Intellectual Property and Copyright Theft In Our Industry.

[Fred Weiss]

He found the image through Google Image Search, he didn't buy the rights to the use the photo...

I am of the opinion that such services as Google Image Search, YouTube, etc. are compounding the confusion over intellectual property rights. I would be surprised if one person in one hundred who uses the internet could provide even a basic definition of the copyrights that is close to accurate.

 

[Dice]

He found the image through Google Image Search, he didn't buy the rights to the use the photo...

I understand that. But there are provisions under copyright law for fair use for unique works of art regardless of license. Depends on the portion of the art work used and if its a central piece to the newly created work of art.

I'm not a lawyer, but you guys are making this out like he went and reproduced the thing exactly as the original, he did not do that. This is not so clear cut and none of us are lawyers. Copyright law is complex.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/departs/copyright/tutorial/intro/page1.htm

Now it would be an interesting case if this went to court. Now in this particular case I think he's screwed as i believe he took 2 rights-managed unique works of art and put them together and used it for commercial purposes.

I just wanted to point out that this isn't so clear cut Black and White, it's more Grey.

 

[tanneji]

I am of the opinion that such services as Google Image Search, YouTube, etc. are compounding the confusion over intellectual property rights. I would be surprised if one person in one hundred who uses the internet could provide even a basic definition of the copyrights that is close to accurate.

Which is precisely why I dont post my photos on the internet. I hate using watermarks and I don't feel that unless you get the large picture, you get the proper emotion out of it. Tough dilemma.

 

[Dice]

No one has the right to create derivative works without first obtaining the right to do so. One can be inspired by another's work and create their own from scratch. One cannot simply copy, paste and position someone else's work and claim it as their own.

Again I'm not trying to defend this guy, but Fred explain fair use to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

 

[Gino]

Which is precisely why I dont post my photos on the internet. I hate using watermarks and I don't feel that unless you get the large picture, you get the proper emotion out of it. Tough dilemma.

Humphf..... not me. I just don't have anything worth posting.............

 

[Cadmn]

any one who thinks the internet is safe & wonders how Mr. Freeman found the pic Just need to google themselves you might be supprised where all you show up & they're Lawyers out there that have helpers surfing daily for infringements of copywright for any of their clients. I know it gets used anytime copyrights get brought up but Harley comes to mind. about 5 years ago I watched a mans business get taken off by a little company "Jack Daniels" another lost his to the little orginisation called the NFL. both T-shirt printers.

 

[kapelskic]

Wow

First of all I just have to say WOW. It shocks me that someone would do something like that and call themselves professional.

I will input what I have been told/learned about fair use. Fair use covers all photographs and other artwork that has ever been taken or created. In order for a person to be safe under fair use the original source of work can NOT be recognizable. I believe the official number is 25% similarity. Now this is kind of a vague statement because everyone's ability to recognize work is different. However, I this particular case, I don't think that rotating the pile of skulls 30 degrees makes the original photo unrecognizable (thus how cpt caught it so fast). I think the moral to this is, own up to your actions! Whether it was a mistake or just stupidity, take responsibility for what you did, pay your dues, and move on. After all, not every lesson can be learned the easy way.

 

[weaselboogie]

I think Stickasteve should be financially responsible for the usage of these pics. He's even got it posted on his facebook profile!!
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?p...pid=3157367&id=218773164929&fbid=228585824929

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?p...pid=3157368&id=218773164929&fbid=228585834929

Looks like he's using the image all over this damn thing.

 

[Gino]

All kidding aside folks....

This is some serious stuff here. The infringement laws, being lawyers or not....... or any other feelings on this are all moot points. The property has been stolen whether in full..... or partially.... it was stolen. Plain and Simple.

Many here complain when their preliminary drawings or designs are copied and want to burn the scoundrel on a cross. Well, this was a finished piece of artwork that has been copied with full knowledge and the criminal just brushes it off after being notified..... how can you defend any such actions ?? Really ??

If you wanna be kind to this thief..... do so, but I would think you would want to call or e-mail him and tell him you think he has a strong case and you'd like to help him/her. I kinda think sticking up for a criminal such as this... puts you into the same boat.

No where has anyone ever gotten the benefit of the doubt when they outright steal something of someone else's and are warned over and over and still push onward knowing full well, they are wrong.

Shoot the bastard.​

 

[GP]

I think Stickasteve should be financially responsible for the usage of these pics. He's even got it posted on his facebook profile!!
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?p...pid=3157367&id=218773164929&fbid=228585824929

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?p...pid=3157368&id=218773164929&fbid=228585834929

Looks like he's using the image all over this damn thing.

You think LifetimeChimneySupply.com has any idea? How is the client going to feel when he has to remove the wrap?

 

[kapelskic]

I dont know who that was directed towards....but I would like to let it be known that I am not, nor will i ever defend the stealing of art!!

Stealing aside, I do not see how that even qualifies as a good design!!!

 

[Fred Weiss]

Again I'm not trying to defend this guy, but Fred explain fair use to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Okay, let's examine the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article. I have shown the defining use in bold red:

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term "fair use" originated in the United States, but has been added to Israeli law as well; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

The opinion I reach reading that is that the software licensing agreement or general copyright is bypassed for various situations as shown and the inference is that it remains intact for anything else ... which would include all art creation activities outside of a classroom, lab or news reporting and commentary. Certainly anything involving commercial production of the work in whole or in part. There is no mention of any level of modification of the art because that has no relevance if the digital art was used as source material. Changing someone else's work to any degree using their work as the source art is creating a derivative and is almost always forbidden in an EULA. The often cited "5% change makes it yours" rule is a myth.

That said, what anyone reading this needs to understand is that everything on the internet is the property of someone and protected from being used without permission and/or rights acquisition. Google provides an image search service but the rights to the images it finds are in no way conveyed to searchers. This applies even to public domain images because someone who created the site owns the rights to it as displayed on their site.

The problem is the general ignorance or compliance to intellectual property rights and the proliferation of infringements all over the internet.

 

[StopSignGraphics]

Actually as I understand it using any part of an image to create new art is now considered a violation of copyright. Case in point, Sheperd Fairey's "Obama: Hope" print.

Fairey used an image that he had found online that was owned by the Associated Press. The photographer's image was only used as a reference and Fairey is still fighting a legal battle with the Associated Press.

 

[SignBurst PCs]

In my opinion, this goes right along with using a cracked copy of Photoshop or any other software use that is in violation of the EULA. How many shops do you think use software illegally just because they "can", not because they should. You would be surprised how many shops admit to me that they are using a cracked copy of something. They are using this software to make $$$. It sounds a very similar to me.

Although most folks don't make money at it, same goes for illegally downloaded music. How many people do you know that have done that?

Like it was said above, physical theft is one thing. Digital theft somehow seems much more acceptable.

 

[Pat Whatley]

I think Stickasteve should be financially responsible for the usage of these pics. He's even got it posted on his facebook profile!!

You'd think that the way this is blowing up and the threat of the copyright owner coming after him for it that he would have removed those pictures.

 

[Cadmn]

looks like several other vehicles might have copyrighted things on them too so can of expensive worms & all is out there to see being bragged about on the internet.

 

[Marlene]

we have had this conversation over and over again with some here posting some pretty nasty stuff directed towards we who have pointed out ownership of graphics or photos. I really hope that this is a wake up call. my hat is off to cptcorn for consistency and never bending when it comes to this topic.

on a side note, seeing where this photo came from and what it really was made my stomach turn over to see how it was used.

 

[weaselboogie]

You'd think that the way this is blowing up and the threat of the copyright owner coming after him for it that he would have removed those pictures.

I'm willing to bet that once he finds this thread, they will be long gone.


.... and they're gone.

 

[RebeckaR]

Regarding copyright - I see many folks here posting photos of comic book characters, beer and soft drink logos... all kinds of images that they have reproduced for their kids room or as a gift for a friend. Everyone congratulates them on a job well done. Seems like a double standard to me.

I was always under the impression that copyright means no reproduction regardless of whether you are selling it or not.
I know the message at the beginning of a movie informs you that any copying at all, for commercial or personal use is illegal.
Does this not apply to all copyrighted images?

 

[mark in tx]

Besides ripping off the copyrighted work, what the hell kind of business wants that image to sell their product?

Somebody needs to put down the bong.