Is it illegal to cut out a face from the newspaper? Let's say there is a photo of a group of people in the newspaper. This photo is copyrighted by the newspaper publisher. By cutting out a single face from this photo I am modifiying the original work. I think it's not allowed to modify a copyrighted work. So it should be illegal. But because it is so ridiculous I am not sure about it. To keep it simple I am asking for an answer that applies to the U.S.
Those posts are talking about making a modified copy of a copyrighted work. The key word is copy. You are not making a copy. Copyright is not about how a physical embodiment of a copyrighted work is treated. You can burn a book and shred a newspaper. Neither of those actions is making a copy. Also, cutting up a newspaper and pasting a picture on your wall has nothing to do with any “derivative works” issue.
Social media platforms are not publishers under UK law (at present), as such, they are not legally responsible for the content they host providing that there is a mechanism for alerting them to infringing material and that, when alerted, they remove it. As to "why", that is a political question.
Invasion of privacy and false light torts would probably not be applicable here. Very few states have adopted the false light tort because of its conflict with First Amendment principles and there was no agreement or even request to keep the text private. The copyright issue is trickier. First all, the TOS may provide that the copyright belongs to the text service provider or that there is a license. But, even in the absence of an express license, sending someone a message which is equivalent to sending them a letter, probably gives rise to an implied license that the person to whom it is sent can use the message that arises merely from the act of sending it without restriction or qualification. Implied license and fair use also heavily overlap. Publishing the text exactly as it was sent to you protects you from defamation liability because it is true. On the whole it would be extremely unlikely for there to be any legal liability for publishing a text from someone that they sent to you. Of course, one can imagine exceptions. If the person receiving the text was in an attorney-client relationship, or priest-parishioner making confession relationship, or was communicating regarding classified national security matters, or there was a non-disclosure agreement in place, among other possibilities, an evidentiary privilege and duty of confidentiality could apply and disclosing the material without the permission of the privilege holder could breach a duty of confidentiality and give rise to liability. If the picture was a nude picture of a minor, there could be a criminal and/or civil liability issue, and some states have also made posting "revenge porn" a criminal offense and/or a basis for civil liability. If the disclosure was effectively a way to facilitate insider trading that could be a problem. If the contents of the text were accurately transmitted but known to be false and were disseminated without disclosure of its falsity for the purpose of defrauding a third party, that could be a problem. But, no facts that obviously flag any exception are identified in the question. The mere fact that the posting may be embarrassing, or hurt someone's reputation, or was made without someone's express consent, in general, would not be a basis for liability.
A translation is a devivative work - the copyright owner has the exclusive right to these So, yes, translation is prima facie copyright infringement. Strictly speaking, if you translate it, it's a derivative work because you exercised creativity in making the translation; what Google translate does is not a derivative work, it's a copy because there is no creativity. Either way, only the copyright owner can do (or authorise) this. Whether it's legal or not depends on if what you are doing falls within one of the exceptions to the applicable copyright law such as fair use or fair dealing. Attributing the original author does not, of itself, allow translation. Additionally, I'm not able to find the copyright documentation for the site link I provided above. What is "copyright documentation"? Copyright exists the moment a work is created and no further documentation is required. Essentially, I could translate the whole documentation by myself to avoid this problem. No, you can't - see above. If copy-pasting the google translate is illegal, then exactly how much must I edit, move around sentences, change words, and such until the text is no longer plagiarized? All of it. If you were, based on your own knowledge of the software, to write a manual without any copying o the existing manual, that would not be copyright infringement. Is this plagiarism or copyright infringement? It's copyright infringement - plagiarism is an academic misconduct issue not a legal one. where can I check the copyright for the above link? The site you linked has "Copyright © 2020 Acquia, Inc. All Rights Reserved" in the bottom left corner which identifies the copyright holder, the date and prohibits all copying ("all rights reserved"). This isn't necessary but it is helpful. If you really want to do this, contact Acquia, Inc and ask for permission.
Copyright in a photo belongs to the photographer, not to the subject. A picture of S (the subject) is not S's property in any sense, unless the photographer has given or sold it to S. If the photo was linked to information about S, it might be personal Data under the GDPR (or UK-GDPR) if so, S could request erasure, but various exceptions might apply. But even then S would not aquire the right to distribute or copy the image, or any of the other parts of copyright.
The Mugshot was most likely made by a state employee in the course of their work. Employees don't get a copyright for works from their work but their employers do so generally, as that is work for hire. However, the government is different: The US government specifically can't have any copyright from works of its employees. They are public domain. 17 USC 101 &amp; 105 State governments are a little different. Technically they could be copyrighted unless they are laws and edicts, but states might disclaim such: Arizona employees make Arizona copyrighted works. California works require public access and are public domain unless the state specifically authorizes a work to be copyrighted. Florida and its employees can't have copyright in government works unless they specifically make a law that carves a work out from this beforehand. Indiana employees make technically copyrighted works, but they can't restrict use by obtaining a license or fee in any way under IC 5-14-3, making them quasi-public domain. A public domain image can be done with whatever you want. No strings attached, no rights of rightsholders violated. However, not everything made on behalf of the government is made by the government: Contractors do have the copyright in the first place, and then can assign it to a government, which does not make a work public domain.
It's questionable, because if you design your own visual interpretation of the T-Shirt then it isn't necessarily the one from the book and thus your art has it's own copyright. However, if the current Copyright Holder and Possible Trademark owner is selling the shirt it could be an issue because yours is not official but being sold as one. If you're making it for non-sale and just cosplay, than you have a better arguement.
A figurine, or other artwork, that is clearly based on the published images, or on the published description, of a fictional character in a copyrighted work would be a derivative work. To publish, display, sell, or distribute such a work without permission would be copyright infringement, and the copyright holder could sue for damages. Whether something is a derivative work is a question of fact, and the details can matter. In general, the more vague and generic the fictional description, and the more original elements not derived from the fiction are included in the work, the less likely the new work is to be held to be derivative. But any significant element clearly taken from the previous work may be enough to make it derivative.