copyright
Can I create an Ads using those pictures without copyright issues?
<p>I create those pictures that refer to famous paintings and I want to use them in Facebook Ads. Can I do it without copyrighting issues.
Pict1: <a href="http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=514994ScreenShot20160609at73924PM.png" rel="nofollow">http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=514994ScreenShot20160609at73924PM.png</a>
Pict2: <a href="http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=638606ScreenShot20160609at73910PM.png" rel="nofollow">http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=638606ScreenShot20160609at73910PM.png</a></p>

<p>Thank you for your answers,
Cheers,
Gautier.</p>

<p>There is likely some risk that you could be sued for copyright infringement, at least for the pixelated Marilyn Monroe image, which is likely still under copyright. </p>

<p>I believe the other image is a pixelation of Girl With a Pearl Earring, which is a 17th century Vermeer painting and, thus, likely outside of copyright. The complication there is that a movie was made "inspired by" the painting (or actually made out of a novel inspired by the painting), and the copyright owners there might claim the image is derivative of a movie poster or scene (which would be under copyright) instead of the original painting. </p>

<p>Pixelation of a work could be considered a derivative work, and thus copyright infringement. This was certainly the case in 2010 when <a href="http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/" rel="nofollow">Andy Baio was sued by photographer Jay Maisel</a> over a pixellated version of the cover of Miles Davis' <em>Kind of Blue</em> which was a photo shot by Maisel. Baio settled out of court, so there was no ruling. But Maisel's suit shows that there is some risk to this sort of derivation. </p>
