2mo ago

If I cut up pictures to arrange things in a way that when traced over create something "new," is that a copyright violation?

Let's say I took a bunch of different characters from various media; a head, 2 arms, 2 legs and a torso, glued them together and then traced over to create a more homogenized image... Is that a new thing? A remix? Or ripping other's work off?

I've just had this idea for a while (wanna try making my fursona from photos of a dog for the head and my own body for the body) and got curious if this proposed technique was done using others' material would be a violation or if it would be more like a remix.

15 comments

Collage is a recognized form of art. And that's what you're describing.
There's lines where you might run into issues, particularly if you're using significant portions of single images, or the overall image hews to close to one.
But, from an artistic standpoint, it's your own work. You're creating something out of pieces, materials. That those materials existed as complete works of art before being separated isn't important for that, imo. It's artistically no different than using shells or pine needles or rocks to create a new image.
Not that you wouldn't run into people saying otherwise. Hell, you could be Matisse and you'd have someone saying "that ain't art, my kid could do that".
Back in my college days, I took a few art classes. One of the projects was based roughly on what you're asking about. We used multiple references, cut up, to form a single reference. As a lesson, the goal was to break loose from rigid thinking, and learn to be transformative in creative ways. As art, a thing made by a human to communicate something to other humans in some way, it doesn't matter what your materials are, it matters that you make the attempt.
Now, for your basic idea of designing a fursona, it's brilliant. Simple, easy enough, but still conveying your goal. You might see debate over whether that's art, or just design (they can be the same thing, but don't have to be), but it's a great way to get what you wanted. Would a different head pasted on only your body be transformative enough to be interesting? Nah, not to anyone else, but it's still a cool idea for building a fursona.
If just pasting it's more arguable, but still likely permitted. If the copywriten characters are the central focus it's more likely to be infringement.
Adding tracing makes it more transformative, and less dubious. Because of that and the "create a more homogenized image" part it's closer to a new character inspired by the fusion of others. You're not using anyone else's assets, you're transforming them via cutout, and transforming and adding your own creative work by blending them.
People can give you their best guesses, but without a court case and a ruling it is impossible to say what the answer will be with iron certainty.
My guess, for US law, would be based of the four factor balancing test used in determining fair use. The four factors are the nature of the use, the nature of the copyrighted material, the amount of the copyrighted material used, and the effect of the use on the value of the material.
If you are using the copyrighted works for a non-profit purpose that helps, if you are remixing them that helps, if you are using works that are not violating right of first publishing that helps.
Importantly copyright does not have to be enforced by the holder for them to retain full legal protection. What that means is even if the holder somehow became aware (which honestly is pretty doubtful for such a small individual use), they can simply choose not to pursue the matter. The resources that could go into pursuing a copyright case for such a use are probably going to be a lot more than any gain they'd get. Big IP holders have endless waves of people using their material, and their resources are better spent going after uses that are clearly trying to make or making a profit or distributing their copyrighted works.
The TLDR is yeah sure, it's probably fine. If you somehow got the evil eye on you, in practical reality the first thing you'd get would be a C&D letter anyway.
Edit: Here is the relevant text in 17 U.S. Code § 107
- That’s just it. This idea involves dancing very close to the fire, so anything could happen. The result may even depend on the other legal cases available in the area.
- Fair use doesn't even enter the picture unless it's a copyright violation.
  When you use someone else's copyright work in a way that they could take you to court to stop you, you can in some situations argue that the way you infringed on their copyright should be allowed: that is, that your use of the thing was fair.
  OP's question smells like a software development question. Which would be well served by a straightforward answer of "if the parts you cut out are still protected by copyright, then your assembly and trace would be a derivative work".
  
  you can in some situations argue that the way you infringed on their copyright should be allowed
  That would be an argument made in court, pursuant to the balancing test. You would be arguing that the use wasn't actually infringement. Thats how fair use is determined.
It's transformative. You are creating something new that did not exist before. At the very least this will fall under fair use, but your intent will dictate what it ends up being.
Ie: is I take Bugs Bunny's head and out it on Daffy Duck's body - I may be doing it as a commentary on WB cartoons, or pop culture in general. That's ok.
If I try to launch my own Looney Toons cartoon with this new hybrid character - that's stealing and WB lawyers will be all over any money I may make.
- that's stealing
  It's important to note that copyright violation is never stealing or theft. That's a poetic term copyright maximalists use to morally equate two disparate concepts. Stealing and theft involves taking something that is finite and rivalrous and thus depriving the owner of it.
  
  That "finite and rivalrous" is a definition that sprung up quite recently and I don't know if I agree with it. How would one "steal a kiss" if it was a finite resource. Also while stealing is not always "punishable by law", it can still be classified as wrongdoing. As an artist I find all forms of plagiarism to equate to stealing and while they won't land you behind bars, they may get you a status of persona non grata with other creatives.
Depends on the country you're in, different places have different rules for 'fair use' or remixes.

15 comments