Copyright question...

[tvguy]

Think the Obama Hope image. That was tricky because they just changed the color palate, but the idea is even a copyrighted image can be manipulated into a new "work" with no problems.

I suspect that photo was a campaign photo in the public domain that was not copyrighted. They WANTED folks to copy and distribute the poster. It's the same reason they were powerless to stop the "Obama Joker" poster, it was fair use of a public domain photo of a public figure.
However, just printed "Copyright" does not Copyright it. It has to be be registered with the U.S. Copyright office before it is protected.
Few photographers do that. Copyright really is the honor system. I say something is copyrighted without actually going through the process, hoping that is enough to detour duplication.
One of the most famous and ongoing copyright cases of photographer would be the Zapruder home movies of the assasination of President Kennedy. After years of legal battles, the U.S. government finally seized the film under eminent domain laws, and paid the Zapruder family $16 million in compensation to buy the rights to the film. That was in 1999, ending a 36 year legal battle.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

 

[bonoriffic]

I suspect that photo was a campaign photo in the public domain that was not copyrighted. They WANTED folks to copy and distribute the poster.

No that was an AP photo, and they just settled out of court this week. The artist would almost certainly have lost. Anyone could alter the color palate in Photoshop in 3 seconds and adding the word Hope wasn't exactly inspired. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/hope-image-flap/

The Obama joker photo wasn't ever considered a copyright issue, as it was almost certainly a new original work. Satire also is at play, and that has its own category as well given further coverage under fair use. The only reason that got any coverage is people somehow felt it was racist when it clearly wasn't.

 

[DMRick]

Actually what I bolded in your quote below is incorrect. You do not have to register it. It is much easier to prove, however if you have.

The other part you are talking (and the faq's you posted) about is fair use. That's a whole other ballgame.

You might want to go to home on the copyright site and go to the full FAQ's and read:

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

You can find this here: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register

The photo's you are talking about below were seized and paid for under eminent domain laws..also a different ballgame from 'normal photo copyrights.

However, just printed "Copyright" does not Copyright it. It has to be be registered with the U.S. Copyright office before it is protected.
Few photographers do that. Copyright really is the honor system. I say something is copyrighted without actually going through the process, hoping that is enough to detour duplication.
One of the most famous and ongoing copyright cases of photographer would be the Zapruder home movies of the assasination of President Kennedy. After years of legal battles, the U.S. government finally seized the film under eminent domain laws, and paid the Zapruder family $16 million in compensation to buy the rights to the film. That was in 1999, ending a 36 year legal battle.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html