copyright intellectual-property attribution derivative-work
Would someone actually sue me for attributing them?
<p>Imagine my goal were to openly copy copyrighted work in a perfectly legal way. Sometimes people go to court to debate whether someone copied part of a work or made it from scratch. <strong>We'll assume I copy part of a copyrighted work.</strong> I'm <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/17590/can-cropping-a-sprite-invalidate-copyright#comment-30785">told by @K-C</a> that <strong>given several conditions</strong> anyone can openly make and use modifications of a part of a copyrighted work.</p>
<p>Based on <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/15895/how-different-does-something-have-to-be-so-it-doesnt-infringe-on-a-copyright/15901#15901">an answer to a previous question</a>, <em>Here are the conditions</em>:</p>
<ul>
<li>I can use part of a copyrighted image given one of two conditions
<ul>
<li>I've only taken an <em>insubstantial</em> portion of the copyrighted image
<ul>
<li>This <em>insubstantial</em> portion is not the &quot;heart&quot; of the image</li>
<li>User @K-C cites <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/539/case.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Harper &amp; Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>My new work is a <em>substantial</em> transformation from the original
<ul>
<li>The <em>idea</em> or the <em>expression</em> could be substantially different</li>
<li>User @K-C cites <a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/562/1157/293262/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sid &amp; Marty Krofft Television v. McDonald’s (1977)</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h3>Here's my example:</h3>
<p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/R4i1u.png" alt="insubstantial and transformative" /></p>
<p>So I take an <em>insubstantial</em> three pixels from a Mario Sprite, and I make a <em>substantial</em> transformation on the cropped pixels. This is the safest example imaginable. I refuse to believe that Nintendo could legitimately have grounds to claim copyright infringement if I take <strong>three pixels</strong> from their <em>character</em> and use those <code>NINE BYTES</code><a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/17597/would-someone-actually-sue-me-for-attributing-them#comment-30813">(note)</a> of information to make my own <em>icon</em>.</p>
<hr />
<p>Now imagine I use the <strong>three slanted stripes</strong> above as the logo for my company. It seems from what I have learned so far that this informal disclaimer would do nothing at all but invite lawsuits:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The colors in my logo are from a sample of a 1985 sprite owned by Nintendo.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If I had given no such disclaimer, no one would have ever suspected that the colors in my logo were copied from a Mario sprite.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Here are my questions:</h3>
<ul>
<li><p>As soon as I make it known that a logo came from a tiny part of an image owned by someone else, is it possible that the company who owns that image would have any stronger basis for a lawsuit?</p>
</li>
<li><p>Would I be less legally protected making the truth public than I would be if I just deceptively allow people to assume I imagined those three colors from no identifiable source of inspiration?</p>
</li>
</ul>

<p>Admission of copying proves one of the elements that the plaintiffs would normally need to prove in an infringement suit, making a law suit less risky from their perspective. This may very well invite lawsuits that would otherwise not be filed. But, this is pure speculation.</p>

<p>Your legal rights are the same, independent of how much you choose to reveal in advance of a lawsuit. If your copying doesn't amount to a substantial taking, then it isn't infringement, whether you admit to copying or not.</p>
