what are the rules for 'publishing' something with

Depends on the copyright on each image. If there's no copyright at all, feel free. Creative Commons, go for it. If nothing's listed, I wouldn't assume it doesn't have a copyright as that could put you in a bit of legal trouble, so as a general rule of thumb if nothing's listed copyright wise just contact the original creator.
If they won't answer / can't find them, that's when you have to ask yourself risk/reward for using a potentially copyrighted image in something you'd make money for.

>>253478
I personally will publish/print anything copywrited for zines, fun stuff, posters etc. b/c i dont care about a lawsuit and im too tiny for them to probably notice.

Actually, I'm more worried about a major publisher asking me 'do you have the copywrite to these images?" How much guts do publishers generally have?

>>253485
I might not be explaining this well.
I'm trying to work with some publishers that made decent profits and sell at all the main book stores. what I'm trying to get them to publish has a lot of images of cute girls from tumblr, 4chan pics, stuff i took off tumblr like 4 years ago, a few typefaces I pirated. even some todd hido images, but mostly just images anon has took and posted on 4chan.

worried they are about to be like where did you get this btw? can i just lie?

>>253487
Lol. No that's probably not legal where you live. Copyright is automatic. You can specifically copyright something as an artist/author to have better protection in places like US/Canada for example, but by default the person who made the original image owns it. They can sue you if they see it in the book, especially if it's for profit. Besides which, most publishers will expect you to prove the copyright you've registered for your own book when you submit your proposal package, and you will not be able to get a copyright for a book filled with unpermissed images.

Pirated typefaces = not legal to publish but not really possible to prove in print. A foundry probably could if they really tried and they'd be within their rights to.

Basically, you probably won't get caught unless someone recognizes their own face or their cousin's photography or something. However you will be liable for damages if you make money on it and they do. And publishers aren't likely to touch it unless they're cheap/noobs. Depends on what quality and demographic you're targetting here... but honestly just don't do it. Stupid, risky, tacky.

Unless you're editing/parodying every single image enough to legally be a new work. Which I doubt from the sounds of it

>>253544
gotcha.

I'll ahve to look into parody rules too. I was hoping putting text over an image with that text implying or conveying somewhat the opposite information the image is would be could enough, but I think that is a bit optimistic.

ugh why can't i just steal steal steal and use so much of other peoples' work that that is the work lol

>>253572
let's be real, that's not work. how much thought are you putting into the theft? what is the statement you're making with the act of theft instead of the act of making original images? is the flagrant rip-off the joke? does it enhance your book's purpose? if the answer is "yeah because it's a lot easier" then you're not doing work that should be paid, u know?

File: 1450216171634.jpg (129KB, 816x1000px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 816x1000px

>>253593
I guess think of it more like a documentary film, where there is footage not filmed by the directors, but a narration is heard over top of it, or words appear on the screen on the image.

could this image be used in something for sale for example? I guess not.