Did I violate Copyright or Fair use?

[Locals Find!]

Here is a question I have based off another thread about fair use.

I purchased a photo (image #1) from a image site. Royalty free image. Now I used vectorized that image and created a derivative work from that image for a clients artwork.

Did I violate copyright or fair use by using the artists original image to make a derivative work?

Here is a copy of my license. I know that I can't use the original image elsewhere without paying for an additional license, i.e. websites, t-shirts, etc...

My question is does the license still apply to my derivative work & does my derivative work violate any copyright or fair use laws even if they aren't listed specifically in the license if I choose to use the derivative work elsewhere?

My client has expressed an interest in having this printed on canvas to be framed and hung.

A copy of the license can be found here

Look forward to opinions on this matter.

 

[VinylLabs.com]

I think with those licenses you can create one-off images, but you need the extended license for derivitive work to sell en-mass.

f. Use Images as prints, posters, postcards (i.e. a hardcopy) and other reproductions for your own personal use and display, including display in commercial settings, provided such hardcopies are not resold or otherwise distributed;

 

[iSign]

I'm not sure if "image #1" implies that you were intending to include the 2 thumbnail images here again, but in any case, I think that would help.

From memory, the image I recall, yours was not so much a derivative as it was an exact copy. You mentioned vectorizing it, but if the image looks the same, then as far as images go, I would say it is the same. As far as file formats it may be different, but the tree looked like the same tree, except flipped maybe. (from memory)

I used vectorized that image and created a derivative work from that image for a clients artwork..

so, what exactly does "clients artwork" mean? Do they fancy this to be their logo now... wanting it on canvas? I think the single use might have allowed you to make one banner, or some such one time use product... but you did that, and the gig is up on that purchase. I also think you already understand the single use license, but just wonder about the possibility of a derivative image being exempt.

Personally, I don't think your second image is anywhere near a derivative. I think it is still someone else's intellectual property, that has been flipped & vectorized... and used once already...

 

[Locals Find!]

Oops! Its been one of those days.

To answer your question about the clients second use. They want to hang it as a piece of artwork in the office. Not so much as a logo just a piece of generic artwork.

 

[iSign]

well, I still wouldn't call it a "derivative work" myself.... but considering the limited exposure, non commercial nature of an office canvas... I'd probably sell him this second print... BUT, I would use it as an excuse to explain the single use license agreement that you probably didn't mention before... that way you do a little preventative maintenance against him wanting to make other stuff with that image down the road...

 

[HulkSmash]

first of all, it looks like the original supplier of the photo just live traced an existing photo. So its possible he or she might have broken copy write laws if it wasnt their own photo.

I remember Fred posting a example of this a while back, involving a motorcycle and it being vectorized

 

[signmeup]

How about this: I hand vectorized a photo of a car(as opposed to an auto trace). I took the photo myself. Is the "artwork" mine to do with as I please? I'm pretty sure if I took an easel and canvas to the place the car was and painted it, it would be my copyrighted artwork. Or if I photographed the car I could sell prints of it as a "photographer" couldn't I? (I don't want to get in trouble.)

 

[WildWestDesigns]

How about this: I hand vectorized a photo of a car(as opposed to an auto trace). I took the photo myself. Is the "artwork" mine to do with as I please? I'm pretty sure if I took an easel and canvas to the place the car was and painted it, it would be my copyrighted artwork. Or if I photographed the car I could sell prints of it as a "photographer" couldn't I? (I don't want to get in trouble.)

I would say it depends on what the picture is of.

My mom had a friend that took a picture of a tree that looked an awful lot like the pebble beach tree that they use on their logos.

As far as I know it wasn't the same one, I don't know if it truly was or it wasn't. But boy did she get into trouble when she took that picture and turned it into a block of fabric for a quilt she did. I don't know if she tried to sell it or not, but if I recall correctly it was at the Houston Quilt Festival and that's how they got wind of it.

 

[jasonx]

I would say it depends on what the picture is of.

My mom had a friend that took a picture of a tree that looked an awful lot like the pebble beach tree that they use on their logos.

As far as I know it wasn't the same one, I don't know if it truly was or it wasn't. But boy did she get into trouble when she took that picture and turned it into a block of fabric for a quilt she did. I don't know if she tried to sell it or not, but if I recall correctly it was at the Houston Quilt Festival and that's how they got wind of it.

I think this is a trade mark issue not a copy right issue.

 

[phototec]

Here is a question I have based off another thread about fair use.

I purchased a photo (image #1) from a image site. Royalty free image. Now I used vectorized that image and created a derivative work from that image for a clients artwork.

Did I violate copyright or fair use by using the artists original image to make a derivative work?

Simple answer is YES you are violating the single-user, single-seat license, and I think you know you are, because you are asking this question.

That was NOT your image to vectorize, and just because you thought you were clever, and flipped the image, it is still the EXACT image and you have violated the single use agreement.


GENERAL TERMS

2. This Agreement grants you a single-user, single-seat license. This license shall not be used simultaneously on multiple devices, or at any time by multiple persons. This license is assignable one time to an employee or agent of yours, provided that you provide no less than 10 days prior written of such assignment to Shutterstock.

3. Each separate use of an Image downloaded hereunder requires a separate payment. For example, if an Image is used as part of a website design and in a business card, the Image license must be paid for two times. This is accomplished by downloading and paying for the Image as many times as necessary. Using an Image in multiple products without purchasing separate licenses for such uses is a violation of this Agreement and might expose you to liability for copyright infringement.


Below is an example of how you can get in trouble for modifying a copyrighted image (if you didn't create the image, it belongs to someone else), and modifying it, this person will be paying damages.

http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=2536

 

[Locals Find!]

Simple answer is YES you are violating the single-user, single-seat license, and I think you know you are, because you are asking this question.

That was NOT your image to vectorize, and just because you thought you were clever, and flipped the image, it is still the EXACT image and you have violated the single use agreement.


GENERAL TERMS

2. This Agreement grants you a single-user, single-seat license. This license shall not be used simultaneously on multiple devices, or at any time by multiple persons. This license is assignable one time to an employee or agent of yours, provided that you provide no less than 10 days prior written of such assignment to Shutterstock.

3. Each separate use of an Image downloaded hereunder requires a separate payment. For example, if an Image is used as part of a website design and in a business card, the Image license must be paid for two times. This is accomplished by downloading and paying for the Image as many times as necessary. Using an Image in multiple products without purchasing separate licenses for such uses is a violation of this Agreement and might expose you to liability for copyright infringement.


Below is an example of how you can get in trouble for modifying a copyrighted image (if you didn't create the image, it belongs to someone else), and modifying it, this person will be paying damages.

http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=2536

I have only used the image in the product I purchased the image for use in. The back of the business card.

So vectorization of the image to make it usable in the design is a violation of both the license and copyright??

 

[phototec]

I have only used the image in the product I purchased the image for use in. The back of the business card.

So vectorization of the image to make it usable in the design is a violation of both the license and copyright??

YES, the image is NOT yours to vectorize, just like the case below, you can't take a image off the internet and vectorize it and call it yours.

http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Order-on-MSJ.pdf


Did you read the post about the pebble beach tree that they used on their logos?

I'm just say'n, you are not suppose to copy other peoples work, in any form or media. I know some do, and most alter the image, so it's not recognizable to the originator, however, like it has been pointed out, flipping the image did NOT alter it, it's just a reverse of the same image.

You are in Florida right, land of palm trees, why not just drive around and find a similar group of palms, take a digital image and vectorized it like you did of the licensed image? That way it's you image to do as you wish!

 

[mikey-Oh]

You are in Florida right, land of palm trees, why not just drive around and find a similar group of palms, take a digital image and vectorized it like you did of the licensed image? That way it's you image to as you wish!

+1

 

[Locals Find!]

YES, the image is NOT yours to vectorize, just like the case below, you can't take a image off the internet and vectorize it and call it yours.

http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Order-on-MSJ.pdf


Did you read the post about the pebble beach tree that they used on their logos?

I'm just say'n, you are not suppose to copy other peoples work, in any form or media. I know some do, and most alter the image, so it's not recognizable to the originator, however, like it has been pointed out, flipping the image did NOT alter it, it's just a reverse of the same image.

You are in Florida right, land of palm trees, why not just drive around and find a similar group of palms, take a digital image and vectorized it like you did of the licensed image? That way it's you image to do as you wish!

So even though I purchased the license to make the business card with the image. I am not free to edit the image to make it work for the intended purpose it was licensed for?

 

[bob]

I would say it depends on what the picture is of.

My mom had a friend that took a picture of a tree that looked an awful lot like the pebble beach tree that they use on their logos.

As far as I know it wasn't the same one, I don't know if it truly was or it wasn't. But boy did she get into trouble when she took that picture and turned it into a block of fabric for a quilt she did. I don't know if she tried to sell it or not, but if I recall correctly it was at the Houston Quilt Festival and that's how they got wind of it.

Show them your original photo and tell them to pound sand.

Most of all pre-action legal threatening is huffing and puffing. The law is what you can convince a court it is.

 

[Gino]

I honestly don't see any argument here. Simply flipping from right to left is not changing a thing. Selling it to an end-used violates more than just your agreement with that picture site. It violates your commitment to give your client something original.

Here’s my beef. You’ve been doing this kinda stuff from the time you’ve been here and asking the same questions over and over with the same results…. but hoping for sympathy or forgiveness.​

You copy things and then want us to assure you you’ve done nothing wrong, when in fact…. you came here several times asking for help on how to create such things from scratch. This is hardly ‘From Scratch’. You did it with your website and fought us tooth and nail that you didn’t copy or plagiarize a thing and yet it was riddled with so much stuff that wasn't remotely yours, yet you claimed it was. By the way.... have you removed all of that illegal stuff, yet ??

Addie, you’re whole being is about taking short cuts you know to be wrong and then trying to back-pedal out of it with some kind of lame reasoning.

Most of all, you are not being honest with yourself, let alone your style, your customers, or us, so why do you continue this sort of crap and expect different outcomes ??

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Show them your original photo and tell them to pound sand.

Most of all pre-action legal threatening is huffing and puffing. The law is what you can convince a court it is.

Very very true. However, two problems.

1. It wasn't me. So I don't know if the photo was truly of the tree that they use for the logo or not.

2. I doubt she could have afforded to argue her point.

You are right, most of it is to see the threshold of risk that people have and what they value the possible outcomes, but even if you believe that you are right, can you afford to get to that point to show whomever you have to show that you are in fact in the right.

"It's not what you believe, it's what you can prove".

 

[Locals Find!]

I honestly don't see any argument here. Simply flipping from right to left is not changing a thing. Selling it to an end-used violates more than just your agreement with that picture site. It violates your commitment to give your client something original.

Here’s my beef. You’ve been doing this kinda stuff from the time you’ve been here and asking the same questions over and over with the same results…. but hoping for sympathy or forgiveness.​

You copy things and then want us to assure you you’ve done nothing wrong, when in fact…. you came here several times asking for help on how to create such things from scratch. This is hardly ‘From Scratch’. You did it with your website and fought us tooth and nail that you didn’t copy or plagiarize a thing and yet it was riddled with so much stuff that wasn't remotely yours, yet you claimed it was. By the way.... have you removed all of that illegal stuff, yet ??

Addie, you’re whole being is about taking short cuts you know to be wrong and then trying to back-pedal out of it with some kind of lame reasoning.

Most of all, you are not being honest with yourself, let alone your style, your customers, or us, so why do you continue this sort of crap and expect different outcomes ??

I didn't sell the design as original. I didn't charge for it as an original. I never represented it was original in anyway fashion or form. The client knew full well this was a purchased stock image simply edited to achieve their desired result. They knew about the license involved also. The only thing they paid for was my time to do the editing to achieve the desired result. I didn't steal this graphic off of someones website or google images. I licensed the image for the use I intended which was to make a business card from a Reputable dealer.

My question was if you license a piece of artwork is it legal to modify it to suit your needs for your project?

Is this fair use or a copyright violation?

 

[HulkSmash]

I didn't sell the design as original. I didn't charge for it as an original. I never represented it was original in anyway fashion or form. The client knew full well this was a purchased stock image simply edited to achieve their desired result. They knew about the license involved also. The only thing they paid for was my time to do the editing to achieve the desired result. I didn't steal this graphic off of someones website or google images. I licensed the image for the use I intended which was to make a business card from a Reputable dealer.

My question was if you license a piece of artwork is it legal to modify it to suit your needs for your project?

Is this fair use or a copyright violation?

Your questions actually is
"Did I violate Copyright or Fair use?"

The answer is yes, im not exactly sure how you want it sugar coated.

 

[Locals Find!]

Your questions actually is
"Did I violate Copyright or Fair use?"

The answer is yes, im not exactly sure how you want it sugar coated.

Didn't want it sugar coated. Wanted a Straight forward opinion. Thank you for providing one. Now for the benefit of myself and others would you please explain why?

I know for a fact many of us do this for different designs from time to time whether they be print or signs. So knowing why its a violation would be helpful.