Copyright Myths

[maragaine]

copy right

Hi, we are fairly new to lit, but have posted a lot of pictures, I am considering putting a copyright mark on the photos I will be posting on a new thread.. If i do, and you all notice it will you delete the pics before you see that is the posters c logo or ck 1st before you delete?

My mark is below

 

[ShyGuy68]

Re: copy right

Hi, we are fairly new to lit, but have posted a lot of pictures, I am considering putting a copyright mark on the photos I will be posting on a new thread.. If i do, and you all notice it will you delete the pics before you see that is the posters c logo or ck 1st before you delete?

My mark is below

Hi there Maragaine

As long as we know that it's your own pictures that you post, I as a moderator won't delete them. So go ahead and post, and have fun with them!

 

[Chicklet]

Curious about Av's now

Why can we have copyrighted images as Av's??

 

[ShyGuy68]

Chicklet as far as I know, we can't. But I can't do anything about people using those av's.

 

[Chicklet]

Chicklet as far as I know, we can't. But I can't do anything about people using those av's.

 

[Soylent]

I am an artist, on a few different levels, one of them happens to be computer graphics and photo manipulation that being said I would like to add, that a photo, if changed in three ways, is no longer the original image and thereby not the copyrighted photo, what this means is, I can take any picture, say for the sake of this discussion I take the cover from dr strangelove, and change it, in three distinct manners, lets say a filter, and colorize it, then well take a smudge stick to it, and change the expression on the face, now for all intents and purposes this is now MY picture, and no longer the copyrighted image, it has now become whats called my intellectual property, im not saying any of this applies to home taken images it clearly doesent, unless they arent your pictures

 

[hardluck]

I am an artist, on a few different levels, one of them happens to be computer graphics and photo manipulation that being said I would like to add, that a photo, if changed in three ways, is no longer the original image and thereby not the copyrighted photo, what this means is, I can take any picture, say for the sake of this discussion I take the cover from dr strangelove, and change it, in three distinct manners, lets say a filter, and colorize it, then well take a smudge stick to it, and change the expression on the face, now for all intents and purposes this is now MY picture, and no longer the copyrighted image, it has now become whats called my intellectual property, im not saying any of this applies to home taken images it clearly doesent, unless they arent your pictures

This is a common misconception, but is not in any way, shape or
form the legal standard for determining what is or is not a
"copy" for copyright purposes.

What you've described is more likely a derivative work of the
original and would likely be actionable if used without the
original owner's consent.

Unfortunately, in intellectual property law, as with most areas
of the law, there is not anything quite as simple as "change it
in three ways" rule. Not trying to slam you or anything like
that, just wanted to set the record straight.

 

[jon.hayworth]

Without seeing the finished work I would say that from Soylent's description of the process I agree with Hardluck's opinion.

The process Soylent describes would appear to be the visual equivelant of "Sampling".

As this is site is predominately involved in the written word, allow me to give another example. It would be the same as taking someones story - shuffling a few chapters and using a Thesaurus to change some words - and that certainly is an infringement of copyright.


Allow me to assure you Soylent ,whoever gave you that opinion was either, an idiot or a lawyer who is hoping to represent you when someone drags you through the courts - and I dont think it will be on a No Win No Fee basis!

Remember copyright infringement is theft no matter how you try to camouflage it.

 

[Soylent]

Without seeing the finished work I would say that from Soylent's description of the process I agree with Hardluck's opinion.

The process Soylent describes would appear to be the visual equivelant of "Sampling".

As this is site is predominately involved in the written word, allow me to give another example. It would be the same as taking someones story - shuffling a few chapters and using a Thesaurus to change some words - and that certainly is an infringement of copyright.


Allow me to assure you Soylent ,whoever gave you that opinion was either, an idiot or a lawyer who is hoping to represent you when someone drags you through the courts - and I dont think it will be on a No Win No Fee basis!

Remember copyright infringement is theft no matter how you try to camouflage it.

allow me to assure you that I appreciate your input here, but I would like to point you in this direction

Copyright 1998 by J. Dianne Brinson and Mark F. Radcliffe

"You don't need a license to use a copyrighted work in three circumstances: (1) if your use is fair use; (2) if the work you use is in the public domain; or (3) if the material you use is factual or an idea.

Fair Use
You don't need a license to use a copyrighted work if your use is "fair use." Unfortunately, it is difficult to tell whether a particular use of a work is fair or unfair. Determinations are made on a case-by-case basis by considering four factors:

Factor #1: Purpose and character of use. The courts are most likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes, such as a book review.
Factor #2: Nature of the copyrighted work. The courts are most likely to find fair use where the copied work is a factual work rather than a creative one.
Factor #3: Amount and substantiality of the portion used. The courts are most likely to find fair use where what is used is a tiny amount of the protected work. If what is used is small in amount but substantial in terms of importance, a finding of fair use is unlikely.
Factor #4: Effect on the potential market for or value of the protected work. The courts are most likely to find fair use where the new work is not a substitute for the copyrighted work.
If your multimedia work serves traditional "fair use" purposes - criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research - you have a better chance of falling within the bounds of fair use than you do if your work is a sold to the public for entertainment purposes and for commercial gain.

Public Domain
You don't need a license to use a public domain work. Public domain works - works not protected by copyright - can be used by anyone. Because these works are not protected by copyright, no one can claim the exclusive rights of copyright for such works. For example, the plays of Shakespeare are in the public domain. Works enter the public domain in several ways: because the term of the copyright expired, because the copyright owner failed to "renew" his copyright under the old Copyright Act of 1909, or because the copyright owner failed to properly use copyright notice (of importance only for works created before March 1, 1989, at which time copyright notice became optional). The rules regarding what works are in the public domain are too complex for this primer, and they vary from country to country."

Copyright 1998 by J. Dianne Brinson and Mark F. Radcliffe

As you have probably gathered there are many ways to interpret copyright infringement, I would also like to point out I was niether counselled by a lawyer, nor any idiot I may have run across, these things are outlined in whats known as Multimedia Law and Business Handbook and Internet Legal Forms for Business .
"It would be the same as taking someones story - shuffling a few chapters and using a Thesaurus to change some words - and that certainly is an infringement of copyright."
...so it would seem, unless you happened to be rearranging Shakespeare, or any number of other "public domain" works, but of course, you knew that , right ?

 

[jon.hayworth]

Soylent,

First point have you read the article Laurel directs everyone to -
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

I ask because in part your reply related to laws that have been superceeded by the Internationally agreed Berne Convention.
I would suggest that the fair use provisions do not apply when you use the work to digitally alter it. - It is no longer being used as a teaching tool (this means an example) or for criticism.

The final problem is commercial use - as an example. If you put your work on Lit - you receive no payment, but it is still being exhibited for gain, Lit gets paid for the Banner Ads on the page so although you do not get paid someone does.

I agree I can take chunks of Shakespeare and use it because there is no copyright. However I have to be careful - some clever publishers alter a few words to catch out people who use their text, which is copyrighted.

Your problem as a visual artist is, say for instance, you use a photograph of a painting by Raphael to alter - you are altering the Photo not the painting - fine if you took the photo but if someone else took it then they own the copyright to that image.

Complicated I know, but then if the law was not complicated lawyers would not make vast amounts of money.


jon

 

[Latinababe]

been answered so I took off the question

 

[primes]

Re: Re: copy right

Hi there Maragaine

As long as we know that it's your own pictures that you post, I as a moderator won't delete them. So go ahead and post, and have fun with them!

what if i post photos i have licensed to others to use, but I also retained the right for self-use (i.e., posting/publishing)? is it ok for me to post them?

 

[jon.hayworth]

Re: Re: Re: copy right

what if i post photos i have licensed to others to use, but I also retained the right for self-use (i.e., posting/publishing)? is it ok for me to post them?

If you have retained the Rights to those photographs.

If you have not assigned the Rights to those photographs.

The Rights belong to you.

However does your License Agreement contain any clauses that prevent you from publishing them? - i.e. I own the copyright to my stories including the ones I sell to a pay site, but that agreement also carries a clause that prevents me publishing those stories for 7 years after they have been published on the site.

If such an agreement exists then you are locked by it, but there is a loophole - I assume like most photographers you shoot rolls of film to achieve the perfect shot, many I know use motor drives shooting 3 or more fps - a publisher buys a picture created from one negative or digital image but may not have bought the next nearly identical frame image. Unless the lock-in is very well worded the unsold frames are not locked.

Confused??? - Take it - if you retain the Rights. Read your agreement carefully, and there is no agreement to the contrary you can use them.

jon

 

[primes]

thanks for the advice

the agreement i signed says if i choose to use the photos already licensed, and if they were licensed on an exclusive basis, i can't modify the copyright notice of that licensee. however, if they were not licensed on an exclusive basis, i get to fix my copyright notice on them

so i guess as long as i don't modify the copyright notice, i am free to use (post), sounds fair to me as the licensee is getting free publicity from my posting

 

[primes]

actually, av's are just thumbnails, there was a court case in the last couple of years clearly setting precedent that thumbnails are fair use, thus not a violation of copyright, i wish i had the case number off the top of my head, but then i am not an attorney, thank god

 

[KillerMuffin]

Re: Curious about Av's now

Why can we have copyrighted images as Av's??

Actually, I can answer that one. It has more to do with the amount of time Laurel would have to spend babysitting the forums than anything else.

She has three choices regarding avs:

1. She can give someone else administration privs (only she and Manu have those now) and they can get into people's accounts and remove the avatars. This is a 24/7 job because a growing number of people don't believe in intellectual property. The outcry would be heinous.

2. She can shut off the avatar feature altogether, no one gets any. So they'll hotlink the images in the location area instead as they did prior to this particular version of vBulletin and they'll screw up the forum's formatting, they'll be impossible for individual users to block so we'd all have to look at them whether we wanted to or not, and they'll be whatever size the user wants them to be. This was a tremendous problem.

3. She can carry on as she has been, encouraging people to respect copyright (like that'll ever happen) and removing avatars she gets cease and desist notices in regards to.

The gist of it is that it is against the rules to use a copyrighted avatar. It's also impossible to enforce that rule. It is against the rules to upload copyrighted images. It is not difficult to enforce that rule so it's enforced. You can rest assured that as soon as it becomes possible to enforce the anti-copyrighted av rule, it will be enforced as well.

Does that clear things up?

actually, av's are just thumbnails, there was a court case in the last couple of years clearly setting precedent that thumbnails are fair use, thus not a violation of copyright, i wish i had the case number off the top of my head, but then i am not an attorney, thank god

Interesting. The site has gotten C&D notices in regards to someone's avatar, not just the uploaded pics.


*********


Yes, Lit gets C&D notices from the copyrighted pictures the users upload onto their servers.

 

[Ze Mad Zientist]

So does this mean that any picture I've taken of myself and posted is copyrighted, and therefor can't be used without my permission? I guess maybe that's a question I should have asked before posting my pics, but it'd still be nice to know.

It *does* mean that.

 

[Jason28sexy]