Copyright infringement?

[Never]

There I was, happily typing away the outline to my latest masterpiece (While the power of positive thinking hasn't worked yet every little thing help) when I realized I might be braking the law.

Is it copyright infringement when you base a story off of an artist's work? When you look at a painting or sketch and suddenly a story idea presents itself to me? What if the artist is dead? How long after their death am I allowed to use the material? I know for the written word a copyright lasts seventy-five years. More, I believe if the author creates an estate.

What if I use the work for 'insperation' but don't borrow the whole cloth?

So? Any thoughts, hints, ideas?

 

[Samuari]

Its my understanding that as long as you give credit to the person that inspired you, and your work is orginal, (that you don't copy the work in question) there is no infringement. If you quote the work directly, be sure to get the author's permision, or that of his estate, if nessesary.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Actually, I don't think it is. You can check with legal sources (Siren comes to mind immediately), but since you're writing about a piece of artwork, not something that has been previously written, then you aren't infringing on their copyright. Good manners would dictate that you give the artist full credit by giving name and painting, but you'll notice that reviewers go on and on about movies, paintings, books, etc. without infringement and they're not at all nice about it either. I don't see why you wouldn't eiter.

 

[Bacomicfan]

As far as I know a story can be legally based on ANY work of art
as long as that work of art is not specifically mentioned BY NAME.
If it is, THEN you have to give credit to the creator of the piece....
for the artwork alone, not your story....and be careful not to cast that work of art in a negative light. And be damn sure it's not
the property of Disney.......they'll sue anyone over anything....oh,
geez....I'm in deep guano now. Even poorer Mikey.

 

[Guest]

I am a lawyer so let me give you the lawyer's standard answer:
The principles we attempt to enforce with copyright law are very broad and sometimes ambigious. It is not surprising that the laws that govern those principles tend to be complex and are often just as ambigious. To make any broad, across the board statement that 'this close to the line is o.k. but one more step would be a violation' would be both dangerous and foolardy. Each case must be judged on its own very specific facts. A perfect example is the recent case of THE WIND DONE GONE which is a satire based on GONE WITH THE WIND. The Margert Mitchel heirs won in the trial court but the Circuit Ct. of Appeals has reversed the prepublication injunction and in my opinion will probably reverse the entire lower court verdict.

In general, however, a story 'stuation' can be used as a basis for an entirely NEW STORY, but names, events, and plot must be sigificatly different, however. Example: a story of a boy on a raft going down the Mississippi would not violate a copyright on Huckleberry Finn if his name and adventures are not recognizable from of the classic. Mark Twain does not have an exclussive on stories about boys on a river raft. Sequels are dangerous, and freguently held to be violaions. The same for stories the pick up the plot of an exsisting story and simply extend it to new territory. Stories suggested by photographs or painting or news account are not generally in violation of any intelectual property rights as long as the picture or painting itself is not reproduced.