I am thinking of cutting a few thousand images out of car magazines and gluing them to a board to draw a pictures of a car.
A simple idea and a lot simpler if you use photoshop, I know.
I fancied doing it for the fun of the creation but am likely to sell the piece once completed. What happens with copyright on the pictures?
All the images will be taken from either Octane or Classic and Sports Car so are all controlled by Dennis Publishing.
Anything I should know before I approach them for permission, if needed?
I think with collage its a question whether what you are using is a 'whole or substantial part' of someone else work. So in the case of using magazine images using the whole page or the whole of a photo as part of an collage would maybe be considered 'whole' but cutting up the image to use it as colours and textures wouldn't be.
"substantial" is trickier as it can be taken to mean most of an image or it could be taken to be the most significant element of an image. If you put the Mona Lisa's* face in your collage its only 10% of the original image but its also the most substantially recognisable part of it.
However... copyright is the right to make copies. You're not making copies you're reusing existing licensed copies to make a one-off. It would be different if were then to publish or edition that new work but in the instance you are taking about no new copy of the images have been produced
* which is a rubbish example as its out of copyright
There are other rights to consider as well as copyright - the original rights holders for the images have 'moral rights' too which are infringed if your work is derogatory to them or is altered and then passed off as theirs
I might have been able to answer this at some point in the past. Pretty sure artists just do this kind of thing all the time. It's called appropriation I think. Can't remember.
Recent changes in copyright made by the EU might be a problem, it depends on whether it’s only for personal use or not.
I'll drop them an email just to be sure then. Cheers
They may only buy licences to use images from the actual photographers (who often work freelance) so although they published them in that format they can't separately then licence you to use the images for this purpose.
They may only buy licences to use images from the actual photographers (who often work freelance) so although they published them in that format they can’t separately then licence you to use the images for this purpose.
Except you can if their terms are based on ‘first British rights’ where there is an exclusivity period granted to the commissioner.
If they have any sense their contract will include an exclusivity period.
Some of those images could be shot by staff photographers though.
Good luck trying to contact every photographer or even getting the mag to do the donkey work of finding the details for each image though.
You cant make any money from the existing photos. It would be like making a montage of your favourite songs and trying to sell that. The magazines have the rights to use the images but you don't. You could argue that the final piece is an edited version but the original photos would have to be unrecognisable.
The rights would typically be with the original photographer unless a change in ownership of rights was specified in their contract with the magazine. Thats my experience as an ex photographer.
Probably wont bother then
Cheers
This must surely fall under the fair use exemptions for art, whereby parody/caricature/pastiche etc are explicitly allowed?
Probably wont bother then
Not much point if it can't be monetised 🙂
Lots are artists feel the same:
Or take your own photos and use them?
I’ve often thought of doing something similar with my enormous collection of Razzle magazines
I feel it’s a shame they’re not appreciated by a wider audience