/gd/ halp me If I download a shutterstock illustration and change

You really don't understand licensing, so you, anon?

>>301018
Do you* (fucking auto-correct)

>>301018
I do, but again it's their burden to prove that it's been copied by them. If I change it and claim it to be mine, then they can't really do jack shit can they?

>>301045
Well, you are granted a license to use the base image: even altering the image in extreme ways still counts as using the base image. If they can find so much as a hint of the original image in your work and you don't have the correct license, you're most likely screwed. Creative stock companies are one half content providers, one half Jewish bankers trying to steal as much shiny monies as possible.

File: stock-vector-seamless-polka-dots-pattern-background-593691299.jpg (147KB, 1500x1101px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1500x1101px

>>301047
But how the hell could they prove that something like pic related was stolen from them? It's just not possible right?

>>301048
In this case: very unlikely that anyone would/could check a polka dot pattern for copyright infringement.

Why even use shutterstock? Use something like pexels, all of their shit is licensed under CC0.

>>301512
Pixabay is better.

File: IMG_2564.jpg (56KB, 540x392px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 540x392px

>>301047
I'm pretty sure I heard that they have to reverse engineer whatever you did to the image and basically if they come up with a similar result you're kinda screwed from there and it's a straight 60/40 chance it'll go against you if you ask me using curves on an image, crop some pieces and move them around, photoshop filter applied after, and maybe some further cutting or copy paste would probably flop the 60/40 chance there in your favor EVEN I they got close to recreating your result just because of the bit modification it would make 2/3rds of it original and in your favor especially if colors are all modified and you converted between png and jpegs a couple times before even starting. I'm no expert but trying to come up with popular designs this is what I remember hearing from these cases. Most of the time it's like any other case if the suing party does a great job coming out swinging and you're basically a not corporation with limitless cash they'd make you fold before you'd even find a capable copyright lawyer anyway.

File: IMG_5799.jpg (521KB, 2048x1487px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 2048x1487px

>>301553
I'm fairly sure even this result from Glitch Wizard app would be favorable odds to you even though there isn't necessarily presets for this result here just sliders to modify

>>301408
That being said, anon could just google how to make a polkadot pattern in Illustrator.

File: IMG_0100.jpg (23KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x400px

Or maybe you should stick to flipping burgers or whatever the fuck you're good at instead of ripping someone with talent off.

>>302501
Everything is a remix. There's no originality. That's how the world advances, based on someone else's work, doofus.

>>302525
there is a difference between taking inspiration into your own ideas and coming up with something "new"
and doing the digital equivalent of a trace
"doofus"

>>302526
Motherf--
Show me how you would make a new and original polka design.

Speaking of shutter stock where do you guys go for free stock images?

>>302543
> Show me how you would make a new and original polka design.

The polka dot question was at the (idiotic) extreme end of "what constitutes original art".

No one gives a damn if you used the polka dots in a commercial application, as it's only 2 mins to make the damned thing yourself.

It's more about using *unique* source, and dots don't count as being unique.