Hi guys, regarding copyright laws I don't know whether copyright law applies to obviously edited pictures.
i can explain a little about the "Fair Use" aspect of copyright law, and modification of a picture, in MY OWN words.
if the picture has little left of the original, because the new author or new artist, is not copying the original, but making thier OWN ORIGINAL.
So tagging, or minor alterations, or basically stealing somone elses work and tossing your name on it, is not "fair use" by definition. but using an original and COMPLETLY changing it into a new piece of artwork might qualify.
The example they use is the Mona Lisa, if you take a pic or reproduce the mona lisa, the guy who made it originally is still the author, but if you mosiac out the whole thing into a stained glass look, then its not the same item, if you paint george bush on mona lisas head, its no longer a mona lisa, its a mona bush,and you are the author of mona bush then.
the IDEA is that the artist creates a totally new original piece of work (which may include components of another) as opposed to stealing somone elses work, making some minor alteration and calling it yours.
if picasso sticks a nose from the sistene(sp) chapel into one of his abstracts, it is unlikly that anyone would say he was copying michealangelo
it all comes down to who is the real artist, and who is just copying.
of course the fair use loophole in the copyright law, is redefined by anyone who isnt really willing to do the actual work or create an original, so they think they can soften the edges of a pic, put a digital frame around it, and put thier name on it, they think they can alter the "pixels" of an original (change the data numbers) and that is fair use, but basically the law doesnt read like that.
fair use also can apply differentally to music, and movies and stuff like that. somone who scratches a album to make new "music" is qualifying under the law easily, somone who re-mixes entire parts of a music piece does not qualify under fair use, although they try and say that it is. its kinda like that, it does not make them the original author of the work, untill it is an actual original work. A music mixer, is a DJ, not a musician or artist
interpretations of the ownership of the original and the quantity of the original that exists, and the definition of it being original, is up to the courts and judges and stuff, and because they are human, there will be many variations in how they will decide.