kthomas

I have a legal question (or several, actually)

I am looking at writing a book that will contain large portions of parody/satire, (somewhat similiar in style to the "Onion" if i had to make a comparison).

My question is this. I'm not sure what the legalities are in regards to using things like:

1. Photos from the Associated Press & other newspapers and/or magazines
2. "Doctored" screenshots from online news sources such as USATODAY.com
3. "Doctored" Articles, Photos from newspapers, magazines, etc.
4. Clipart from Microsoft "Clips Online"
5. jokes in general that circulate on the internet - you know, as people pass them around via email, without really knowning the source (not even sure how you could trace back to find it)
6. Another example, an online catalog had a model posing for one thing or another. The model was amusing looking - could i take a screenprint of him and use it in my publication without permission (satire or not)?

I realize these are diverse examples and the "rules" for one might not be the same for the other. I'd certainly like to find out now vs later whether it is realistic to expect to be able to use a certain source for my book and/or what types of guidelines/procedures i might have to follow in order to use this stuff.

I've heard somewhere that the rules might be a little more "lax" on using photos and such when you are using them for purpose of satire, but i'm not sure where the line is drawn, if in fact there is a line.

Any help (or point to where i could find answers) would be greatly appreciated

valeca

Speak to an attorney. Do not seek legal advice from strangers on an online forum.

__________________
You know you wanna.

*Angel

Parody could be considered "fair use", but if you are called on it, it is still subject to court judgment

and not too many people win with fair use when it comes to photos. keep in mind that people pay photographers for those photos. and it doesn't matter of the level of the rights said companies bought from the photographer for the photos. even if the companies did not buy full rights to it, the photo in question still ultimately belongs to the person who took said photo. and cannot be reproduced in anyway without permission, even if you give credit to original creators. you still need permission, and don't forget these people make their living off people purchasing their work. allowing just anyone to use them for free would make it awfully hard to pay the light bill now wouldn't it.

this all applies to doctoring/modifying photo's as well. no matter how much you change it. even beyond simple recognition the base of the photo still belongs to the creator. and could stir even angrier persecution if found out. for the fact that you altered it with out permission.

just because it has been displayed once, doesn't give free range of use to everyone who sees it.

but like Valeca said ask an attorney(i'm not one, mind you). cause ignorance of the law won't hold up before any judge.