The Invisible Touch wrote:
I don't think there is a lot of info let there, as it looks totally fried.. :-( but do you know the brand of this watch?? If so.. download an image from google and add the face to your image, it should be fairly easy!!

technically copyright infringement...

Mask Photo wrote:

technically copyright infringement...

I don't agree with you... I do understand what you mean if you were using the whole image, I am only adding details missing from the same brand/watch... I am not suggesting to just comp the image in... just the missing details!! I bet this is done very often.!

The Invisible Touch wrote:
I don't agree with you... I do understand what you mean if you were using the whole image, I am only adding details missing from the same brand/watch... I am not suggesting to just comp the image in... just the missing details!! I bet this is done very often.!

you don't, but a judge might, since creating derivative works (composites) requires permission from the copyright holder (whoever shot the image you're cutting from, or whoever they granted the copyright to).

It's the same reason I need to go shoot a picture of a prison to put in the background of a photo I'm working on, rather than just google image search it.

Same reason Dave Hill shoots all his own layers for his composites. You can't just grab part of a copyrighted image for your own purposes.

ESPECIALLY since what you advocated was taking a very important part of the image (the face of a watch, the best pic of which would likely come from the manufacturer's website, which is dedicated to selling watches, so you're advocating taking the (arguably) most important part of an image for a composite).

Very unlikely that fair use would be an effective argument in this case.

Mask Photo wrote:

you don't, but a judge might, since creating derivative works (composites) requires permission from the copyright holder (whoever shot the image you're cutting from, or whoever they granted the copyright to).

It's the same reason I need to go shoot a picture of a prison to put in the background of a photo I'm working on, rather than just google image search it.

Same reason Dave Hill shoots all his own layers for his composites. You can't just grab part of a copyrighted image for your own purposes.

ESPECIALLY since what you advocated was taking a very important part of the image (the face of a watch, the best pic of which would likely come from the manufacturer's website, which is dedicated to selling watches, so you're advocating taking the (arguably) most important part of an image for a composite).

Very unlikely that fair use would be an effective argument in this case.

Oh God, you are stubborn... I have never said to use the whole image... ONLY small details from that watch... how on earth would you or a judge or anybody would know that you took that image...?? How on earth you are going to think... oh yeah that's right they have borrowed those details (very tiny ones) from such image... come on mate!! :-)

The Invisible Touch wrote:
Oh God, you are stubborn... I have never said to use the whole image... ONLY small details from that watch... how on earth would you or a judge or anybody would know that you took that image...?? How on earth you are going to think... oh yeah that's right they have borrowed those details (very tiny ones) from such image... come on mate!! :-)

*shrug*

lawsuits are won and lost based on small details, and I'm not convinced that the best argument for copyright infringement is "i'm not likely to get caught".

The use you described doesn't sound like it would satisfy the 4 criteria for fair use (u.s. convention; OP, do they have anything similar in canada?), so i felt like I should say something.

and, for the record, you did NOT advocate copying "only small details." You suggested to "add the face to your image," which suggests a major part (perhaps the most important part) of the watch.

ESPECIALLY if the ways is, as OP noted, a "one of a kind Rolex Cellini". Any web-searchable photograph that shows enough detail of the watch to copy is likely going to feature the watch exclusively.

I also am not familiar with property release law in Canada, but if the watch is as unique as is claimed, any photo that features it exclusively may have been property-released, which adds another shade of liability to just infringing on a convenient web image. Imagine if the retoucher was discovered, and the publisher they provided the image to was sued by the original copyright holder AND the owner of the watch. OP would explode in a fine mist of blood and bone by the lawsuit the publisher would bring.

I'm not stubborn, I'm cautious. We all should be, as we're treading the very choppy waters of intellectual property. If you don't know the currents well enough, you're always in danger of catching a riptide and being pulled under. I have no intention of drowning in a lawsuit, but I guess you don't mind the idea of being sued for everything you own. Would be nice if you didn't advocate legally dangerous activities to other forum member, though.

Mask Photo wrote:

*shrug*

lawsuits are won and lost based on small details, and I'm not convinced that the best argument for copyright infringement is "i'm not likely to get caught".

The use you described doesn't sound like it would satisfy the 4 criteria for fair use (u.s. convention; OP, do they have anything similar in canada?), so i felt like I should say something.

and, for the record, you did NOT advocate copying "only small details." You suggested to "add the face to your image," which suggests a major part (perhaps the most important part) of the watch.

ESPECIALLY if the ways is, as OP noted, a "one of a kind Rolex Cellini". Any web-searchable photograph that shows enough detail of the watch to copy is likely going to feature the watch exclusively.

I also am not familiar with property release law in Canada, but if the watch is as unique as is claimed, any photo that features it exclusively may have been property-released, which adds another shade of liability to just infringing on a convenient web image. Imagine if the retoucher was discovered, and the publisher they provided the image to was sued by the original copyright holder AND the owner of the watch. OP would explode in a fine mist of blood and bone by the lawsuit the publisher would bring.

I'm not stubborn, I'm cautious. We all should be, as we're treading the very choppy waters of intellectual property. If you don't know the currents well enough, you're always in danger of catching a riptide and being pulled under. I have no intention of drowning in a lawsuit, but I guess you don't mind the idea of being sued for everything you own. Would be nice if you didn't advocate legally dangerous activities to other forum member, though.

You win, you are right and I am wrong!!! Good for you!!

Mask Photo wrote:

*shrug*

lawsuits are won and lost based on small details, and I'm not convinced that the best argument for copyright infringement is "i'm not likely to get caught".

The use you described doesn't sound like it would satisfy the 4 criteria for fair use (u.s. convention; OP, do they have anything similar in canada?), so i felt like I should say something.

and, for the record, you did NOT advocate copying "only small details." You suggested to "add the face to your image," which suggests a major part (perhaps the most important part) of the watch.

ESPECIALLY if the ways is, as OP noted, a "one of a kind Rolex Cellini". Any web-searchable photograph that shows enough detail of the watch to copy is likely going to feature the watch exclusively.

I also am not familiar with property release law in Canada, but if the watch is as unique as is claimed, any photo that features it exclusively may have been property-released, which adds another shade of liability to just infringing on a convenient web image. Imagine if the retoucher was discovered, and the publisher they provided the image to was sued by the original copyright holder AND the owner of the watch. OP would explode in a fine mist of blood and bone by the lawsuit the publisher would bring.

I'm not stubborn, I'm cautious. We all should be, as we're treading the very choppy waters of intellectual property. If you don't know the currents well enough, you're always in danger of catching a riptide and being pulled under. I have no intention of drowning in a lawsuit, but I guess you don't mind the idea of being sued for everything you own. Would be nice if you didn't advocate legally dangerous activities to other forum member, though.

if it is solely for a personal photo, I don't think it would be a problem.  if he is doing it for money, then possibly.

The Invisible Touch wrote:
You win, you are right and I am wrong!!! Good for you!!

more like good for the people who read this, who now have a little better understanding of the possible dangers inherent in casual infringement.

I don't get into arguments to win them, i do it to prevent dissemination of false or dangerous information.