Using Copyrighted Photos In Book?

Can you use these if they're your own rendition of them? I know music covers, for example, protect this. What about books?

I use some image editing tricks that make photos appear at if they're drawings. They're still the photos, I guess.

Legal gray area or not? With what my book is about, there will be some sections where the thing covered only has ONE or two images ever taken Can I use these, provided I edit them?

 

I wouldn't. There are several sources of free images here: https://www.hipmediakits.com/free-stock-photos/

 

Even if they're drawings?

Can't use stock images

 

It would still be a copyright violation. Editing a previous work—in this case, a photo with software to make it look like a drawing —is called a “derivative work.” It would still be a copyright violation because that original photographer never gave you permission to alter their work. Editing something of someone else’s doesn’t make it yours.

 

Gotcha. But an actual drawing would be okay, right? Same concept as cover songs.

 

You are incorrect about cover songs. (Former songwriter with copyrights speaking.) Songwriters get paid for cover songs via blanket licensing from venues or permissions obtained via recording licenses.

 

That sucks. Can't write this book without pictures. And don't have tens of thousands to pay for images.

 

Fwiw, is a music book. And I want pictures of the artists or shows or albums But it's hundreds of artists.

 

It’s not quite as cut and dry as people are making out. A derivative work remains within the scope of the original author’s copyright. However, if you alter their work in such a way that it becomes transformative, you could be OK (under U.S. law). In other words, you certainly can alter another person’s copyrighted work and use the alteration under certain circumstances.. It’s a risky argument to rely on, though, and if you’re just using a filter to convert something to a drawing I think it’s a long shot. You also have to think about whether you are able to defend against an action by the original photographer or artist if they decide to come after you.

 

Gotcha. I definitely don't want to be sued. But I also don't hand tens of thousands of dollars for some images. Plus not sure how to track down half of these. Sure, I can find out who owns Black Sabbath images, but what about Geordie?

 

You may also be dealing with another issue then: Name and Likeness. I'm not an attorney, however. Name and Likeness is one of those areas where I know just enough to know when I need an attorney.

@Steerpike is extremely well versed in these matters, for reasons.

Norm N. Nite's Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll books use far fewer photos than the entries...probably for this reason.

Fun fact side note: Always take "history of rock and roll" documentaries with a grain of salt. The angle of many documentaries is necessarily altered when an artist or record label refuses to participate or the licensing fees to use the music and clips are too high. This can alter the way the music "history" is presented. A good documentarian can work around it while remaining true to the facts, but that doesn't always happen. (There's more Jazz in the public domain, so it's less of an issue with that genre.)

As a non-fiction writer, I feel your pain. But, as a copyright holder, I get it. In long run, following copyright law helps us as writers and authors, because loosening them hurts our own future income potential. When the public demand free content, the writer's income is usually the first to take a hit. *steps down from soapbox*



(corrected an is/are issue I missed)

 

I recall that the contest winner of the pop art poster artwork for President Obama's first campaign was sued by a photographer for altering a photo with a filter and claiming it as his/her own work. I never read the outcome of the case, however. Do you happen to know what happened with that? That was what came to mind.

 

Yeah it's supposed to be a history of proto metal. Maybe use a few images with permission and majority text?

 

That's how I'd handle it, yeah.

Also...Sometimes, if you can build enough momentum to get the artists who still own their own copyrights interested in the project, doors can "magically" open and a few things become available to you that weren't before. You have to time it just right, though (not too early in the process, so they know the book will happen) and you have to deliver. You also have to bear in mind, these guys get tons of requests every day and have been burned by many of them. But sometimes you get lucky.

 

That case settled. Both the AP and the pop art designer were able to use the work, if I recall correctly. There was also an undisclosed financial settlement. To see an example of a case where the second artist won, based on transformative use, see Cariou v. Prince: http://www.artistrights.info/cariou-v-prince

It's worth noting that Prince is being used again for use of a different set of photos, which underscores the concern about fighting copyright infringement cases if you're doing this sort of thing.

NOTE: There is a mistake in the article linked above. Something doesn't have to be transformative to be considered fair use. That's only one factor of the test, but it has become an increasingly important factor in recent years.

 

Getting permission is certainly the safer route.

 

Of course. It'll just be hundreds of bands, most of which the band members are dead, and the record companies no longer exist, so hard to get permission. But the bigger ones will be expensive.

 

Unless the copyright was assigned, it should belong to the original photographer. That person could be equally hard to track down. Also, depending on hold old the photos are it is possible some of them are no longer protected, but that's also a pain in the ass to figure out a lot of the time.

 

If a traditional publisher is interested, however, they may do the work of clearing the photographs themselves. Large publishers have people who do that sort of thing.

 

Thank you, Sensei Steerpike. This is why I always look forward to your posts.

@frigocc Regarding what I said upthread about doors magically opening and some artists owning their own copyrights, I have a moment to explain further and give you a tip:

Bands don't just do professional shoots. They tend to take a lot of personal snapshots of milestone moments and, as the "photographer" they of course usually* own the copyrights to their own snapshots. Sometimes, if you get lucky and create some of your own luck at the appropriate time in your project, you can get them interested and they'll give you a shot or two from their personal collection, or they'll ask their mom to send you one. (Yeah, I know some of the moms of the artists you want to use are probably dead. That's just an example.)

Takes a lot of legwork, but it can happen. But, yeah. Make friends. Lots of them.


*I add the caveat of "usually" because occasionally things can go wonky if another entity other than the band owns the trademark to the band's name (usually a label, so I'll use that as an example). The photographer still owns the copyright to the photo, of course, but the trademark owner of the band name can try to make things difficult if they want to. Usually if that happens it means the label is planning their own project and don't want the competition in the marketplace, or the author of the book has said something the band they didn't like. It's not something that usually happens, but it can happen in a worst-case scenario.

 

When I started my blog (yes, different from a book, but copyright issues still apply) I went looking for guidance on the use of images and found this blogger's explanation. I urge you to read the whole thing, but for a very short summary of what can happen to you even in when posting non-commercial, personal mumblings:

Bloggers Beware: You CAN Get Sued for Using Pics on Your Blog - My Story.

Read the whole thing, and think of it this way: Imagine if a photographer felt that they couldn't explain their pictures without copying and pasting your text into their coffee-table book, with or without your permission.

 

I don't really feel that it 'sucks'--I feel that it's pretty much fair. By your own judgement, the book doesn't have value without these images--without copyrighted material belonging to others. There's really no reason why those others should donate their creative work to enhance your creative work.