[Wide Awake]

I always wondered, if i get lets say a illustration of an elephant (found on google) and i dont know maybe draw a line in front of it or just edit a few points in illustrator. or maybe even add a filter in photoshop to distort it a little. Can i still get in dip shit if i sell that artwork?

[K3njii]

I'm not a lawyer or anything or know law like that, but

From what I've learned you wanna change something of it. Like if the trunk of the elephant is just going down instead change it to be in the air.

I'd try to change a lot of things like the body shape a bit maybe the eyes too just so it doesn't look just like it.

I don't think distortion is enough because if they find it they'll still be able to see its the same thing. Basically the idea is "oh it's similar but it has many small differences."

[NedwonsDrawde]

I always wondered, if i get lets say a illustration of an elephant (found on google) and i dont know maybe draw a line in front of it or just edit a few points in illustrator. or maybe even add a filter in photoshop to distort it a little. Can i still get in dip shit if i sell that artwork?

No. Nothing will happen as long as you make a few minor tweaks. I forget which company took the redbull logo and only tweaked the tail upside down , and maybe did 1 or 2 other small minor adjustments. nothing happened. You are fine.

- Cincinnatus

[Disease]

I always wondered, if i get lets say a illustration of an elephant (found on google) and i dont know maybe draw a line in front of it or just edit a few points in illustrator. or maybe even add a filter in photoshop to distort it a little. Can i still get in dip shit if i sell that artwork?

You could. It's a tricky subject in general, but what you've described may not make muster in the eyes of a judge should the copyright holder seek damages. Derivative work needs to be transformative. In other words, it needs to be substantial enough to constitute the second piece being its own separate work, independent of the first. This doesn't necessarily mean it has to be dramatic. Hence why it's a subjective judgement. If you're not confident you're creating a legal derivative piece, seek permission from the copyright holder of the underlying work. If you are confident, then go for it. Just be prepared for the argument if they should push back.

[Beamer Boy]

Copyright is advanced.
I'm pretty sure that the law states that it's allowed, if it counts as a new piece of artwork.
But there's not exactly any guidelines or anything.
It has to be heavily edited.

[Alex Belarto]

The law where I live is you have to change at least 40% of it to make it your own.

[Τroye]

1. That's a shitty thing to do, stealing someone's work and altering for your own good.
2. Yes, most of the part of the illustration is still off the internet from the real owner, he can still sue you or whatever!