Ideas aren't copyrighted, but when ideas are rendered in tangible form, this is the basic point at which copyright protection kicks in.
1. 'Pose' concept = abstract = not copyright-protected | | | 2. Artist draws a character in a pose/photographer snaps someone in a pose = a tangible rendering of a concept = copyright-protected | | | 3. Another artist directly traces, copies or eyeballs an artist's/photographer's render of a pose = derivative work = potential violation of copyright
Coincidences happen, but for 3, if lines start to match up exactly and angle and perspective are exactly the same, and stylisations, particularly when referencing from drawn art, get copied over as well, then generally you've crossed the line from referencing to copying and you need permission. Someone above me mentioned percentages of variation, but I don't believe it's that clear cut. If someone were to take you to court, the burden of proof would be on you to prove your work is not derivative.
Proper referencing often means: - looking at multiple sources to learn more about the subject matter you're drawing, OR - if using one source, only learning from it rather than copying from it, OR - if using a single source, you've taken the photo or drawn the image yourself, or at the very least have permission to "heavily reference" (which in most cases means eyeball/copy) directly from the image e.g. with free-use stock photos. There may still be conditions such as required credit and limitations of purpose/for-profit entailed in source images you don't own.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-02-07 10:34 am (UTC)1. 'Pose' concept = abstract = not copyright-protected
|
|
|
2. Artist draws a character in a pose/photographer snaps someone in a pose = a tangible rendering of a concept = copyright-protected
|
|
|
3. Another artist directly traces, copies or eyeballs an artist's/photographer's render of a pose = derivative work = potential violation of copyright
Coincidences happen, but for 3, if lines start to match up exactly and angle and perspective are exactly the same, and stylisations, particularly when referencing from drawn art, get copied over as well, then generally you've crossed the line from referencing to copying and you need permission. Someone above me mentioned percentages of variation, but I don't believe it's that clear cut. If someone were to take you to court, the burden of proof would be on you to prove your work is not derivative.
Proper referencing often means:
- looking at multiple sources to learn more about the subject matter you're drawing, OR
- if using one source, only learning from it rather than copying from it, OR
- if using a single source, you've taken the photo or drawn the image yourself, or at the very least have permission to "heavily reference" (which in most cases means eyeball/copy) directly from the image e.g. with free-use stock photos. There may still be conditions such as required credit and limitations of purpose/for-profit entailed in source images you don't own.