Is using a photo reference for pose fair use? If I draw an imaginary character and use a photograph as reference for human body/pose, is that legal, copyright-wise? Let's say I change the hair and the face? I know it needs to be 80% different, but not sure how much % a figure pose is worth. Basically, the pose is the only thing that would be the same. Country I'm in (for laws): USA (posted this on arts and crafts originally, but they said it's better posted here)
If I draw something, having been inspired by looking at some other thing, you are not copying that thing. If you carefully copy something even if you are also deliberately changing features of the original, then you are copying. Copyright law gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to make copies. There is a difference between copying music and visual art in this respect, since music can be reduced to a small set of specific symbols, so "being inspired by" a musical work is often found to be infringement. The difficult part is legally distinguishing "making a copy" versus "being inspired by". The courts use a subjective test of "substantial similarity" to decide if there has been copying. the case of Mannion v. Coors. "Pose" is an element that is considered in assessing similarity: the question the court would ask (itself) is whether such a pose could ever have come from elsewhere (such as, your own creative efforts).
There will be single frames from let's say "The Exorcist" that are highly recognisable. You say it's not the heart of the work, but it may be representative for a substantial part. If I wrote a book about the movie, then say 25 frames out of the movie would illustrate the book very nicely, so this is substantial. And there is a market for selling pictures, t-shirts, posters etc. all using a single frame, or selling single frames to book authors wanting to use it for illustrative purposes. You deprive them of income for this activity. So what you said is something similar to what I would expect your lawyer to say in court, but I would expect the opposing lawyer to come up with some very different wording. All in all, I find the argument for "fair use" not convincing.
Let’s work it through Is the work copyright? Yes. Are you making a copy or a derivative work? Yes. Do you have permission? No. At this point, it is prima facie copyright violation. However, various copyright laws have defences for breach. You don’t say where you are but as the USA is the most permissive in this regard we’ll use the USA. If it’s not legal there, it’s not legal anywhere. If it is legal there, it’s still likely to be not legal everywhere else. is it fair use? Almost certainly not. Wizards of the Coast (the copyright owner) already do this. While this service is free for creatures from the Monster Manual, it does drive traffic to their web site where they sell stuff. They also licence (presumably for money) others to do the same. Your usage would negatively affect the copyright owners market. This counts against fair use. Because it’s already being done, your work has virtually nil transformative value. This counts against fair use. You are copying a substantial part of the work. This counts against fair use. You are not using it commercially but neither is it for educational use. This is unlikely to matter. On balance: not fair use. TL;DR This is copyright violation.
A character can not be copyrighted. Only a work (picture, text, movie etc.) featuring that character can. However, a character can be registred as a trademark (more specifically, its name and its appearance).
Yup, copyright statutes and case law cover these situations. In Canada, look at at Copyright Act Section 30.7: It is not an infringement of copyright to incidentally and not deliberately (a) include a work or other subject-matter in another work or other subject-matter; or (b) do any act in relation to a work or other subject-matter that is incidentally and not deliberately included in another work or other subject-matter. The US doesn't have this in statute, but some defendants used a fair use defence, some successful, some not. (http://www.iposgoode.ca/2010/04/cindy-incidentally-the-incidental-inclusion-exception-in-canadian-copyright-law/) If you're using a piece of art as part of a tutorial, or being illustrative of a point, or subject of commentary, review, or criticism, that may be fair use or fair dealing.
The images and text are copyright (if they are). What Google does with them is fair use/dealing. It works like this: if Google's bot can find them then you (the owner) have put them on the World Wide Web presumably because you want people to see them, effectively you have put them on public display. Google is assisting you in that endeavour by enabling people who are looking for what you are displaying to find it. Their use of your material enhances its value to you which is a rock solid defence. If you don't want your stuff on public display then a) don't put it on a public part of the web - there are plenty of private cloud storage facilities or B) stick a file in your website that tells bots not to index it.
is it plausibly the case that ownership of an original photograph would be awarded to the subject (or the subject's heirs) because the subject did not consent to the making of the photograph? No The photograph belongs to the person who owned the photographic plate. Copyright in the image belonged (it has long ago entered the public domain) to the photographer. Subjects (then and now) have no claim on either. Do Massachusetts laws indeed protect personality and publicity rights in photos more than 160 years old, if they were originally taken without consent of the subject, and are now used without consent from the subject's next of kin? No The people in the photograph may bring a suit. These people are long since dead and their estates have long ago been wound up. There is no longer anyone with standing to bring such a suit. Does the US 13th amendment give any private right of action to claim property obtained via ownership of slavery, or that may constitute a &quot;badge of slavery&quot;? No In its entirety, the 13 amendment reads: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. It does not deal with the products of slavery at all.
Your feeling is correct. Copyright in those images is owned by Amazon, or by someone Amazon contracted with, in any case not by you. Using them to sell your bean bag would be infringement, unless you have been granted permission to use the images. (It is not very likely that you would be sued over this, but please do the right thing anyway.) In any case those stock images may not show quite how your particular bean-bag looks now. Take your own photo and upload it with your sale listing.