cut&pasted to litigation??!!

[Simone_m]

Here is a story about a blogger who is being sued for copy-&-pasting a news photo to his blog.
http://www.myfox8.com/news/wghp-story-copyright-suit-110222,0,5323431.story

But I had always believed that you could not 'copy' out an item if it was not supposed to. There were times when I tried to copy something and this would merely simply not even work for me, because it was not supposed to. I just wanted to see what would happen.
So do I have to be exponnentially CAUTIOUS about any lighthearted photos (like from movies) I put in my post, like, in this forum? If that is so, then why don't they tweak a feature to lock it where it is, so I can't do that?

 

[hak]

As a professionally designer.. i know a tiny bit about copyright infringement and intellectual law.. simply to cover my own arse.
Just because you can do it, doesn't make it legal.

Never steal a photograph, illustration, image whathaveyou off the internet, from a friend, from a book etc...
I'm not sure about writings, but I think you can assume the same with that form of communication as well.
Code (as in CSS HTML Javascript) is also considered intellectual property. Music is intellectual property...

You MAY ask for permission to use an image in your blog/website/book/whatever. And if you are going to do that, you need written permission.
You can NEVER sell another intellectual property unless you have the express copyright..
If you use images of a person.. you should get written permission as well UNLESS it is a public figure taken in the public..
There are lots of companies that sell stock art and copyright free images.

Some images (old images) can be used copyright free.. i'm not sure how old they have to be. Copyright law is VERY strict in the US and as an artist I think that is awesome, but i do think it is a little crazy. The laws were lobbied by (guess who) Disney as well as others who would have much to lose financially if they lost control over their characters. But Disney is an obvious big player in copyright law.

Hope this helps.

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------

I recently had to fix someone's site because he received a letter regarding CR from Getty... i think because of the recession, it is turning into another revenue stream and people are getting hit harder, then they would normally

 

[Simone_m]

This has been a wake-up call for me. I --very much value/appreciate-- your input, I will think several times before even consider copypasting stuff like photos.

 

[hak]

That being said, it is VERY easy to get permission from someone... assuming the image is theirs. So asking NEVER hurts. And most people are flattered.

 

[tyder001]

There is a really good cartoonist linked from the Tim Binnal site that I linked a picture on my facebook account to. However, I emailed him and asked permission first. He was very polite and even appreciative that I would ask and he gave permission. I appreciate the heads up also and will continue to ask before posting links to art or other property. But what about photobucket or google images? I know many people just assume (I had before) that it's fine if it's a still of a celebrity or other public figure. This is something I had just never given much thought to so I'm glad for the info.

---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

Ya know from that first sentence on my post it's hard to believe that english is my mother tounge.

 

[hak]

I appreciate the heads up also and will continue to ask before posting links to art or other property. But what about photobucket or google images? I know many people just assume (I had before) that it's fine if it's a still of a celebrity or other public figure. This is something I had just never given much thought to so I'm glad for the info.

Tyler,
There are images and sites that have "royalty free" images see this site. And in general.. you can get great images for websites relatively cheap from istock, getty etc..
There are also old images in the library of congress that are either free, or have a small restriction or two.

However, if you pull an image off of any site on google.. say you go to my site and pull off an image, and I had paid for some stock art.. I have permission to use it not you, I paid for use of that image, you didn't. AND even though I paid for use of that image... in many cases I don't own that image. Most artists keep copyright over their images.

So the Getty people might be trolling through the Internets looking for images and run into your site and see that you are using said image. BAM copyright fine.. UGLY...
Rule of thumb.. don't use it if you don't know where it comes from.
If you run into a persons site with an amazing fabulous image.. send them an email and ask.

Also, because the economy is soo bad, larger companies will be looking for ways to make money, and what better way then praying off of other people's ignorance.

I just got a client because he went with a "web-professional" (and i use that term lightly) who stole images off the internet. A few years later, he gets a note in the mail from a lawyer working with Getty!!!! He was very lucky that they didn't prosecute him, rather they asked that he take the images down. Which we did. What the "web-professional" doesn't understand is that she can be held accountable for putting those images up on his site.

When I work on a site that require stock-art I keep that in a separate file, in case I get a letter from istock or whomever.

The copyright laws are meant to protect artist and creators, they have been pushed to absurdity due to Disney, or any other company that makes money from characters and artwork. I use to be, that if the art was 70 years old and beyond you could use it free. But Disney changed that maybe 10 years ago(?) since Mickey was climbing up in years.. I think (don't quote me) art goes in the public domain if it is 120 years old.

So.. short and sweet.. if you didn't pay for the rights to use it (and rights will vary depending on how much you pay, and how you want to use the artwork), and the image isn't 120 years old, and you didn't get it off a royalty free site or one of those clip art cd's (and even these you need to review the license) ... Don't use it!!!!

There are alot of artists on Deviant Art who make stuff and give it away for free, they just ask you to either link back to them, or tell them how you use it, or if you could give them a small donation.

hk

 

[mike]

All quite correct, and not to contradict the good advice, but i take photos of models etc and post them on the web, my avatar being an example.
I occasionally run accross those pics used elsewhere by others, and personally im flattered. i would never seek to impose some copywrite law on those who do.
My take is once you post it online, youve given it away, its a bit like painting a picture on a wall and complaining if people take a photo of it.

 

[hak]

My take is once you post it online, youve given it away, its a bit like painting a picture on a wall and complaining if people take a photo of it.

Mike,
How would you feel if someone took one of your images and started silk-screening it on t-shirts, mugs, whatever and
made 150,000 dollars off your image... and gave you nothing.
That is what lies at the heart of the issue. If you make your money on art or code or intellectual property of any kind, if people use it without giving you something that you deem appropriate in value then it is stealing.

I use to have the same idea as you about art/image/music on the internet, but I had to take a copyright law course in school (back in the day when copyright infringement cost a person only $100,000 ) and my perspectives changed quite dramatically. There was even a case in Ft. Lauderdale Florida where a pre-school had painted images of Mickey Mouse and other characters on the walls for the kids..
Disney made them take them down.

 

[mike]

I'd wish i'd thought of it first lol

As far as i know no one has made any money using any of the images ive posted, but if they did it would still be flattered they thought my image was worth using.
I personally would not begrudge anyone who used their initiative and made money with them, but thats just me. i can also appreciate why others might feel differently.

 

[NTS]

It's interesting how we view "intellectual" property differently from most other forms of it. If I make a table and give/sell it to someone (or even just leave it by a dumpster) I basically give up all rights to it. Whoever gets the table can pass it on to someone else, take it apart and use the pieces how he likes, or chop it up for firewood. He can even make copies of the table and sell them. "Intellectual property" is actually a very strange concept -- I've seen arguments that it's really a false combination of copyright, patent, and trademark laws that actually have little in common with each other [edited for link]:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

 

[hak]

It's interesting how we view "intellectual" property differently from most other forms of it. If I make a table and give/sell it to someone (or even just leave it by a dumpster) I basically give up all rights to it. Whoever gets the table can pass it on to someone else, take it apart and use the pieces how he likes, or chop it up for firewood. He can even make copies of the table and sell them. "Intellectual property" is actually a very strange concept -- I've seen arguments that it's really a false combination of copyright, patent, and trademark laws that actually have little in common with each other [edited for link]:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

The table analogy is kinda week. :frown: A table, in and of itself is nothing new or inventive and has been around for (i don't know but a long time). Your analogy is also overly simplistic for rather complicated laws that deal with intangibles. I'm not sure what Richard Stallman's, the writer of the article is arguing for or about, he throws out wordy statements, but doesn't back up his arguments, I'm sure if he did his article would be 20 times as long.

If there was something new and inventive about the table. Then you might be able to patent the new design, or new technology.

Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

From the not so great wiki..
​

To fully understand and appreciate laws that were made to protect people (and of course corporations) rights, you really need to become a lawyer. According to this site...

Intellectual property law is extraordinarily complex, and by its very nature, continuously evolving. Many registered patent attorneys represent themselves as intellectual property law attorneys, as opposed to merely patent attorneys.

I think "intellectual property" because it deals with intangible things, is fundamentally difficult to grasp. Personally, I just cover my 'arse. And use it to make money. As a freelancer, I can negotiate my copyrights away up to "work for hire." But since this is my income, I need to have a small understanding of my rights(and it is small).. right?

I'm done with this topic. People can argue for and against the law as much as they like. Laymen arguing about copyright law is borderline absurd honestly, we don't have enough knowledge and understanding to work with. People dedicate their whole lives to intellectual property law, so what do I know? Just enough to cover my arse!

 

[tyder001]

I think folks who write and do art and buy and sell for a living certainly have their right to make a living. However, once I buy a dvd or dc or a book I also have the right to lend it to somebody else. But, I also see the point in not posting the newest Stephen King novel or the latest music cd (sorry guys I'm 50+ so I'm not up on the newest muscial cd) However, when I see an out of print Jaques Vallee book or Penatraton by Swann on the internet for $300 a copy then I have no guilt at all in getting a copy from 4shared or some other source. Same thing when I see a long departed writer such as Raymond Chandler or John Mcdonald whose works no longer feed their families offered in a "limited" edition for $80. I also have a little "fudging" when I already have the "hardback" on my bookselve but no way to get it onto my Kindle or Ipod. However, if the price is reasonable and it's availiable I'll buy it again and download it. Also, I see books that I just will never shell out $16 bucks for on Kindle or Amazon so if I do (not saying I would) but if I did download them then I wouldn't have a real big guilt attack. I think this will self correct in the market as the concept of E-books and Digital movies and other content becomes more the natural way of delivery. Until then I guess we will have growing pains and you just have to follow your own sense of right and wrong...and be aware of copywright laws cause if ya break em you could get in trouble. Buyer and seller beware.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I think folks who write and do art and buy and sell for a living certainly have their right to make a living. However, once I buy a dvd or dc or a book I also have the right to lend it to somebody else. But, I also see the point in not posting the newest Stephen King novel or the latest music cd (sorry guys I'm 50+ so I'm not up on the newest muscial cd) However, when I see an out of print Jaques Vallee book or Penatraton by Swann on the internet for $300 a copy then I have no guilt at all in getting a copy from 4shared or some other source. Same thing when I see a long departed writer such as Raymond Chandler or John Mcdonald whose works no longer feed their families offered in a "limited" edition for $80. I also have a little "fudging" when I already have the "hardback" on my bookselve but no way to get it onto my Kindle or Ipod. However, if the price is reasonable and it's availiable I'll buy it again and download it. Also, I see books that I just will never shell out $16 bucks for on Kindle or Amazon so if I do (not saying I would) but if I did download them then I wouldn't have a real big guilt attack. I think this will self correct in the market as the concept of E-books and Digital movies and other content becomes more the natural way of delivery. Until then I guess we will have growing pains and you just have to follow your own sense of right and wrong...and be aware of copywright laws cause if ya break em you could get in trouble. Buyer and seller beware.

Regardless of your attitude, it doesn't change the fact that posting someone's intellectual property is ILLEGAL.

 

[hak]

OMG why am I still here??

Tyler, there is such a thing as "Fair Use," which does outline your rights to use copyrighted material.

The real issue to any of this is.. making money off of someone else's work, without giving them compensation.... that's the real problem.

That music that gets played in the elevator.. that has to be paid for!! That music you might hear in the coffee shop, they have to pay for rights to broadcast it to their customers.... and eventually (down a long chain), the copyright owners of that song.. make some money everytime someone uses it. See ACAP.

Though, you do pose a good question about these "rare books".... but perhaps their value is no longer associated with the writing, so much as the publishing, and make.. I think that is a whole different ball of wax. I can guarantee you the authors of books do not make the living you would think they do, unless they are very famous (Stephen King). And life seems to be getting more and more expensive these days. :frown:

There is another arena for art or intellectual property that becomes important to a society, it is part of the "commons." And if something has been around long enough, it goes into public domain.

See how crazy complicated this stuff becomes?? I would never want to become a lawyer. blah.

I wouldn't get to crazy about this law.. unless it is your business, or your taking images off the internet and doing things with them and selling them. OR putting them on your website and getting sued by Getty Images which is how this conversation started anyways. OR having a public event where you will play music (then you have to contact ACAP).

Buyer and seller beware.. YEP.

I have mixed feelings about these laws, they are great when they protect artists, but I think the fines are ridiculous.. $150,000.00!!!. And then there are some things that SHOULDN'T be copyrighted because they are natural and already exist.. like genomes.. Drug companies and Monsanto are really pushing the envelope on these things, to the point of being (in my opinion) criminal. Large monopolies are using these laws in very corrupt ways.

 

[tyder001]

I would never, ever sell anybody else's work as my own or make a profit. I do understand the point Angel is making and I do understand that most writers don't get rich. I also support the writers on Amazon and other sites who are selling their work as cheaply as they can while trying to estabablish themselves. I also stand by what I said about gouging somebody for an out of print "digital" copy of somebody else's work. Still, I think I will stick to what I pay for from now on. It's much less taxing on my conscieounce. I also still say that the market will correct itself one of these days. Digital (imo) is where things seem to be headed at the moment. So, packaging cost will have to be adjusted.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

Regardless of your attitude, it doesn't change the fact that posting someone's intellectual property is ILLEGAL.

As I said before I have Never, ever "posted" anybodies work for profit or otherwise.

 

[hak]

I trust your judgment Tyler. Just not Angelo's (hahahaha) okay just kidding. Your right Digital books do seem to be overly expensive.... i wonder why??

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I trust your judgment Tyler. Just not Angelo's (hahahaha) okay just kidding. Your right Digital books do seem to be overly expensive.... i wonder why??

Funny. But we can all agree that using someone's intellectual property for your own gain is illegal. That's all I'm saying.

 

[hak]

But we can all agree that using someone's intellectual property for your own gain is illegal. That's all I'm saying.

Totally!