It really depends on the license attached to the texture, Google image search allows you to filter by license (so you can only include images under public domain or otherwise project-friendly licensing)
because in art they have the right of transformation / parody, and still having a right on the art piece they made.
This artist just painted over the joconde, its a very famous modern art speaking about appropriating other’s content
because it’s transformed
first you need to know - understand concept, form, morphology, existence of art is dependent on creator as much as it is on the receiver… it’s interaction - sharing - only after, Art is.
In various cases, you could do something like make a rendition of copyrighted content as long as it’s strictly non-commercial. Though in cases like the Mona Lisa, the copyright of works from the 19th century and before has long expired and are now in the public domain. If you’re a citizen of the US at least, copyright law states you can freely use many of the works (which assumes the person or company behind the work never decided to extend it by paying to have it trademarked).
Depends I guess on the outlet/platform - looking at you youtube where any “corporation” can copyright claim anything, even stuff they don’t own - including the face of ProperBird (not joking) and someone rehearsing Bach music or people doing bad reviews. It has made youtube a joke for content creators to publish on. Considering article 11/13, things will only get worse on all and any platform. Maybe it hasn’t reached 3D yet, but it’s coming…
I’m not a lawyer, here are answers that seems obvious to me,
it’s an interesting subject, please share your findings and correct me if I’m wrong !
You’ve right in what you’ve created , but you may be asked to replace the texture you steal, or pay the owner.
I think one must prove that his work has been stolen, so if it’s not recognizable it’s kind of ok.
I think legally you’re not allowed to take a material that you don’t own and transform it, but as said, if it’s not recognizable people won’t notice they’ve been ‘stolen’.
In many sites it’s said that their content can be used to create final artwork but not redistribute it in any form.
You can’t buy a model of a character , use the arm to make another character and sell the new character. But you can use it to make an animation or a game.
If it’s a game the character is sold alongside the game as artwork. You can buy the game and use the character (by playing the game) , but you can’t extract the character from the game (that you own) and use the model in an animation of your own and sell that animation.
Anyway , as said earlier if you change it to a point where it’s not recognizable, people won’t notice that you’ve “stolen” their work , so they won’t sue you.
Well, everybody seems to hate youtube these days But yeah, she is a walking (or, talking) Witcher encyclopedia with a very nice voice and english skills. Highly recommended channel for anyone loving anything about the Witcher series that doesn’t mind spoilers from the books or games.
The Gioconda is in the public domain. So Marcel Duchamp could do that.
Very simply put, you can use without problem everything which is the public domain.
You cannot use anything else (without complaining to specific contracts rules).
Especially when you post the work on a commercial site like YouTube or DeviantArt. There are people doing that with stuff they create with proprietary software with personal/non-commercial licences; are these sites allowed to make money off your work, while you are not?
The whole copyright system was created to favour publishers and distributors, not content creators. It is really useless unless you have access to a big enough legal budget to either prosecute a case or defend against one.