What are the rules about using Copy righted images?

[Cassondra Bennett]

I know that legally I am not allowed to use any copyrighted image but heres my question....I recently purchased a program with 800,000 clip art images thinking I would be able to use them on different projects. The other night though I was looking through the book that came with the software and the images are all copy righted which means (I think) that I can only use them for personal use and can't use them on pieces I sell.:confused:

A friend who is a graphic designer said that if the images are manipulated or changed in any way.....a line is deleted, added or changed that it is then no longer the original copy righted image and becomes fair game to use....seems a little sketchy to me???

I am a person who always plays by the rules and don't want to use anything I shouldn't be using so wondered if anyone had any input on this matter???

Thanks so much!!

[Joe Pelonio]

You need to read the copyright notice on an individual website for the image owner. Most prohibit use as is but also with modifications. Changing a line here and there or doing a mirror image is still a violation. Enforcement of copyright law requires the owner to sue you. You might think that it would be hard for them to "catch you" but companies are very aware of this and have people looking for violators. A neighbor once received a letter from a Disney attorney for having plywood cutouts of Disney characters on the lawn at Christmas time.

Your software, and sites like "Brands of the World" are meant to help people that have a job for a company and need a vector version of the artwork. As you can see from the Disney example "personal use" is not allowed either in many cases.

[Darren Null]

Everything is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is created. Clipart collections usually come with a license to use the clipart for either personal use only (ie, you can use the clipart in whatever you're working on but can't sell the product) or business and personal use (you can use the clipart for products that you sell).

So for your particular clipart collection, it's the licence and permitted uses you want to be looking at; not copyright- which doesn't tell you much.

Your graphic designer friend was talking about derivative works -using the art as a basis to create an entirely new work- but it takes considerably more that adding or removing a line.

In practical terms, even 'personal use' clipart is safe-ish to use for one-off items, and you probably won't get into trouble unless the copyright belongs to a rabid outfit like Disney. For multiple and mass-produced items it is worth the time and trouble to ensure that the license permits 'business' use; either by obtaining your clipart from somewhere like
http://www.openclipart.org/
; or buying an image specifically for the job with a licence to cover it; or -as I normally end up doing- just photograph/draw the damn thing myself.

If you do need a particular image for a particular job and you don't have the possibility of photographing it yourself, there's free photos available from http://sxc.hu/ (often you need to ask permission from the author), and then you can manipulate that to create a derivative work (remove background; turn to B&W; trace it into vector; now THAT'S a derivative work) and you're also covered by having permission from the copyright owner.

[Niklas Bjornestal]

I know that legally I am not allowed to use any copyrighted image but heres my question....I recently purchased a program with 800,000 clip art images thinking I would be able to use them on different projects. The other night though I was looking through the book that came with the software and the images are all copy righted which means (I think) that I can only use them for personal use and can't use them on pieces I sell.:confused:
All images are copy righted, but the "owner" of the copy right might let other ppl use the image. There should be "licence" that come with the software/book that tells you what you can do with the images.

[Martin Boekers]

Typically clip art collections are designed for personal and business use, that is usually what the license is for. (I know sometimes they are not the easyist thing to understand)


Yes their images are copywrited or "implied" so the creator does own the rights. They sold you a license to use them for your personal use or business, What they didn't sell you are the rights to make copies of the files to sell individually or as whole to sell to others so they can make products themselves from the images.


IE; I can't buy the 800,000 clipart collection for say $500.00 then make copies and sell those for say $100.00 a set. I can only use the images to put on a product I make are sell.

I hope this makes sense and eases your mind a bit.


Marty

[Mark Winlund]

As you can see, the opinions on this subject vary all over the map. On the one hand the idea that you will go to prison if you use a Harley Davidson Logo made for your friend to the other hand "anything goes". The law, and particularly how it is interpreted is not consistent. In the case of someone doing this in their garage for some friends, you are not likely to have a problem. If you had a business doing truckloads of T shirts with Mickey Mouse on them, well, you are going to have a problem.

All of life is a risk. You must adjust your behavior to the the amount of risk.

The law is not "fair". The law is made by people that have personal. specific goals. Quite often the laws that get passed are not reasonable, and are specifically targeted to benefit one person or group of persons.

Decide for yourself.

Mark

[Dan Hintz]

Darren has it with the derivative works... the modified version must be significantly different from the original before it is considered "safe" (and the required level of modification is always up for debate, especially when humans/money are involved).

Removing a line is not safe by any means (unless the original work was nothing more than a single line ;) ). Placing a cartoon character in a picture copied from the cover of Vogue magazine, changed haircolor and background color, etc. and then posted on the net as "original" isn't, even though you've made significant changes to it (at least as far as the law is concerned).

If your friend is a graphic designer for money, I hope he has more money than knowledge of copyright... he'll lose his shirt someday from a lawsuit.

[Rodne Gold]

I must say one thing , I have tons of clipart collections and most of it gathers dust - never found those collections to be really useful barring Corel's to a limited extent. You never find exactly what you looking for and wasting hours while customers page thru books or you viewing and searching thru many images fruitlessly is a bind.
Of course you have to modify the clipart when engraving cos of all types of hidden nasty's like vectors and fades and so on (thats where Photograv comes in real handy)

[Darren Null]

Copyright = the right of the original creator to sue if they find out their product has been used. Nothing to do with you really. Every text/image/design is automatically copyrighted. There are some exemptions to allow you to use copyrighted material in the US for -for example- satire; but you still have to be careful.

Licence = what you're allowed to do with the work. This is the important bit for you. You may or may not be allowed to use the clipart for items that you sell, depending upon the licence. You are almost certainly not allowed to sell the clipart on as clipart; but there's a reasonable chance that you're allowed to use the images for products that you sell. Make sure.

Derivative work = What a derivative work ISN'T is adding a line or two to change a graphic. Your graphic designer friend needs to get up to speed on copyright law fast, or he'll find himself on the pointy end of something he can't afford. NOTE: Do not use this designer for any work for yourself. What a derivative work IS, is very much open to debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
...unless you want to end up in court arguing percentages you should be aiming for a complete transformation or -better yet- don't play if your licence doesn't cover it.

Practical copyright for laser owners:
Your products fall into one of two groups:
1) Public and volume products
This is things you're going to be displaying publicly (website, market stall, etc) and 'cookie cutter' products (1 design, lots of sales). Really you need to be watertight for these things as firstly a lot of people are seeing them, which increases the risk of you being grassed up and secondly copyright cases are usually judged on a
(stupidly high number) x (number of infringements) = settlement
...basis. For volume production, this can easily get into very silly numbers indeed and you don't want to be on the pointy end. Also, the high scores increase the motivation of the copyright holder to take you on.
2) One-offs and 'private' products
You can be a little more relaxed here, but you still have to be careful and there are some high-risk areas that you probably should avoid, particularly if you live in the US:
> Company logos (notably Harley-Davidson) and trademarks
> Footy/sports team graphics
> Disney*
> Other cartoon characters
> Film company stuff
> Record company/label/artist stuff
> Anything where a company can charge big bucks for licensing
> Any graphic that can be said to be part of a corporate/personal identity.
> Any company who -by nature of what they do- are overly familiar with copyright laws.
That said, if your mate wants -say- a Harley emblem burned onto saddlebags for his Hawg, you take it on it's individual merits. You are still breaking copyright law but it's a:
(Chance of it ending up in court) x (how much money can you potentially be milked for) x (what the company are likely to do about it) x (potential publicity disaster factor)
...equation. From what I've heard, HD are quite likely to take you on. Their position would be considerably strengthened if they sell a similar product, as they would immediately be able to prove a direct loss. Copyright law (wrongly) assumes that 1 copy = 1 loss of sale and doesn't take into account that -for example- a leather saddlebag may cost $30, whereas an official one from HD may cost $95 and there's no way the your theoretical mate would pay that for a saddlebag.
Another example. You burn a Winnie the Pooh glass for your 4-year-old and somehow Disney get wind of this. Based on past form, it's reasonably likely they would send you a cease-and-desist, but they would be more likely to want to settle the matter privately: firstly because there's little or no money in it and secondly because of the potential publicity own-goal involved. Don't bet the house on it, however.
The whole area of copyright law is (intentionally) nebulous and it's all odds, chances and percentages. There's no absolute rule or absolute anything. The best you can do is always use clipart that you are licenced to use on products for sale; but that isn't always practical. Sometimes, in cases of doubt, an email to the copyright holder will sort things out for a one-off.
You makes your decision and you takes your chances.

* Despite the fact that they nicked most of their material in the first place, this company is responsible for much of the copyright misery in the world today, as they manage to bribe Senate into extending copyright lengths every time it looks like their poxy mouse is going Public Domain. This is stifling innovation and is horrendously detrimental to the whole of humanity, just so a few greedy ****s can make a couple of extra dollars. I make a point of downloading the Pirates of the Caribbean soundtracks, just on general principles. I would laser more Disney stuff, but I don't want to promote the sods. <-- this is the polite version.

[Jeff Belany]

I came across a website from a college/university in Florida that has an amazing wildlife art collection. Mostly old published images, not artists work. They offer these for 'teachers/student use only, no commercial use. I have emailed them to see if they would offer images for sale but they obviously don't want to bother with this. While I agree with not using images such as Disney, Harley, NFL, etc. I feel a little different about wildlife images that came from a book a hundred years old. I would really like to use some of these images but not sure what to do. On occasion I have taken an image and had a local artist completely redraw the images, making enough changes that only the basic shape remains. Works great but costs $$. Any body else have any thoughts on this.

Another similar issue -- a local photographers sells prints (no copyright notice) of local images but isn't interested in selling any rights (he really doesn't know what to charge). Any ideas on what is a fair price to pay for such artwork? One time charge? A % of the selling price? Any comments appreciated.

Jeff in northern Wisconsin

[Dan Hintz]

If the book is truly 100+ years old, it is now considered in the public domain and free for use.

[Darren Null]

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/index.htm - Love 'em.


On occasion I have taken an image and had a local artist completely redraw the images, making enough changes that only the basic shape remains. Works great but costs $$. Any body else have any thoughts on this.
You can get similar results with a little computer processing, notably the trace function in Inkscape (after a bit of photoshoppery). Also this freebie:
http://www.imageskill.com/outliner/outliner.html


Any ideas on what is a fair price to pay for such artwork?
Depends upon what rights he's selling. Exclusive use? Print run? If so, how many thousands? Personal use clipart? Prices are different, depending upon the licence granted. These are a good place to start and will give an idea of the going rates:
http://www.gettyimages.com/
http://www.shutterstock.com/


If the book is truly 100+ years old, it is now considered in the public domain and free for use.
While that is true, the work the Uni have done in scanning and publishing the images is also copyrighted.

[Joe Pelonio]

Typically clip art collections are designed for personal and business use, that is usually what the license is for. (I know sometimes they are not the easyist thing to understand)


Yes their images are copywrited or "implied" so the creator does own the rights. They sold you a license to use them for your personal use or business, What they didn't sell you are the rights to make copies of the files to sell individually or as whole to sell to others so they can make products themselves from the images.


IE; I can't buy the 800,000 clipart collection for say $500.00 then make copies and sell those for say $100.00 a set. I can only use the images to put on a product I make are sell.

I hope this makes sense and eases your mind a bit.


Marty
Not all completely true, though I agree it's not easy to understand!

I have several clipart books by Dover, and they are strictly for personal use unless you obtain written permission, even after buying the books, same with their collections on disk. I did get written permission, and was limited to making/selling a maximum of 10 items with each graphic.

[Martin Boekers]

Joe,

Thanks for the enlightenment!

It's rare that I use clip art That is not a public domain graphic.
Like Rodne addressed the few times I had a client look through the couple
Corel clip art books, brought nothing but trouble! Wastes time and they never find exactly what they are looking for and want it some how to magically appear!

You mentioned Dover, somehow I got on a list for them and get "free clipart" in my email. Little did I know I couldn't use it anyway!:p

So I thought I would check it out. I couldn't find anything on Dover's website about usage rights... so it must be printed in the books, that way you already have it in your hands by the time you find out you can't use it commercially.

This was an interesting item I found on Wikipedia. (whether is it true or not, don't know).

Copyright on other clipart stands in contrast to exact replica photographs of paintings. The large clip art libraries produced by Dover Publications or the University of South Florida's Clipart ETC (http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/) project are based on public domain images, but because they have been scanned and edited by hand, they are now derivative works and copyrighted, subject to very specific usage policies. In order for a clip art image based on a public domain source to be truly in the public domain, the proper rights must be granted by the individual or organization which digitized and edited the original source of the image.


HHmmm that's interesting, almost like someone stealing my car, modifying it a bit, give it a new paint job and hey, it's no longer my car because they changed it, now it theirs!:eek: I know, not quite a legal analogy, but it's the thought that counts!

So... now that I'm on a roll... I dug out my old (1996) Corel Gallery 2 Clipart Collection, a bit worse for where I might add. There, right in front of me, on page 28, Guidelines for Clipart use. I have to say I was a bit amazed! All these years I thought I could do with the clipart what ever I wanted except for selling the actual files. I was wrong!

It stated that the clipart was either owned by Corel or licensed to Corel by a third party. If I want to use any of this art I MUST FIRST contact a Digital Libraries Assistant in the Digital Libraries Department to find out who actually owns that particular image and what guidelines to follow. WTF!!!!! Can you imagine not only working with clients about an image then having to call the DLA at the DLD and find out about rights!

Then after that I have to contact the art owner directly about rights.

If I ever have some free time, I just might make a list of 40 or 50 files and sit down and actually call Corel. How many people do you think have actually done that? It may be interesting.

But thank you for making me aware of the actual legalities of clipart!


Marty

[Joe Pelonio]

When I had the full-time sign shop, I always hired students from the art institute. They loved being paid to draw, and there was never any copyright issue!

[Tania Duper]

Some people in this thread are correct (like Martin Boekers), yet others who error on the side of being safe or think differences have to do with personal vs. business reasons are wrong and their advice may limit perfectly legal use for no valid reason, or get you in trouble. Think about how the music industry has sued people who make copies only for their own personal back-ups they don't even put on-line or share!

There are 2 isues involved, license and copyright. Here's an example that should make it perfectly clear.

If I draw a picture of a widget, I can actually give it out for free while retaining the copyright. What that means is others can use my widget picture to engrave (or whatever, according to the terms in the license) however, people cannot turn around and sell my widget picture as if they owned that image as they come up with their own distribution terms. I can also release my widget photo with the hope that people DO use it in their creations that they sell/market. Fortunately, we're starting to see this type of sharing with the club music industry as people like David Byrne (from Talking Heads fame) and others create original music and hope others remix and come up with even better versions.

A license makes an "illegal" activity "legal" for the licensee. Think about all things that require licenses like getting married or fishing and how they made those activities criminal... Symantec's anti-virus software license (as an example) only lets you "rent" the software you pay for, for only 1 year. If you don't re-rent the software you're SOL.

The vast majority of clip art collections are licensed for the use you plan on using them for SO THERE IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. Using or selling other people's images is illegal, but they grant you a license to use them as they explain in the terms of the license. Perhaps the terms are "royalty free", or maybe you can only use those images for 1 year, etc. In general, those clip art collections are licensed for you to use as you plan on using them, for engraving or other artwork that you either give away or sell. You're just not allowed to re-package and sell their clip art collection as if you made those images yourself under your own terms.

Another exmple of something you wouldn't want to do because it would be illegal (for violating copyrights), if anyone wanted to pursue it, would be to sell DVD archives under an assumed ownership claim of text and images that could be found on, say, a chat board, since those who contributed are not being paid for their copyrighted contributions and aren't knowingly transferring ownership to the chat board operator. For the record, offering those archives as a free download is a way to avoid a law suit since it wouldn't be engaged in commerce.

Re: Joe's example of hiring students for artwork, even though you pay them you don't have ownership of those images! As an example, if a photographer takes images of a topless celebrity and sells those to the National Enquirer, NE can print them in their own publication but doesn't have the right to sell them to The NY Times or use in any other way since the work belongs to the photographer. Therefore, Joe, those images you get from students are still owned by the students. You will need to get them to sign a release of ownership / copyright.

[Darren Null]

HHmmm that's interesting, almost like someone stealing my car, modifying it a bit, give it a new paint job and hey, it's no longer my car because they changed it, now it theirs! I know, not quite a legal analogy, but it's the thought that counts!
Not accurate. It's like someone taking an abandoned car, and taking the time and trouble to restore it to usefulness.

The vast majority of clip art collections are licensed for the use you plan on using them for SO THERE IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. You're just not allowed to sell your own clip art collection that contains those images.
Also not accurate. While pretty well all will let you use clipart to spice up a one-off document, definitely not all will let you use the clipart on a product that you will then sell. Of the ones that do, there may be limitations, like no more than 5,000 copies say. Most will not let you sell the image on as an image.

[Tania Duper]

Darren, actually the quote you used of mine IS entirely accurate. I gave an example (with the music industry) how even a one-off for personal reasons is illegal. Regardless of your claim of personal/business to one-off or spice something up has nothing to do with it. Use of any copyrighted work is illegal, period. However, a license is granted for certain people in certain situations that are spelled out in the terms of the license.

It's very simple. Unless you created the images yourself or got the students to grant you ownership, it is illegal to do anything with other people's stuff unless they grant you a license (making the illegal activity, "legal") to use it in the way they say you can use it.

Perhaps a license grants personal use but not business use? Perhaps a license grants use for students but not for commercial use? Perhaps a license says use it any way you wish just don't sell it as your own creation? People actually DO allow you to sell their images if it says so in the terms of the license. All licenses vary so you can't say it's okay to spice something up, etc. Sure, you can cite a specific example, but each license is unique.

Here's an article that shows the music industry doesn't even allow personal use:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

[Darren Null]

Possibly we're a little at cross purposes here. Most people on this forum are interested in clipart to put on products to sell; or as a service for which we charge money. Professional or commercial use, if you will. There are many clipart packages that do not allow commercial or professional use. So it's not safe to just grab your clipart and go for it, and you do need to worry about it...or at least read the license terms.

To boil things down to basics; using other people's clipart is illegal unless your licence grants you permission for the use you intend to put it.

[Dan Hintz]

Tania,

As with Darren, I do not agree with everything you have written. For example:

For the record, offering those [DVD] archives as a free download is a way to avoid a law suit since it wouldn't be engaged in commerce.
Quite the opposite, in fact. For precedence, just look at every MP3/DVD repository out there that has held copyrighted works... Pirate Bay immediately comes to mind. They did not charge a red cent, they only offered an "archiving" service. They were shut down last year. What about Napster? Now they actually DO charge for music, and the money goes to the recording companies (not the artists, but that's another story).


Joe's example of hiring students for artwork, even though you pay them you don't have ownership of those images!
Highly debatable, as this depends upon the locale and any agreement you came to before work began. Speaking in terms of just the work itself, the fact that the artists are being paid for their work means it is a "work for hire", and therefore the employer owns it. To whit (first paragraph or two clearly lays it out):
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
Local laws also have an effect on this, as well as any signed agreements.


I gave an example (with the music industry) how even a one-off for personal reasons is illegal.
The federal court ruled long ago that "fair use" does include and allow personal copies that are not sold and/or traded. The music industry would like you to believe otherwise, however.

[Joe Pelonio]

Re: Joe's example of hiring students for artwork, even though you pay them you don't have ownership of those images! As an example, if a photographer takes images of a topless celebrity and sells those to the National Enquirer, NE can print them in their own publication but doesn't have the right to sell them to The NY Times or use in any other way since the work belongs to the photographer. Therefore, Joe, those images you get from students are still owned by the students. You will need to get them to sign a release of ownership / copyright.
I have to say, this is an interesting and very controversial subject.

When a person creates something while on the payroll it is the property of the business, that has been tested in the courts many times. If you were correct Microsoft would not own any of their software.

[Darren Null]

Something I didn't notice last night because I was concerned that people would land in some serious trouble by assuming their clipart was safe to use for commercial products was this:


Another exmple of something you wouldn't want to do because it would be illegal (for violating copyrights), if anyone wanted to pursue it, would be to sell DVD archives under an assumed ownership claim of text and images that could be found on, say, a chat board, since those who contributed are not being paid for their copyrighted contributions and aren't knowingly transferring ownership to the chat board operator. For the record, offering those archives as a free download is a way to avoid a law suit since it wouldn't be engaged in commerce.

AHA! I was going to say; the owner of this forum is doing exactly that in (link) thread....but when checking the URL, I find that you already know that:

Q: Tania Duper

If I pay the $30, can I put the ISO or zip files up on a free web server for people to download? I'm not sure about your intentions since you also offered them for free if people attend a show and bring their own thumb drive.
A: Keith Outten

Tania,

Sorry, there are only two methods of obtaining our archives. You can order a DVD set for your personal use or visit us at IWF. We haven't authorized anyone to provide a download copy.
Your somewhat disingenious incitement to revolt won't get anywhere because -while Keith is undoubtedly taking the piss, particularly with regard to pricing- he is doing so perfectly legally. You see when you register on SMC you agree to the TOS, including clause B:

B. Licensing

With respect to text or data entered into and stored by SawMill Creek, the submitting user retains ownership of such Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SawMill Creek. In each such case, the submitting user grants SawMill Creek the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
...and this clause has been in effect since the first board revision back in...longer than I've been a member (check the Wayback Machine for exact dating).

I was a little miffy about this at first: "Someone's using MY work that I uploaded FOR FREE to MAKE A PROFIT!!!"

A smidgeon of thought, however, and you realise that saving and storing that much data costs money. Not convinced about the 'sorting' time- I would be looking at a couple of days for a job of that magnitude, but it's possible that Keith just did things the really hard way.
At the end of the day, Keith is providing a valuable service. For a price you can have a demi-indexed copy of everything, as opposed to the haphazard collection of bits of it that most of us have (with the possible exception of Frank). Hell, I might even buy a copy myself to get back the files that were on my nicked laptop. When there's a sale on.

When a person creates something while on the payroll it is the property of the business, that has been tested in the courts many times. If you were correct Microsoft would not own any of their software.
That one can go both ways. What you were doing was -in effect- not employing people but commissioning works. The drawings would belong to you, but the copyright (to the extent of having a say in copies, distribution etc) would remain with the artist (we're on US law here). If, however, you employed someone as an artist then the copyright would belong to you. In your case, Joe, I doubt that the artists would have been able to get very far in court as you were employing people in your shop and it was perfectly obvious to all what the drawings were for. The commissioned works thing is more for artists who paint for order and then find out later that the painting's owner has done a run of 10,000 prints. The artist would be entitled to a cut. The difference lies in 'being on the payroll' versus 'slipping them a tenner for a sketch'

[Tim Bateson]

I have to say, this is an interesting and very controversial subject.

When a person creates something while on the payroll it is the property of the business, that has been tested in the courts many times. If you were correct Microsoft would not own any of their software.

Almost all of the companies I've ever worked for state upon employment that any software I create/design/engineer (I'm in IT) even in my off-duty time may be considered the property of the company I'm working for. Same is true for writing a book - if related to my work environment & I would guess artwork too.

[Martin Boekers]

Yes Joe this has been interesting!

I have learned from this discourse though.

Dan is right about work for hire, that unless there is an agreement in writing beforehand the employer does own what ever you create on his dime.

I have done commericial photography and when I take on a job I make a contract that explains the rights of usage for the photos, usually I go over that with them verbally as well so there is a clearer understanding of what rights they have purchased and what rights I withhold.

Patents, the inventor does receive credit for it, but the employer owns or "holds" the patent.

Darren I was being sarcastic about the car analogy:p

I wonder now if that's why Many old Black & White movies were colorized.
So someone could go after copyrights.

I do admit when I went over the clipart book from Corel I was shocked to find out that I paid for the rights just to look at the images and not neccessarely the right to use them.

I'm sure many of us have a clipart book from Corel, has anyone here actually called the Digital Libraries Department to check on an individual image rights before they used it. (that's clearely what it states on page 29 of my 1996 Corel Gallery 2 book) If you did how was it handled by them? Just curious.

Just another note on confusion of rights. In the commercial photographic world it still is a grey area, and is contested from time to time. On a "live" photoset sometimes many creative people are involved, and it's best to get a signed statement on who and what for their rights are relinquished.

It starts with the artist or designer that lays out a rough idea, then the art director takes over the process of controlling and approving the process. There may be models, hair stylists, food stylists, prop stylist, (some questions are about the work for hire concept) locations. (yes even locations can have to have approval for commercial shoots such as government parks, monuments etc. If it was shot ON that land.) Even the photographer that clicks the shot may not own the image. The art director may say you just documented my concept! So it's best to have it in writing and be clear about it.

Besides being entertaining, this has been educational!


Marty

[Darren Null]

Almost all of the companies I've ever worked for state upon employment that any software I create/design/engineer (I'm in IT) even in my off-duty time may be considered the property of the company I'm working for. Same is true for writing a book - if related to my work environment & I would guess artwork too.
I'd never sign that. My brain is available for rental, but when the money stops, so does the rental.

Darren I was being sarcastic about the car analogy
I am obviously short of humour. I shall attend to it immediately by applying beer to the afflicted area.

[Dan Hintz]

I'd never sign that. My brain is available for rental, but when the money stops, so does the rental.
I believe Martin may have been over-simplifying things a bit on the work contracts. Yes, the language often includes "after-hours" work, but it (usually) specifies this to mean work directly related to that you do while on the clock (e.g., If I worked for a company that made designed/programmed entertainment widgets, I couldn't do the same when I was off the clock without them owning it, but I could program a financial calculator without issue as there is little chance anything I am working on at work could be inadvertently or purposefully included in the calculator).

I sign something similar every time I accept a position, and on the occasion there may be a conflict between my home work and my on-the-clock work, I include a list of what I'm working on and how it shouldn't compete. In doing so, I retain all rights to whatever I'm currently working on, but I'm on very dangerous territory if I create something new that overlaps with my on-the-clock work.

[Martin Boekers]

I am obviously short of humour. I shall attend to it immediately by applying beer to the afflicted area.

It's not applied properly unless followed by pizza, reapply as often as neccessary!;)

Marty

[Daniel Reetz]

If the book is truly 100+ years old, it is now considered in the public domain and free for use.

You're right, but only if the author of the book or the publisher didn't renew copyright.

[Daniel Reetz]

While that is true, the work the Uni have done in scanning and publishing the images is also copyrighted.

Actually, this is not usually or necessarily true. Copyright law has the concept of a "slavish reproduction". Since most of these scanning projects aim to duplicate the original work as perfectly as possible, they contribute no "creative act" to the work, and hence these derivative works are not protected under copyright.

However, that doesn't stop anyone (like the NYPL) from claiming copyright on their images, even if they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

[Darren Null]

Didn't know that- thanks for the heads up. As I understood it it was the tidying up in photoshop that created the 'creative input' for a copyright claim. But -you're right- I've only seen it claimed- not tested in court.

@Dan- that makes more sense. I can see that that would be necessary too...you'd know what the state of the art is at your current company, so all you'd have to do is program a slightly better one for the competition. A programmer version of insider trading. I've read about some US companies that insist on unreasonable control of employee's lives (like instant dismissal for smoking, even with government-approved smoking materials in your own home over the weekend) and thought that this looked like more of the same. Some companies assume that because they pay you, they own you for the other 16 hours a day; and need to be told to get off and milk it.

[Tania Duper]

Most people on this forum are interested in clipart to put on products to sell; or as a service for which we charge money.


Yep, that's why people put together clip art packages and sell them with the license for this intended use. It would be hard to sell clip art collections if the license didn't grant any significant use.



Quite the opposite, in fact. For precedence, just look at every MP3/DVD repository out there that has held copyrighted works... Pirate Bay immediately comes to mind.


The difference between offering an archive of this board for free and Pirate Bay or anyone else putting copyrighted music & movies up for free as it relates to commerce is two fold. First, when defending against a copyright suit, the plaintiff is claiming damages via lost sales. I posted an example where a woman was ordered by the court to pay over $9000 each for 24 songs she had ripped from CDs she legally purchased. Moves & CDs (the example you raised) are being sold, which is different than the text and images on this board that are not being sold -- unless the contributors are also selling their own clip-art.

Second, the Lanham Act & other Copyright-related laws allows the use of copyrighted materials and logos if you're not engaged in commerce. This is how the news is able to use company logos in the background while they report their stories. Sure, news agencies are commercial, for-profit organizations, but the courts have allowed usage in those circumstances. The Lanham Act and others always have exceptions when not engaged in commerce.

However, people get in trouble when they deny sales of those copyrighted materials. Since offering free archives of this board wouldn't be engaged in commerce (avoiding Lanham) and since contributors couldn't claim lost sales with the release of their contributions (unless they were selling their own clip art collection) the owner of this board couldn't get in trouble. But, once the owner charges for the collection, he is engaging in commerce and now can be in violation of the Lanham Act and other Copyright laws.

Fair use, is allowed when you're using someone's images in a comparison, or reporting, etc. But you can't say personal or one-off usage is considered "fair" so go ahead and use to your heart's content.

Dan, regarding your comment that hiring students and ownership is "highly debatable", I beg to differ. Others have commented that employers own the work performed on their dime. THAT IS NOT TRUE! That is why most employers have you sign an agreement, giving them the ownership. Even if you're paid to work for someone, your creations are YOUR PROPERTY. I gave a photographer's work as a perfect example. National Enquirer does NOT own the photos they print, even after paying for them. Employers that fail to have you sign an agreement to give ownership to everything you work on do NOT own your creations.

Darren, re: your claim that because this site has a disclaimer that gives ownership over to the board operator, good luck with that holding up in court. If that was true, employers would simply have a sign posted and call it good enough. Sorry, you need to prove to the court that not only did the copyright owner read and understand, but they have to sign the agreement. Perhaps there was a server glitch at the time of creating an account and the copyright owner never saw the disclaimer? How can you actually prove it was read, and understood, and where is the signature? A "next" button doesn't indicate acceptance, understanding, or agreement, and don't even get me started with being coerced as those examples reverse even flat-out signatures.




They [pirate bay, etc.] did not charge a red cent, they only offered an "archiving" service.


No service like that is going to fly when involving copyrighted materials that resulted in lost sales. Even selling archives of this board under the assumption of "archiving/editing" services isn't going to fly as copyrighted material (the submissions from the users) is still owned by the individual contributors, and even the TOS argument isn't going to fly as I just explained.



Speaking in terms of just the work itself, the fact that the artists are being paid for their work means it is a "work for hire", and therefore the employer owns it.


Not true, that's why agreements are signed. If you hire someone to clean your toilet, that isn't a creation. If you hire a photographer to take photos at your own wedding, do you own those photos? Of course NOT!!! You buy prints and if you copy the prints they can sue you!



The federal court ruled long ago that "fair use" does include and allow personal copies that are not sold and/or traded. The music industry would like you to believe otherwise, however.


I'm not sure what court you're talking about as the music industry has won pretty much every case they've filed. It's more than just "would like you to believe". The music industry has won, period. While I don't agree with that ruling, that's what the courts have determined. You get the justice you can afford, and unfortunately the music industry has very deep pockets. I've had a message deleted from this board for being "too political", so I will just say a certain head of state has spent over $1.5 million so far to avoid from having to show his birth certificate -- every case has been thrown out of court for ridiculous reasons.

This thread has gone way off the deep end. Basically, Cassondra asked if she could use clip art for business. Well, isn't that why clip art is released, so people can use it? One has to read the license to see if usage is limited to personal use.

It just comes down to copyright & licensing. All works people create are owned by those that created them unless a signed agreement transfers ownership. Remember, even digital photos with Santa require a release before companies will print them for you!!! Wedding photographers are no different, regardless how much you pay them, hire them, etc. Licenses grant permission to perform an illegal act, for example, use of a copyrighted image.

I'm glad this has been quite educational for people... :)

[Darren Null]

Quote:Originally Posted by Darren
Most people on this forum are interested in clipart to put on products to sell; or as a service for which we charge money.

Yep, that's why people put together clip art packages and sell them with the license for this intended use. It would be hard to sell clip art collections if the license didn't grant any significant use.
Au contraire; and that was the fundamental point of my disagreement. Most clipart collections come with a personal use/use for work licence that allows you to prettify reports/essays/homework, and that sort of thing. In licensing terms, using that clipart on products for resale is a whole new level, and I think you'll find that clipart collections that allow this isn't 'many' or 'most'...in my experience they are relatively few and far between and fall into 3 categories: 1) Genuine freeware clipart; 2) People who have written the contract themselves and haven't covered the bases and 3) Clipart for goods for resale. The latter tends to be expensive and also often comes with limitations: beyond so many prints/newspapers/items, you'll have to purchase another licence.
If people on this board believe your contention that 'most' clipart collections are safe to put on products for resale; and just go for it thinking the odds are on their side, then that's a fast way to get into expensive trouble.

Darren, re: your claim that because this site has a disclaimer that gives ownership over to the board operator, good luck with that holding up in court. If that was true, employers would simply have a sign posted and call it good enough. Sorry, you need to prove to the court that not only did the copyright owner read and understand, but they have to sign the agreement. Perhaps there was a server glitch at the time of creating an account and the copyright owner never saw the disclaimer? How can you actually prove it was read, and understood, and where is the signature? A "next" button doesn't indicate acceptance, understanding, or agreement, and don't even get me started with being coerced as those examples reverse even flat-out signatures.
Read it again. Keith isn't claiming ownership- the board disclaimer is giving him a licence to do what he is doing- distribute the files. The contributors retain copyright, as is clearly stated in his sales spiel. In such cases, it is perfectly allowable to claim expenses for archiving/media/duplication- even GNU/GPL licenses allow for that, I believe[citation needed]. I think the *amount* being claimed is well over the top; but that is mostly because I'm totally unconvinced by the sorting effort claimed. I have the tools and experience to do it in a couple of days, tops, but it is maybe unreasonable to assume that others have.
On the whole, it is a good thing. Given that people on this board are much more clued-up on business practises etc. than average; the proof of that is that Keith hasn't received enough takedown notices to wallpaper his house.

Your contention that offering the archive as a free download would solve or change anything is wholly erroneous. We'd still have copyright. The licensing would remain the same. Personally, I'd quite like to see it as a download, as that would be convenient; and I'd pay a reasonable charge for the bandwidth used.

I'm not really going to get into the music biz, as that is an entirely different area, and the RIAA et al have turned the entire legal arena into almost a quantum state...anything is possible and you don't know what you're going to get until you open the box.
The case you quoted earlier is the definition of fair use as appertaining to recorded media, however, and has been tested many times in court. The only way the RIAA are going to win that is to either prove the vict...erm...defendant was lying; or buy the judge.

[Dan Hintz]

I've read about some US companies that insist on unreasonable control of employee's lives (like instant dismissal for smoking, even with government-approved smoking materials in your own home over the weekend) and thought that this looked like more of the same. Some companies assume that because they pay you, they own you for the other 16 hours a day; and need to be told to get off and milk it.
This is a bit of a different issue, and it's no as clear as many would like. Once every year or two you'll hear about a lawsuit of some company trying to make certain demands, and it looks like the lawsuits have a fairly even chance of going either way, probably based upon some level of fine detail not expressed in the news report.

I understand both sides of it... I don't want my company telling me I can't smoke in my off time (I don't smoke at all, mind you), but it's fact that smokers have a significantly higher healthcare cost (due to higher incidences of cancer, bronchial issues, etc.), as well as the amount of missed work time because they're outside for 10 minutes at a stretch every hour (that's nearly an hour and a half of lost work each day, which I also end up paying for in other ways). This translates to either me paying a higher premium for my own healthcare or a reduction in benefits for the same cost, I need to work longer myself to meet deadlines, etc. I don't like the Big Brother attitude, but I can see the benefit of it.

Part of the reason I don't want to hire employees, because then I'd have to start making decisions on who to hire based only upon what I can see during the interview... I can't fire them after the fact if I see them smoking and wasting my money.

[Dan Hintz]

Tania,

For a proper rebuttal I'll need a lot of time to quote and compose (I'll do it later when I have time), but I want to make a quick comment.

My "work for hire" comment had to do with artists who were hired as an employee... any works they create while on the clock are the property of the company, not the employee (barring any signed agreement to the contrary). Period. As far as I am aware, no case has ever given precedence otherwise, mainly because that was the intent of the law when it was signed into action in 1974.

Free-lance photographers who sell their individual works (such as your National Enquirer example) retain rights to the photo as those photos would not be considered "works for hire". The photographer is employed by himself, not the National enquirer, and is selling the unrestricted use (again, barring a signed agreement otherwise) of a product.

The RIAA is a behemoth that has twisted the laws for it own use, and gotten away with it (for the most part). That does not mean what it does is within the spirit of the law, it only means that it has enough money to scare people into doing what it demands for fear or retribution. Almost every instance of the RIAA making an individual pay "restitution" for "lost sales" is settled out of court, because the individual knows they can't possibly hope to afford to play the lawyer game long enough to see it through to the end and win. There have been only a tiny handful of individuals who have stood against the RIAA in a lawsuit, and the suits went for several years... but the individual almost always won, because the complaint was on shaky grounds, at best. Might does not make right... but it makes a lot of money for those with the might.

Do not confuse the actual law with what the media loves to sensationalize.

[Mark Winlund]

I'm not sure what court you're talking about as the music industry has won pretty much every case they've filed. It's more than just "would like you to believe". The music industry has won, period. While I don't agree with that ruling, that's what the courts have determined. You get the justice you can afford, and unfortunately the music industry has very deep pockets. I've had a message deleted from this board for being "too political", so I will just say a certain head of state has spent over $1.5 million so far to avoid from having to show his birth certificate -- every case has been thrown out of court for ridiculous reasons.



Armchair lawyer 101 is now closed. Please return to your engraving machines and make some money.

A comprehensive list of all participants has been forwarded to your local bar association. You will be contacted shortly. Please have your retirement fund ready to liquidate.

Mark

[Daniel Reetz]

The Parsons New School For Design has a new project up called Copyright Corner -- it's an attempt to make copyright law approachable for all of us.

http://www.thecopyrightcorner.org/?q=fair_use

[Andy Joe]

so what if you buy a digital photo online? If i understande this right i still have to obtain the right to be able to reproduce it on marble and then sale the marble tile?

[Dan Hintz]

The majority of the photo clearing houses provide verbiage in their terms of service contracts that specify how images may be used, and some even provide for tiered pricing right from the start to take variable use into account.

For example, go check out StockPhoto.com and look at their TOS...

[Robert Walters]

Just tossing some fuel on the fire here...

Walmart sold a Brother embroidery machine that is specifically Disney branded and includes (built in, not removable media) Disney characters (Mickey, Mini, Donald, Goofy, etc) that can be embroidered.

Now, an embroidery machine in itself is specifically designed to create reproductions and multiple quantities.

So, in common everyday Walmart shopper speak, what is that really saying to the purchaser?

Armchair attorneys...
On your mark, get set, GO!

[Martin Boekers]

I went to the Brother site (curiosity)

They sell a special home edition (consumer) embrodery
machine that does include Disney software. Some preloaded
and others available on "cards" about 25 files for a $125.00
or so.

I couldn't find anywhere on the site about limited liscensing
it was implied though, that it was only on a limited edition
consumer embrodery machine and for personal use.

I was going to email them to find limitations, but they wanted
to fill in this form and that. (don't you hate to do that when all
you want is a question answered?) so I didn't:o

Disney is probably the toughest when it comes down to unauthorized
use of their images, so it surprized me to see them linking up to
a production device, even if it is geared toward the consumer.

I'm sure there was pages of statements that come with the machine
that specify usage, and I'm sure one or more people will "reprimanded"
on their use!:D

[Joe De Medeiros]

This was an interesting item I found on Wikipedia. (whether is it true or not, don't know).

Copyright on other clipart stands in contrast to exact replica photographs of paintings. The large clip art libraries produced by Dover Publications or the University of South Florida's Clipart ETC (http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/) project are based on public domain images, but because they have been scanned and edited by hand, they are now derivative works and copyrighted, subject to very specific usage policies. In order for a clip art image based on a public domain source to be truly in the public domain, the proper rights must be granted by the individual or organization which digitized and edited the original source of the image.

So does this mean if i scan, edit and vectorized some dover clipart, it's a derived work, especially since I only use small sections of larger clipart.

[Martin Boekers]

I don't believe everything I read on Wikepedia;)

Copyrights are still a hotly contested, it best to get permission
and stay safe. Bits and pieces of other's work? I guess you always
take a chance, much as sampling sounds in music.

I have seen photographers sued for shooting a photograph that was very similar to
a previous shot. In this litagious society we live in the one that can afford
a lawsuit and has the best lawyer usually wins. So you know were that leaves the rest of us:D


Marty

[AL Ursich]

Whenever I think about the result of getting caught making a "butt" load of money incorrectly using Copy righted images, it always ends up with the images in my mind of "The lights go out in County Jail:eek:, Bubba nuzzles up to your ear...:eek::eek::eek::eek:" That thought...... keeps me an Honest Guy.....:D

[Martin Boekers]

I guess the simplest way to figure it out, is to think of it in these terms;

If you created something, wouldn't you at least like someone to ask you
if it was OK to use it whether in whole are part to make money with?

I think most of us would.

One thing I do get a kick out of is, that evrytime someone posts about
copyrights in a matter of minutes, there is 10-15 replies.:D


Marty

[Robert Walters]

I went to the Brother site (curiosity)

They sell a special home edition (consumer) embrodery
machine that does include Disney software. Some preloaded
and others available on "cards" about 25 files for a $125.00
or so.

I couldn't find anywhere on the site about limited liscensing
it was implied though, that it was only on a limited edition
consumer embrodery machine and for personal use.



Hi Martin,

Ok, here is the ENTIRE copyright legalese in the manual:

“This embroidery machine is intended for household use.”

That's it, there is no more (the rest is safety related).


Now, I called Brother and asked "What is the acceptable usage?"
and they referred me to their FAQs that say:

"The patterns stored in the machine and embroidery cards are intended for private use only. Any public or commercial use of copyrighted patterns is an infringement of copyright law and is strictly prohibited."


They were specifically talking about THEIR designs, and when asked about Disney's designs, they said to contact Disney.
But I'd suspect that the 'acceptable usage' would be the same for both in this situation.

I gave the scenario Grandma wants to make tshirts for all the kids that attend Lil Suzi's birthday party.
The rep said that's "public" and a no-no.

Then Grandma wants to make a SET of towels for Johnny going off to college.
That's private and acceptable.

So, I guess you have to PRIVATELY give the tshirts to each individual person that would be attending the party!

I can see it now in some dark corner of the playground...
"Hey kid, come here... You want a Mickey tshirt for free? it's good stuff!" LOL

(That just opens up a totally different set of legal issues we won't touch)

In the case of the SET of towels, they never mentioned limitations on quantities produced. And I specifically asked =)



Now, if the acceptable usage is purely based upon public versus private.
What does that entail for us engraving copyrighted material for a friend for use in his private home?

[Lee DeRaud]

I gave the scenario Grandma wants to make tshirts for all the kids that attend Lil Suzi's birthday party.
The rep said that's "public" and a no-no.

Then Grandma wants to make a SET of towels for Johnny going off to college.
That's private and acceptable.
...
Now, if the acceptable usage is purely based upon public versus private.
What does that entail for us engraving copyrighted material for a friend for use in his private home?Hmmph. My take on that is, either (1) all three scenarios are "public" as you have no control over when and where the items are displayed after they leave your hands, or (2) all three scenarios are "private" as the items are for the personal use of the people you gave them to.

Although, as is common in such situations, the guy you spoke to is almost certainly making it up as he goes along and doesn't have the authority to make a call on any given scenario in the first place.

[Robert Walters]

... the guy you spoke to is almost certainly making it up as he goes along and doesn't have the authority to make a call on any given scenario in the first place.

Well, it actually sounded like they get calls like this all the time and that they were told to keep the answers at ambiguous as they can given the situation.