I need clarification on copyright, ethics, eye candy and googling.

[Cathy Wendler]

I understand the more direct issues about copyright, but what about public domain? Or What about magazine pictures--technically using advertisement pictures-is it OK. They paid that actor/actress/painter, furniture designer/dog/cat/bird/mouse a fee, so can you use it as part of a collage where you tear bits and then cover something? People have been doing it for years, is it OK?

What about googling other sites for eye candy. If you see something that give you and idea and you run with it, is that OK? I'm talking arty type work, not remaking something for sale, like hijacking someone's Etsy art and selling it yourself and only changing the color.

What about scrapbook papers/paper design sets? OK to use them as you will? If it is in a magazine or you buy some, can you them re-copy them as you wish? I'm thinking about buying a set of design sets with sillhouettes of birds---can I then use those sillhouettes and trace them on my own paper?

What about lifting photos from photobucket. If someone doesn't lock their albums and you can view them, does that imply permission for you do whatever you want with them?

I notice lots of people giving permission on their blogs to use their work if you give a link or something back to them. Is that necessary in things like our challenges or just if you are selling something?

If an item is wildly spread over the internet, like domino art, then do you have to cite your source of you idea? Or if a class is taught on line or in a craft store, and you see the craft item EVERYWHERE, do you need to list your source or get permission?

This is what I get for surfing for hours tonight cuz I'm home alone .... my brain is about to burst.

[Kim Newberg aka imagesbykim]

ohhh boy Cathy, this is a huge topic.

I will have to save my comment for the weekend.

The best thing I can tell you right now is when in doubt don't use it.

But please let me go through this better when I have a little more time. It is a very good topic and deserves lots of attention.

kim

[Fidgetrainbowtree]

yup, I agree with Kim - this is a HUGE issue - one I've tried tackling here:
http://fidgetrainbowtree.wordpress.com/resources-public-domain/

I'm sure most people won't kick up a fuss if you use their work in a collage that you're not going to sell - but have credited them on it. I know that if someone uses my photography in their collages etc. I'm fine as long as I receive credit, however, woebetide (?) any one who uses my photography to sell - as a couple of people on Etsy will attest to!

There are SO many free public domain images out there that there is absolutely no need to go stepping on any toes!
However, I think Kim is planning a more indepth response so I'll leave it to her!

[Cathy Wendler]

I found this chart at http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/links/clipart.html It had lots of links and I don't think they'll copy over to here. But here goes ....

Quick Reference- Public Domain Criteria


Date of Work
Protected
Term

Created 1/1/78 or after
When work is fixed in tangible medium of expression
Life + 70 years (or if work of
corporate authorship, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation

Published before 1923
In public domain
None

Published from 1923 - 1963
When published with notice
28 years + could be renewed for 47 years, now extended by 20 years for a total renewal of 67 years. If not so renewed, now in public domain

Published from 1964 - 1977
When published with notice
28 years for first term; now automatic extension of 67 years for second term

Created before 1/1/78 but not published
1/1/78, the effective date of the 1976 Act which eliminated common law copyright
Life + 70 years or 12/31/2002, whichever is greater

Created before 1/1/78 but published between then and 12-31-2002
1/1/78, the effective date of the 1976 Act which eliminated common law copyright Life + 70 years or 12/31/2047
whichever is greater

[Cathy Wendler]

another chart i found, from cornell univ: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

[John Dyhouse]

One thing I have problems with is magazine images:-

If it is of a recognisable person / brand / location then I do not use it. A definite no-no.

If I use a portion of an image which is difficult to recognise, especially if it is altered or used as part of a collage / background... then I have been considering it be OK....... I see lots of "art stuff" identifying images as FOUND magazine images. Should I reconsider my attitude to this. After all lit has been published and someone must undoubtedly hold a copyright. Is this fair use ?

Does anyone have any views on this?

[Kim Newberg aka imagesbykim]

Magazine clips are just as much a copyright infringement.

More often than not, the magazine company has purchased the rights to use an image, art or photograph from a private artist and that artist or photographer (just like you or I ) holds the rights.

Here is an example:
If a photographer takes your picture and asks you for a model release, and you sign it, you are giving the rights to your image to the photographer. So if the photographer sells it to a magazine, it is the photographer that makes the royalty not you.
Now you may have given your release for a monetary return so you must live with it and enjoy what you received, but remember it could come back and bite you in the "proverbial" 10 years down the road.

But even though it is a picture of you, you have no right to it. The photographer owns it. So if you take the image of a pretty girl from a magazine and use it in your art and publicly publish it which includes displaying it on the web on a forum, not only have you infringed on the photographer that owns the rights to the photo, but you have infringed on the rights of the model who's likeness you have used.

You may think oh what the heck, it is not like I made any money from it, but that doesnt matter. The person may not want you to use their likeness for any million different reasons. Religious beliefs, moral issues etc. The list is endless. Imagine if someone used a picture of your teenage daughter in an art piece or even a magazine that promoted a sexual orientation that was not acceptable to your family, it is no different than taking the image of that pretty girl and using her in some art piece. And going back to the original magazine, even if the model gave you permission it is not her right to give permission once she has released her image to the rights of the photographer. Because no matter what, the photographer still owns the rights to the photograph.

Depending on the contract between model and photographer, even the photographer may be limited to his rights too.

A model can sign a release that doesn't allow her likeness to be used in cigarette or alcohol advertisements because they are totally against both products because of religious beliefs. If the photographer sells the image, he/she must continue to stipulate the usage rights in the contract. So if you come along and create a collage with the model and a bottle of beer and make some joke about what a great party blah blah blah, you could cause personal embarrassment to her, her family, her friends etc.making it seem that she drinks, even though you don't actually have the beer bottle in her hands. Yeah that's a lawsuit I wouldn't want to get involved with.......

Now on the other hand if a photographer takes pictures of you at your wedding, you own the rights to your image, but he owns the rights to his photos. So he can NOT sell your image without your permission but at the same time, you can't take those photographs and make copies without paying him a commission/royalty. Don't get caught up in the wedding photographer contract either, read the fine print, because you may be signing away the rights to your likeness before the wedding pictures are even in print.

Hope this make some sense.

Ohhh and just for the record, the "I didn't know" doesn't stand up in court period! When it comes to copyright, you are pretty much guilty and ignorance will not save your butt!

k



John Dyhouse said:

One thing I have problems with is magazine images:-
If it is of a recognisable person / brand / location then I do not use it. A definite no-no.
If I use a portion of an image which is difficult to recognise, especially if it is altered or used as part of a collage / background... then I have been considering it be OK....... I see lots of "art stuff" identifying images as FOUND magazine images. Should I reconsider my attitude to this. After all lit has been published and someone must undoubtedly hold a copyright. Is this fair use ?

Does anyone have any views on this?

[Cathy Wendler]

Remember the good old days when we were kids and you cut up magazines, pasted in on something and everyone was happy????!

[John Dyhouse]

I did a little reading on "fair use" and it appears that it is a very misunderstood phrase. It only applies for "review, criticism, illustration of a lesson, or quotation in a scholarly or technical work. Creation of an art work for its own artistic merits doesn't get a mention.

I will have to review the inclusion of one or two of my atc's, after due consideration I have deleted about half-a-dozen photos from my collection on the site. I believe I am now squeaky clean.

Here is another question?

How many people use say, cloth or wallpaper in their art work? Are these not protected by copyright, they are somebodies designs?

[Cathy Wendler]

I've said it a million time to Kim, and I'll say it here now: I HATE this topic it drives me insane. And I know I started it, cuz like lots of us, I have a keen interest in staying out of jail and/or litigation. Yes, I understand protecting your work and all, but when you start considering all the implications, it just leaves me in a corner, gibbering and frothing! At what point can we say, enough already?? Accckkkkkkk. If I step on a gum wrapper and then accidently take a picture of my new shoes to show you, and don't notice the wrapper, am I then infringing on someone's copyright by PUBLISHING? My head hurts.

[Kim Newberg aka imagesbykim]

Yes this is a very intense topic and we will always need clarification on stuff.

John my take on the wallpaper and fabric is mixed because you would use it for some type of creation or production.
Wall paper is not just for walls. Same with scrapbook papers.

Most companies that produce such products have angel policies that allow you to use them for crafts and art for resale.
However, that doesnt mean that it is a free for all. You can not digitally reproduce wall paper or fabric and sell it as collage sheet backgrounds. That would be an infringement to both the designers and companies. Again, often designers are independant and hired only for their design on a certain project. Other designers work in house and all of their designs belong to the company. Yet other designers work full time for one company as in house designers and still own the rights to all of their work.

Some fabrics are licensed for personal usage only and do not allow for resale of the finished product.
So when in doubt, contact the company and find out what their angel policy is. Many companies post their policies right on their website.

Having said that, depending on some fabrics, if you are scanning for texture, how on earth would a company keep tabs on every piece of fabric and by the time it is scanned, colorized and reworked, most are unrecognizable.
but I wouldnt rush out to use some Disney fabric for any project. I am so disappointed in the whole Disney copyright thing, I wont even buy one of their licensed products LOL.

The whole issue of copyright infringement on many of these things is not the using it for your creations but the publishing and redistribution of prints and finished art as your own creation when it really is only a collage of many artists or a rendition of someone else's work
You can still create with these items just dont publish it or try to make money in a public way.
Publishing your art is as simple as uploading an image of the finished product for all to see. Once it is on the internet, it is published!
Now most artists are far more lenient when it comes to usage of their art and designs but there will always be the one that resents you making money off of their art. Then there are the ones that want credit for everything!!!! Gosh, I have images in my collection that I cant remember where they came from so I only use them for personal stuff because heaven forbid I should forget to credit someone..

I keep a huge box of papers that I use for creating tags, gift cards, art etc that I have no intensions of publishing. I give these as gifts, or use for art swaps etc. That is reasonably acceptable but I am sure even that could be questioned, but then as Cathy said above, at what point is pasting and cutting from magazines such a bad thing when it comes to watching these magazines end up in landfills for years and years.
I would rather give a child a magazine glue and scissors anyday over a preprinted coloring book. But what happens when you post it on your facebook to show your friends and family what little Lucy or Bobby created? Is it now a copyright infringement? Yes but who would stoop so low to fight it?
Then again there was supposedly a Disney incident that was not much more than that and they took it to court to make a point. (still not totally convinced on that one, it might be one of those urban myths)

So I dont know where it stops.

I have ideas in my head that it bothers me when I see someone else has already created it or made it better. So have they infringe on my brain thoughts LOL? (please don't answer that one LOL)

anyway this topic is just to make us all aware of what we should be watching for in our own work and I think it is up to the individual to decide how comfortable they feel using copyright images.
I can not control everything that everyone does, but when I specifically see an infringement then yes, I will remove the item and let you know why as much as possible.

k

[Cathy Wendler]

Another good link with info on copyright and myths, plus the links where she found the info so you can draw your own conclusions. Click HERE