Composites & Copyright Infringement

[beedstar]

I love to make composite images in Photoshop, but I worry about copyright infringement if I were to put them online. I was hoping someone might have a link to a good resource on this, as the more I read the more confused I get.

Recently I had to find images of celebrities for an article on 20 famous people. I don't have the budget to purchase that many images. While I would much rather make one composite image of all of them, I instead trawled wikimedia commons for terrible quality images that I still had to credit.

Today I was watching a new video from one of my favorite creators on Youtube where he makes an amazing composite image featuring over 150 well known movie characters. Obviously I can't say for sure, but it seems unlikely to me that he has obtained a license for all of these images, and there is no mention of the original artists or movie companies. 

So I guess my question is, is stuff like this ok? And why exactly? 

[Test Screen Name]

The internet is full of things that are not OK. Really. Doesn't mean you need to join them... you are in the right.

Celebreties OWN their likeness in many countries. You may need permission (and indeed, people who put it on Creative Commons may be missing the point; it removes only the need for paying the photographer.)

[J E L]

@beedstar Well, yours is not a Photoshop app question but a legal one. This is a user-to-user forum but you might want to look into Fair Use from Section 107 of the US Copyright Act, as a starting place. More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office

Also, a moderator may move this thread to a more appropriate forum in the Community, perhaps The Lounge.

[D Fosse]

Yes, this is a minefield.

There are two different and separate considerations here. One is the photograper's copyright, which is automatic (at least in the EU area). That means there is no need for an explicit copyright notice, it is still copyrighted to the photographer. Unless the photographer has released the image through a Creative Commons license. This has to be explicit.

Creative Commons still doesn't necessarily mean free use. There are four varieties or "degrees" of CC licenses. Read the fine print. Three of them prohibit modification/reuse of the material.

The second consideration is the portrait. As a ground rule, everybody has rights to their own portrait. However, there are exceptions to this rule, and most of them can be summed up under the heading of "public interest". This depends on the context. Journalism etc is usually exempt, and highly public figures likewise. But again, context. Public appearances and private life are two different things.

Use your head and common sense. If it's likely that someone might take offense, don't do it.

[Leslie Moak Murray]

I came to say pretty much what @dfosse said. I'd add that you can't even always trust so-called "Public Domain" sites. I went to one of them and found some of my own stock photos (which I assure you are NOT public domain) along with photos of other photographers I know from various stock sites. It's indeed a minefield.

-edit- And kudos to you for even thinking about it and asking.

[davescm]

There are lots of images on sites such as Pixabay in which the photographers give explicit permission and outline the terms of the creative commons license. Stay safe and use them.

Dave

[jane-e]

---

@beedstar wrote:

Today I was watching a new video from one of my favorite creators on Youtube where he makes an amazing composite image featuring over 150 well known movie characters. Obviously I can't say for sure, but it seems unlikely to me that he has obtained a license for all of these images, and there is no mention of the original artists or movie companies. 

So I guess my question is, is stuff like this ok? And why exactly? 

---

Hi

I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice, but possibly the YouTube creator was covered by §107 on Fair Use. See this link from the Copyright office for details:

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

---

Recently I had to find images of celebrities for an article on 20 famous people.

---

Another issue to be aware of is that quite often it's the photographer and not the celebrity who owns the copyright on the photo.

If you need to be sure for your project, the best thing to do is to consult a copyright lawyer.

~ Jane

[Nancy OShea]

Commercial Use vs Editorial Use

It all hinges on how the final product is used.

Commercial use of your image requires proper model releases and signed consent from the person or persons who took the photos.  Without signed releases, you can't sell your final product or use it for promotional or advertising purposes.

Editorial use consists of newsworthy stories, fact based reporting and educational materials.  It's limited to non-commercial use but is otherwise much less restrictive and can contain logos, business names and recognizable people without model releases.

• Illustrative for news, commentary, or opinion in newspaper or magazine articles
• Blog, social media or website posts (educational and descriptive purposes)
• Non-commercial multimedia presentations, such as film & video
• Textbooks
• Documentaries

That said, I am no legal expert.  When in doubt, consult an attorney.

[Abambo]

@Nancy OShea Commercial or editorial use, you need a license from the copyright holder to use the picture. Under certain conditions, you will not need a model release for editorial use. 

[Nancy OShea]

There are plenty of Creative Commons and Public Domain images available.  But asking a celebrity or photographer if you can use their photo in your project is not beyond the realm of possibility either.  Many will say yes when approached directly. 

A good blog article on this topic below:

https://bettermarketing.pub/where-to-find-a-free-celebrity-picture-for-your-next-blog-post-10f303c5b...

[Abambo]

The copyright lies with the creator of the asset and any use of the asset without authorization is prohibited. If you do, you expose yourself to criminel and civil exposure. There are several uses covered by the fair use doctrin, but for most use cases you need to have authorization of the original copyright holder. The (c)-owner can assign certain rights to third parties. This is secured by contract.

(This opinion is my personal one based on my interpretation of the law. If you want a correct evaluation of your  situation, you absolutly need to consult with a lawyer specialised in the matter.)