That's just not true--it's much more complex. Basically, copying a part of a photo can be legal. Read on:
“How Copyright Law Protects Creators of Original Works

“Copyright law gives content creators certain exclusive rights to reproduce and sell works. These exclusive rights, conferred by 17 U.S.C. § 106 of the Copyright Act of 1976, include the rights to reproduce, perform, and distribute the copyrighted work. As a basic example, if you write a book, another person cannot come along and photocopy and sell that book without your permission.

“When these rights are infringed, copyright owners can file a lawsuit seeking money damages for infringement as well as a court injunction to mandate that the infringer cease its infringing activity.

“As you can imagine, copyright law is therefore an important tool for visual artists. Imagine if you spent months painting a beautiful landscape painting, only to have someone else come along and make posters of the image, selling those posters all over town without permission. Surely you would be angry, as this infringer has essentially taken your work for his or her own profit without permission.

“In order to sue for copyright infringement, you must register your work with the 17 U.S.C. § 107, certain uses of copyrighted material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." As a matter of policy, fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.

“When faced with a copyright dispute over fair use, a court will consider four factors regarding the infringer's use of the copyrighted work to determine whether the defense applies. These factors are: (i) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (ii) the nature of the copyrighted work; (iii) the amount of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (iv) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

“Consider these fair use factors in connection with the photographic collage example above, in which you seek to use a photo of a building taken by a third-party photographer in your landscape painting. Your use of the photograph would be commercial only if you intend to sell the painting. If you intend to merely keep it or display it in your home, there is no commercial element. Moreover, even if you do intend to sell it, the photograph represents a relatively minor portion of the total work. If you are using only a small part of the photographer's photo of the building, that would weigh in your favor; if you are using the entire photo, that could weigh against you. Finally, looking at the last factor, if your use of the photo would impact sales of the photograph (and therefore harm the photographer), that would weigh against your use. However, that seems unlikely here. Few people would buy your painting instead of the discrete photograph, and vice versa. On balance, it seems your use of the photo in your collage would constitute fair use.”
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-i-alter-or-make-art-from-books-prints-other-copyrighted-works-without-getting-sued-for-infringement.html

Composites can be a problem. Some here, like magnetoman and others whose names slip my mind right now, solve the problem of assembling different objects/shapes by crafting a very strong story/subject.

Another way, the one I hope to use successfully, is to build a strong visual presence, having unity with variety in shape and color, coupled with a strong composition--these things holding viewers until they can piece together a story/narrative/or idea. I definitely have an idea as I work, but I wonder if it is too personal, too hard for individuals to make their own narrative.

Please, comment about anything in "Notre Dame Fire—Legacy Sequence," and feel free to change something if that makes your idea clearer.

(Download)

To close this out---

I, too, have written to ADMIN. I am displeased with your flimsy attempts at character assassination.

Since those of you seeing racism seem to be incapable of rising above emotion and prejudice to the level of reason, let me help you.

I could have written;
"Jawohl, mein commandant. Your orders ist mein command!"
or some other such.

Why didn't I? I've no real idea, except that I am much closer to black kids than other oppressed. They mock uppity, privileged whites in that manner. That you did not know that might speak volumes about your position and racism.

I am through with this thread, not wanting others to have to hurt their minds with the nastiness thrown around here.

You, ugly, and the rest need to wise up. Racist? I taught in Project Upward Bound, helped in the Hough in Cleveland, lived in black neighborhoods, and to this day continue to tutor and mentor in a local community.

That you jump to that conclusion in your desperation is but another example of your irrational dislike, and personal attacks.

Clue: check the dictionary for iRONY.

Aha! Caught out, I am! Hijacking my own thread! Why not? Not taking the advice of an astute commentator to open another thread! Dang me! Ah jes loves da bossy massa. What's WRONG with me?!

And, how am I avoiding being crucified as a thief, next to the savior of, the savior of....... the...? Well, I shoulda just run up to Pontus Pilate and said, "although I'm not guilty of being a thief, PUHLEESE crucify me as one!"

Now that I've admitted how terrible I am to these two gentlemen, I have nothing more to say to them.

I do still hope that any who have not be drivel-driven away, might still comment on the art, its composition and content as a holistic communication.

Only if some discussion about the work comes up will I respond.

Boys, boys! I have said I will obey the rules here, as they are explained. Perhaps a reading problem. Now that "editing" includes putting A PART of a photo IN MY OWN CREATION, I won't do that here. Clear.

Is it as clear to you that the selfish and fearful rules here weaken, if not your own abilities as photographers, certainly those who want to become better?

Is it hard for you to understand that discussing a rule and breaking it are two different things?

Are any of these why you are hijacking this thread about a work of mine that violates NONE of the rules here?

Are you so selfish that you do not want other photographers to know what are their RIGHTS and COPYRIGHT PROTECTIONS in the larger world they inhabit?

Just to repeat, hoping to stop any further posts made under mistaken assumptions:
1. I understand, NOW, the extent of the rule of "no editing," which continued to expand from my real world experiences of "editing."
2. The work I posted at the top of this thread, BREAKS NO UHH RULES.
3. There could be a valuable discussion of COPYRIGHT and CRITIQUE in general, NOT as it relates to UHH--IN GENERAL. I think that is worthwhile.

FACTS about Copyright:
“Michelangelo... proved (and improved) his skills by making copies of roman sculptures. Similarly, Van Gogh copied works from his favorite artist, Jean-François Millet. He considered his copies ‘translations’ - like the way a musician interprets a composer's work.” http://copy-me.org/2017/08/great-artists-everyone-copy-michelangelo-van-gogh/


“How Copyright Law Protects Creators of Original Works

“Copyright law gives content creators certain exclusive rights to reproduce and sell works. These exclusive rights, conferred by 17 U.S.C. § 106 of the Copyright Act of 1976, include the rights to reproduce, perform, and distribute the copyrighted work. As a basic example, if you write a book, another person cannot come along and photocopy and sell that book without your permission.

“When these rights are infringed, copyright owners can file a lawsuit seeking money damages for infringement as well as a court injunction to mandate that the infringer cease its infringing activity.

“As you can imagine, copyright law is therefore an important tool for visual artists. Imagine if you spent months painting a beautiful landscape painting, only to have someone else come along and make posters of the image, selling those posters all over town without permission. Surely you would be angry, as this infringer has essentially taken your work for his or her own profit without permission.

“In order to sue for copyright infringement, you must register your work with the 17 U.S.C. § 107, certain uses of copyrighted material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." As a matter of policy, fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.

“When faced with a copyright dispute over fair use, a court will consider four factors regarding the infringer's use of the copyrighted work to determine whether the defense applies. These factors are: (i) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (ii) the nature of the copyrighted work; (iii) the amount of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (iv) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

“Consider these fair use factors in connection with the photographic collage example above, in which you seek to use a photo of a building taken by a third-party photographer in your landscape painting. Your use of the photograph would be commercial only if you intend to sell the painting. If you intend to merely keep it or display it in your home, there is no commercial element. Moreover, even if you do intend to sell it, the photograph represents a relatively minor portion of the total work. If you are using only a small part of the photographer's photo of the building, that would weigh in your favor; if you are using the entire photo, that could weigh against you. Finally, looking at the last factor, if your use of the photo would impact sales of the photograph (and therefore harm the photographer), that would weigh against your use. However, that seems unlikely here. Few people would buy your painting instead of the discrete photograph, and vice versa. On balance, it seems your use of the photo in your collage would constitute fair use.”
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-i-alter-or-make-art-from-books-prints-other-copyrighted-works-without-getting-sued-for-infringement.html

Whew, finally! You're the only ranter to offer specifics that matter. Perhaps I can help you understand composition.

"What holds the content together is that the elements all appear to come from the same event," you wrote. This shows how superficially you looked, unless your "event" runs from 300 BCE to 2019. If you didn't get the classical reference, the destruction of Notre Dame by fire, the resurrected, glowing Rose Window, and the hopeful glow leading off the page top right, you missed the basic concept. Did you think, perhaps, a naked man was caught in the fire and I was looking at his "equipment" at the time? The horizon, the old, dark hill---those part of the same event?

You didn't touch on scale. "Cut and paste"? All the images were created the same size? Scale in a part of beginning Design and Composition courses. Perhaps you are above the basics?

I laughed at "The large white and yellow blotches also draw too much attention and interrupt the composition causing it not to flow." Those "blotches" lead your (well maybe not you, but a perceptive viewer) THROUGH the composition in the Renaissance-derived "S" curve. (Oh, that naked man you missed is by the Renaissance artist Michelangelo, who often used, and here used in his "David," the "S" curve.

Now I know why, perhaps, those who do personal attacks on UHH and are fearful of their "precious" being "edited" to show other, perhaps better, possibilities, is that they do not know squat about composition and esthetics. That's okay of course, I can like or dislike something "just because." However, such comments are not very much of a contribution to those here who love photography and would like to discuss ways of making better photos, both theirs and others.

I could indeed, but that would be a lie. Your hatred is a poison.

So, "go right ahead.....pulling a particular element/detail out of whichever of the images that might've caught your interest..."

I pulled out the petroglyphs, as you said I could, seen in the lower left of my image. (BTW, I could have just done it without your permission in copyright law, which supersedes "rules," in standard practice; but I usually ask, except in the two cases here of people (Grahame Smith and JoeJoe) whose belligerent and erroneous views views almost required that I show those views to be false.

(Download)

To all members of this forum:
I am sorry that my past skirmishes seem to have attracted toxicity to this valuable site.

Did your ethics include not lying? You have done that here. I respected what you wrote me when I asked if I might use part of your image, and you said okay. Put up the whole exchange, and let others judge the truth, rather than your slander. Your opinions are worth nothing if you lie, you know.

Why the lying and personal hate?

I get your drift, but since you write no specifics--say, about color distribution, contrasts leading to a particular type of composition--you have an opinion without basis, except, one hopes not, personal animosity.

If you posses some knowledge about composition, feel free to share where the work has failed or, perish forbid, succeeded.

Totally wrong. I recognize and follow the rules here. I do think, and speak out, that it would be a better site if it were in compliance with the rules of society at large.

Why can you not get this?

Why do you excuse your hijacking of my content and request here?

Since you cannot or will not reply to specifics, it seems you may too ignorant or irrational to respond to. All points regarding rules here and copyright law have been laid out, and settled. When you are ready to go forward with any relevant points, I'll be happy to address them. Meanwhile, reasoned discussion is impossible.

P.S., I wonder where all the members crying out "hijacking" are now. Friends?

TO THE REST OF YOU:
Please ignore this hijacking of past behaviors. As the creator of the work shown now, I really count on your responses to the questions of composition and content.