Hey /ic/, I need your advice on this.
I am doing a few illustrations for a online comic that will also be printed in a small number. For style of the art we chose collages/photobashed images.
I basically photoshop a collage out of various photos I find online. I build scenes with it. Then I draw over photos to give it a somewhat painted look. So if I go and "steal" an image of a house, it ends up stretched, drawn over and in a different context.
Its not like I only make minor changes. I modify it strongly. That should be ok right?
Or could someone still sue us if he recognises his trashcan/his house/his dog?
pic related is not mine, just something I found online when googling photobash.
(I don't use human faces, I take photos of myself if I need a face.)
>>2567520
holy fcking shit, that is ugly.
my advice is: dont make photobashings and collages
learn how to draw
end this madness
>>2567520
this is why i got into art. I always wanted to rip images off of google search and pull them together like a kindergartner.
I wish I could offer some actual, legal advice, but I don't think that sounds good. I wouldn't be comfortable trying it, honestly. The work of photographers is just that, someone else's work and art, and its why they have laws in place to protect that.
I would say, credit the images you use, or better yet, contact the photographer and ask about the rights to their work.
From here on out though, you should probably stop it. You wouldn't take pieces of someone's painting, right? There's no reason to treat photography any differently. It's someone's own work,
>>2567520
It has to do with if the source is recognizable in the result. A professional photobasher mostly use photos for texture and values. A head or face would be edited if used.
>>2567554
I don't use art though. I use mostly random shit like a stock image of some glass shards, mix it with other glass shards I found on some museum's website and then draw over it.
It does not look much like the photo in the end.
>>2567558
cool, thanks. I have one or two where it is still somewhat recogizeable, I was not sure about it. I will modify it further then!
What kind of work do you do? Do you do concept art?
>>2567564
Look up the "hope" poster debacle if you want some nightmare fuel.
>>2567616
Looked it up, what a mess. That poster was big as fuck though. I can understand that the photographer wanted some of that sweet popularity money.
The source also not hidden well. Its not like he made something new out of it. Still sucks for him.
>>2567652
He did something new with it, without his shitty photoshop filter it would have been one in millions of photos of Obama. If he paid for it beforehand, it would have been cheap. But not after he made money out of it.
So what is the lesson? Pay beforehand so that you also pay for your tranquility, or hope you won't ever make a dime out of your work, and worse you can get is a cease and desist.
To clarify confusion btw, concept art uses photobashing so much because it's not supposed to be released at all, under NDA's and so on. Otherwise you can get shit because of photo use obv.
>>2567665
He did not do something new with it. It was literally just a photo he ripped and threw a filter on - at least it looks like it. Even worse, he took a portrait. People are touchy about portraits. Also he didnt change the meaning. He took Obama and made an image of Obama. Sure I wouldn't have expected him to get shit for it, but looking at all that... I see why they sued him.
I'm doing things much differently so I'm not too afraid lol.
