Digital Collage of Face, Copyright Infringement?

[Lily Witt]

Jurisdiction

Oregon

I'm creating digital art to sell as NFT collectibles. The collectibles are going to be faces that have been created using images found online without explicit permission. One face, for example, is compiled of a set of eyes from one photo, mouth from another, face shape from another, and hair from yet another. The final compiled image is then put through a filter to soften and blend the features, and then the colors are edited to something very different from any of the source images (gradients of blue, green, pink, etc). I am wondering if this type of collage avoids infringing copyright laws.

 

[adjusterjack]

In other words you have no talent and want to steal artwork from others.

 

[zddoodah]

NFT collectibles.

I'm not sure it matters, but it's best not to use acronyms and other terminology that won't be readily understood by others.

The collectibles are going to be faces that have been created using images found online without explicit permission.

What do you mean by "explicit permission"? Do you think you have implicit permission? If so, on what do you base that conclusion?

I am wondering if this type of collage avoids infringing copyright laws.

Not as you've described it.

As an artist, you ought to become familiar with the basics of copyright law. Copyright law is found in Title 17 of the United States Code. Section 102 discusses the subject matter of copyright law, which includes "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works." Section 106 explains that "the owner of [a] copyright . . . has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize" others to do several things, including reproducing the work, preparing derivatives of the work, and publicly distributing and displaying the work.

Your description indicates to me that you are reproducing the works of others and creating derivative works. Presumably, you hope to distribute and/or display those works publicly. If you doing that without a license from the copyright owners, then you are infringing copyright.

 

[army judge]

I'm creating digital art to sell as NFT collectibles. The collectibles are going to be faces that have been created using images found online without explicit permission.

I see.

It reminds me of a shoplifter taking lots loot ABSENT specific permission of the shop owner or in possession a receipt for the purloined goods.

You're begging to be sued into poverty if you persist in your foolish folly.

 

[welkin]

I'm creating digital art to sell as NFT collectibles. The collectibles are going to be faces that have been created using images found online without explicit permission. One face, for example, is compiled of a set of eyes from one photo, mouth from another, face shape from another, and hair from yet another. The final compiled image is then put through a filter to soften and blend the features, and then the colors are edited to something very different from any of the source images (gradients of blue, green, pink, etc). I am wondering if this type of collage avoids infringing copyright laws.

I don't agree with much that has been posted based on what you want to do. I don't believe that your work would be considered derivative. I think it would be considered transformative and thus, considered fair use.

But since I'm no expert on copyright law, you should run your intentions by a copyright attorney.

A transformative work is copyrightable and does not infringe on the copyright of the original work. To transform the original work to into a new work, new creative expression must be added.

"transformative" uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office

 

[flyingron]

Just because something is transformative doesn't give you a free pass on fair use. It just becomes an easier part of the nature of use aspect.

 

[welkin]

What OP is contemplating sure sounds like fair use and resembles no relationship to the original work.

The four factors of fair use:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

Courts typically focus on whether the use is "transformative." That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work

Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the "heart" of the work.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Uses that harm the copyright owner's ability to profit from his or her original work by serving as a replacement for demand for that work are less likely to be fair uses.

 

[zddoodah]

I don't believe that your work would be considered derivative.

Based on what?

I think it would be considered transformative and thus

How so?

and thus, considered fair use.

Being "transformative" isn't enough to prove fair use. Your own quoted information says so expressly.

I'm no expert on copyright law

'Nuff said.

A transformative work is copyrightable and does not infringe on the copyright of the original work.

Wrong as phrased.

 

[welkin]

Based on what?
Based on the copyright law and the definition of a derivative work.

The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material, that is, previously published or previously regis- tered works or works in the public domain or owned by a third party.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
Because a derivative work changes the original work. What OP wants to do is use only parts of a work and has no similarity to the original.

How so?

Again it is based in the copyright law and case law.

Additionally, "transformative" uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

Being "transformative" isn't enough to prove fair use. Your own quoted information says so expressly.

I can agree with that. There are 4 elements that the courts look at (listed in my previous post) to determine fair use. And since fair use is a defense to infringement, it takes a court to decide.

'Nuff said.

That goes both ways. And you are certainly not a copyright attorney.

Wrong as phrased.

That is a quote directly from the copyright office website

If you want to post on copyright you might want to read some of the case law on fair use to educate yourself.