Is Photoshopping your face on another photographer's photo legal?

When it comes to parody it's perfectly legal to take a song and put your own lyrics to it (if you make the music yourself or buy a royalty-free karaoke version of it). And you can make fun of commercials (such as SNL's use of brand names in their ads).

So, is it legal to take a photo of, say, Muhammad Ali standing over Frazier and paste your own (or a friend's) photo on it? We've all seen it, and it can be pretty funny (and realistic). I've even done it myself (but not published it). I took a photo of a friend from work and put it on the famous Dorothea Dix photo of the mother and her children during the Great Depression.

So, is it legal? It's certainly fun, but if it's legal I might want to get more into it. People think it's funny, especially if it looks realistic.

Another example would be putting your buddy's picture onto Lee Harvey Oswald in the famous shot-in-the-gut photo.

Or the pinnacle of the genre: Lootie

That sounds like it would fall under "parody" and thus not civilly actionable conduct.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #14854218
Another example would be putting your buddy's picture onto Lee Harvey Oswald in the famous shot-in-the-gut photo.

a little creepy but yes, I've seen plenty of parody pics, for example - photos of well known politicians where the image has been manipulated with photoshop

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #14854218
Another example would be putting your buddy's picture onto Lee Harvey Oswald in the famous shot-in-the-gut photo

I don't know who did this one but "The Oswald Blues Band" photoshop was a popular t-shirt about 10-15 years ago. Parody was addressed by the court ruling "Jordache v Lardache", which concluded that "parody is an accepted form of humor meant to amuse and not confuse.." That doesn't mean that you won't end up in hot water. I got reined in a bit when the movie "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" first came out. I was selling shirts in Rolling Stone magazine that were a parody of the movie's logo - "E.T. the Extra-Testicle". Spielberg's attorneys were not amused...

Hahaha! seriously? any chance of posting the pic to look at?

as for parody yes its legal but as magoosmc said it can still land you in hot water.

Drixar wrote in post #14856539
Hahaha! seriously? any chance of posting the pic to look at?

30 year old ad from the Stone. I made a lot of money from this for about three months. Then came a series a telegrams and phone calls about how I was degrading the wholesome image of this family film. When I explained that parody was legal he explained that he had millions at his disposal and would crush me with court costs whether I was right or wrong. I decided to cut and run. It also put a damper on my other project - "Gonad the Barbarian".

i was thinking of the cheech and chong movie where cheech had the the curves representing E.T. - The Extra Testical

You mean like this?

Yes it is legal because its not enforceable , but what would break copyright laws is you then claim its your photo and start selling it

RichSoansPhotos wrote in post #14860983
Yes it is legal because its not enforceable , but what would break copyright laws is you then claim its your photo and start selling it

Would selling be the only barrier? What about using such an image to promote a website? Or what if your website is a collection of such images and you sell advertising to the site but all the creative content that people come to see is made of such things?

If it legally qualifies as parody, it would be legal to sell it, would it not? (Not even PRETENDING to be a lawyer on that one...)

Otherwise, how would "Weird Al" Yankovic make a living? (Maybe he pays royalties?)

Side note question - Do photography copyrights expire? I believe they do for songs after 20 years or so. If a copyright runs out, then any older image would be fair game.

EDIT - http://en.wikipedia.or​g …_does_copyright​_expire.3F

kfreels wrote in post #14861685
Would selling be the only barrier? What about using such an image to promote a website? Or what if your website is a collection of such images and you sell advertising to the site but all the creative content that people come to see is made of such things?

Well, yeah of course using photos that are not your own even if they are edited are the copyright's owner and permission is needed, I think the DMCA covers that

As far as I understand the concept, the image that is copyright protected must identically match the image in question. Imagine two photographers standing side by side shooting near identical pics. The slight differences should allow each image to be considered unique, so face changing I would venture to say falls within that. Not to say theres not some leagaize or other stuff like the E.T. issue that can come about.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

RTPVid wrote in post #14861952
If it legally qualifies as parody, it would be legal to sell it, would it not? (Not even PRETENDING to be a lawyer on that one...)

Otherwise, how would "Weird Al" Yankovic make a living? (Maybe he pays royalties?)

I don't think it would

Weird Al Yankovic needs permission from the copyright owner i.e. the song that he wants to parody, I would assume so long as it doesn't damages the copyright's owner to sell the original, hence the reason why he has been given the permission, you have to realise it isn't just the lyrics, its also the music that makes up his song to "parody" the original because it would be similar to the original