecurities, I'll keep sitting here waiting to kick you in the nut sack.
Nice, you clearly have an argument.
Well I rebut regardless. These cases listed in you link are all direct copyright infringement, they are literally either direct reproductions, or the original image with shitty photoshop paint tools on top of said original image. as >>251711 and >>251708
showed, that is not what my artwork is.
So, I reiterate, got anything substantial? Or would you prefer to hide behind memes?
For your exact case the answer is no since the original is a stock photo. They wouldn't have a case since they wouldn't be able to proof you ripped them off or someone else who licensed the use of it.
If the original was someone's design that wasn't stock then they absolutely could sue (not that they would since you don't have the skills to make real money off it; reiterating >>251680). My wife works for a firm that (almost) exclusively handles IP law. They defend quite a few artists who mainly work in appropriated art (no one as big as Richard Prince but still internationally known) and usually turns away infringements like this all the time. Unless you're making serious money off of it, it wouldn't be even close to worth it for a company to sue a hobbyist over something like this.
That said, if you are actually worried then consult an attorney. If you live in New York, I can give you the name of a firm that could help; they're not as successful as the firm my wife works at but they go out of their way to help individual artists/small business owners.
Sorry for being such a combative prick last night guys, I really need to stay off the bottle.
Whadya guys think?
not that anyone asks me (Im a graphic designer with 10+ years experience) but since its based on a stock image that anyone can buy/download and use and you are remaking it from scratch, even though its similar, Im pretty sure you are fine as far as legality goes. now if you found the right image on another artists site and then remade it, then that could get you in trouble...