How much change to a company’s copyrighted picture is needed?
<p>A picture of a slipcover on a company's website- a company's sofa will always look the same. If you had the sofa picture would look the same so how can it be modified enough? I understand you can't put picture in a stock image of a room but can you draw an outline around it in a color- is that enough? What if an outline is drawn of it and slipcover fabric swatch is imposed in paint 3D- can you use it to list on a marketplace site? How much modification is needed? And it doesn't matter they no longer sell cover, it's discontinued but they still keep copyright?</p>

<p>The question has two false presuppositions. The first is that copyright only prohibits exact copying, and you can reproduce inexactly as long as the result is &quot;different enough&quot;. Actually, the original work is protected against any copying and reproduction, and only the copyright holder can authorize making a &quot;derivative work&quot;. So there is no &quot;needed degree of change&quot; – you have described copyright infringement.</p>
<p>Second, copyright exists until it expires, many years in the future: copyright does not evaporate in case there is no current commercial exploitation of a work.</p>

<p>The question asks:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>how can it be modified enough?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I presume this means how can it be modified enough to avoid being a copyright infringement.</p>
<p>There is no single bright-line rule on this issue, or on issues of this sort. it is a case-by-case determination.</p>
<p>If changes are trivial, the new work is probably a copy, and so is an infringement unless permission is obtained or fair use applies.</p>
<p>If changes are more substantial, but the work starts as a copy that is then altered, it is probably a derivative work, and thus is infringement unless permission is obtained or fair use applies.</p>
<p>If the image is modified sufficiently that it is not a derivative work, it will probably not be suitable as a salse catalog image.</p>
<p>Fair use will depend on factual details, but if this is being used for a similar purpose (sales image) it is not transformative, and it seems that it could serve as a replacement for the original, so fair use seems unlikely to apply unless significant details have not been mentioned in the question.</p>
<p>A new, original photo of a similar sofa and slipcover, or even a new image of the exact same sofa and slipcover, are far less likely to be considered to be a derivative work, and should be free of copyright claims.</p>

united-states copyright internet ownership photography