2009-12-29 [*Phoenix*]: so would my Pontiac be considered copyrighted if I took a picture of the entire car?
2009-12-29 [Nioniel]: YES! If you are not the creator of the object, if another person, another artist created the object, such as a vehicle, figurine, jewelry, toys, CDs, paintings, books, brand-named musical instruments, hardware, tools, the tread pattern on tires, flatware, electronics, EVERYTHING that YOU DID NOT CREATE, sans things naturally occuring in nature such as rain, snow, sleet, hail, dirt, pets, bugs, clouds, leaves, trees, lakes, mountains, the sun, moon, stars, the human body (assuming that it's yours, no one else's may be submitted under your name without a model-release form), snakes, lizards, etcetera...I don't know how to explain this any better!
2009-12-29 [nehirwen]: Eh..making a photo of an object isn't claiming you made the object. O.o
And as long as the piece/thing you make a photo of is a public thing it's OK (buildings, cars, statue in the park, stuff you bought, whatever).
There are some photos you could make you're not allowed to make a profit of though. (like photos of the Eiffel Tower I believe).
But we're not making any money here, so it's OK.
The Pontiac would be perfectly fine to submit.
2009-12-29 [SilverFire]: Presumably statues in museums (still public, right?) and statues that were made before copyright even existed are also fine. <_< But be careful with statues in museums because some of them are on loan from private collections, and you're supposed to take photos of those ones. (it should tell you on the plaque if it's from a private collection). How about other forms of art in museums? Paintings, photographs, etc. ?
2009-12-29 [nehirwen]: Well, paintings and photographs aren't that interesting for the reference pictures, it's better to actually visit the museum if you want to learn techniques or whatever from those (or look them up online). It would be silly to make a photo of a photo and submit it as 'your' photo anyway, imo. x)
2009-12-29 [SilverFire]: And you can think of no other use for paintings and photos than learning techniques from them? :P I can see why you might want a painting in a photomanip, and for the same reason why you might want a framed photograph - not for the content of that specific photograph, but because you wanted a painting/photo
2009-12-29 [Nioniel]: Neh; making/taking a photo and then putting it in the public domain is. We may not be recieving payment from people that use the photos we submit, but the people that use them may be making money off of them.
Because the photos that we are adding to Reference Pictures are ones that we are putting into the public domain, which then become freely usable by anyone, it really is not okay for us to do that. Read up on copywrite laws, patents, intellectual property and such. Things, especially symbols that are trademarked, such as the "mustang," on cars is the creator of that symbol's property.
Just because some things are in the public eye, that does not mean that they are in the public domain. You can't take and submit pictures of Pizza Hut. Everyone knows what Pizza Hut is, but it is illegal to take a photo and to attempt to put it in the public domain. Taking a photo and saying "hey, everyone, look what I did while I was at Pizza Hut" and then displaying the photos for all to see is fine, so long as you're not saying "alright, I took these photos, so now them and all of the content in them are free for all the world to use." The ability to point a camera at something that is copywritten does not give anyone the right to claim it as their own, which is why these things are unacceptable. Go onto a search engine and search for images that are free for use. There will not be many, and many of the ones that are out there have fine print on the web pages stating that the creator of the artwork still needs payment before others can use it as their own.
I really don't know what else I can say that would help you all to understand. I know that I have had this conversation on this site before, perhaps if I can find the wiki that it took place on, I could copy/paste the explaining that I did there.
If you buy a card with someone's artwork on it, you own the card -- not the right to make copies of the picture on it. If you buy a cassette tape with a song recorded on it, you own the CD -- not the right to play the song in the background on your TV advertisement (or web page). If you buy a book, you have the right to read it, loan it, or use it to prop up the wobbly leg on your table; but you don't have the right to photocopy it, write about the characters in the story, or even draw pictures of them, unless the copyright holder says you can.
Only the copyright holder has that right to copy and/or distribute copies of the thing they've created.
- taken from Copyright and Intellectual Property
2009-12-29 [SilverFire]: Neh; making/taking a photo and then putting it in the public domain is. We may not be recieving payment from people that use the photos we submit, but the people that use them may be making money off of them.
Surely that's their problem, not ours? They're the ones using them incorrectly, and as long as we state somewhere that they shouldn't/can'
I'm not sure about making non-profit photo manips with the images (though that probably counts as transformative use rather than derivative use, so that should be fine too), but I think using them as references counts as Fair Use as long as they don't then try to sell the art.
And pizza hut buildings aren't necessarily copyrighted. Their logo is. Which I'm sure Nehi knows. Obviously the part about 'anything you own' was wrong, but the rest is either right or sits in a huge grey area. For instance, some statues in parks are apparently copyrighted. But if it's a replica of a Donatello, then... tough? And as for books - I'm pretty sure I could take photo of the inside of Pride and Prejudice and not be breaking copyright since... it's in the public domain now. Not all books are copyrighted.
Perhaps the reason you feel you can't get us to understand is because we're not actually all talking about quite the same thing. And the fact that we're disagreeing with you doesn't mean we don't understand, it just means we disagree. :P
2009-12-29 [Nioniel]: *shrug*
I'm beginning to get fairly frustrated with the conversation, and rather than become snippity, I'd prefer to simply leave it at this;
I enjoy being one of the people that contributes to Reference Pictures and deals with the Reference Pictures Submissions, badging and so on. Having spent a lot of time learning about copyright laws and what is and is not allowed to be added to the public domain by the general public, I do not feel comfortable adding certain images into our database/the public domain. There are a few other people that also work in Reference Pictures, and should the general opinion of other people running it be that these things are fine to be added, then they can add them. I know what my understanding of the law is, and I do not want to be considered liable for what others may choose to do with the photos in question being added. That said, I will happily continue to add photos that are in no way in question of violating any copyright laws.
This conversation was in no way intended to be taken as any sort of slight against anyone, hopefully everyone involved understands that I am just looking out for the general welfare of the contributors, the Reference Pictures workers, the site, and those who may choose to use the photos in inappropriate and illegal ways should they be added, despite our warnings.
2009-12-29 [SilverFire]: Well that's pretty useless, since now a decision won't be reached and everyone will remain unsure as to what content they're allowed to submit or not. :/ I'm sorry you're frustrated that we don't agree with you, but there's no need to take it personally. ;) It's better for everyone if you can continue to try and patiently explain, with your extensive knowledge of copyright (which I at least acknowledge I don't have - obviously, I can't speak for the others), why the examples above (or just the original car question, since that would be simpler) definitely wouldn't count as Fair Use. Or is it just that Fair Use can be a bit of a boundary blurrer, so you'd rather stay away from it altogether? :P
2009-12-29 [Nioniel]: :)
I'm not taking it personally, I just don't see how we could reach a good conclusion when we feel differently. I don't mean to sound irate. Perhaps if you all read the wiki page that I linked to, that may make things a bit more clear. I'm sorry, I need to get offline right now, but when I get back, if there are still questions about the topic or things left to discuss, I'd be more than happy to jump back in with a fresh look at the whole thing.
The entire situation can be a bit confusing.
2009-12-29 [SilverFire]: I've read them. :) (long before you linked them them, too :P) And because this shouldn't be a matter of how we feel - it's law we're talking about, right? it's technically objective, not subjective - there IS actually a right and wrong answer. XP
Basically, from my point of view, the key question is: since we're providing on a non-profit basis, resources for students of art (and by 'students of art', I mean anyone who's practicing drawing/painti
2009-12-29 [Nioniel]: *disclaimer*
Words that have been capitalized, are in bold, or are italicized are not meant to be taken to be in a yelling tone. They are simply put into such formats so to emphasize the importance of certain parts of the explanation. The intent of this explanation is to help everyone concerned to be fully informed and aware of theirs and other artists’ legal rights. This is not an attack on anyone, who, at any time, may have attempted to or have succeeded in submitting photos to Reference Pictures or Reference Pictures Submissions that violate copyright, intellectual property, or any other laws.
Alrighty, after stepping away from the conversation for a bit so that I could think about the best way to explain the laws concerning such things, I have come up with the following.
There are antiquities which pre-date copyright owners, however, the vast majority of those antiquities (ie; the Statue of David, etc.), which are not themselves covered under obvious copyright/trad
A unique work of art is protected under a very specific clause, called the Work of Art Clause. So, for example, I could take and make a painting of two, licensed properties, owned by different copyright holders, and sell it (ie; the Millennium Falcon in a space battle with the Klingon Bird of Prey). However, I could not make prints of that for sale OR for free use. I could not even legally make a digital copy for any sort of distribution. Anyone who bought my ONE UNIQUE WORK could not lease it to, for example, a film studio where it would only appear in the deep background of a single set without my (the artist’s) permission as well as the permission of both legal copyright owners of the original licensed works.
Permission always must be in writing from the appropriate legal owner(s) of the material(s). For free use, photography or any other form of artwork, all relevant owners of the property must consent to the use of the property. What we are creating in the EPRM/Reference Pictures here on Elftown is a cache of public domain photographs. As such, we must be exceptionally cautious about what is put in as others who are looking for stock images may use it without our knowledge or express consent. It does not matter what disclaimers we put on, here on the site. If it is in this particular public domain wiki, we are liable for how it is used and/or distributed by any subsequent artist, advertising agency, etcetera. Therefore, it is our responsibility to be vigilant about even the possibility of potentially protected works being put into the Public Domain through us.
Therefore, when we find things even potentially objectable, we will not add them. Though this may upset some people, we are looking out for them, us, and Elftown as a site and community of artists, who, being artists themselves, ought to respect and appreciate this decision. No artist wants their works of art stolen or used without their permission. Many artists on this site have disclaimers below their works of art either in their houses, or on their wikis, stating, in no uncertain terms, that their artwork may NOT be used, copied or distributed by others without their express permission, and these works are not technically copywritten, though they are protected under Intellectual Property laws. Therefore, if anyone did steal your artwork, you could legally sue them and win. Now, since works of art such as HP Notebooks, the Guggenheim, etcetera are protected by far more than the Intellectual Property laws, no one should believe for even one second that the owners of the rights to those things would not come after them legally (and win), prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. For example, CBS/Paramount Pictures traveled as far as Germany and Australia to bust actors who were selling unlicensed photographs of themselves in their Star Trek roles. The corporation won. They have the reach, the will, and the law on their side.
Hopefully everyone understands better now why I have refused and will continue to refuse to add certain photos to Reference Pictures. Should anyone have any more questions that this and the full reading of Copyright and Intellectual Property do not cover, please feel free to message me privately and ask. The clauses that I reference above are free to read on the internet, sorry, I’m not going to link them, but they should be easy enough to find.
Perhaps, after we settle all of this, it would be prudent to create a wiki, which should then be linked to Reference Pictures Submissions that states all of the legal criteria for putting things into the Public Domain, so that, before people submit their images, they have a chance to be absolutely sure that what they are submitting is legal, and should they choose to attempt to submit something that is unacceptable, instead of rehashing all of this over and over again, we could simply refer them to such a wiki. If I have the approval to do so, I will create the page, submit it for all establishment members’ (that care to be involved) approval, ya’ll can stamp it with the “Official ET” header and we can link it to the appropriate wikis.
Just an idea.
So, no, the car is not for Fair use.
2009-12-29 [SilverFire]: "please feel free to message me privately and ask." No, they should ask them here, so everyone finds out the answer. :) Or, if you create the wiki, maybe there :P. You don't need anyone's permission to create a wiki like that by the way. :P
However, you didn't answer my question! :P *prod*
If it counts as Fair Use, then we don't need owners' consent, right? Can our purpose not count as Fair Use, and if not, why not? :)
2009-12-29 [Nioniel]: :)
Sorry, I didn't want to clutter up this page with too much of this stuff if we're putting a wiki up regarding all of this. Then we could simply direct people to that wiki and keep a F.A.Q. area where their questions may be posted and answered.
Yes. If it counts as Fair Use, the owners' permission is NOT required. However, the list of things that ARE considered to be Fair Use is so short, and really does mostly apply to things that occur in nature, plant life, animals, etcetera. I would make sure that I was 110% certain that the thing I was posting was Free Use before putting it anywhere in the Public Domain.
2009-12-29 [SilverFire]: Fair Use can't apply to things that aren't copyrighted anyway, so how can it apply to plant life, animals, etc? :P
Fair Use covers teaching resources, how official does that status as 'teacher' or 'student' have to be? Cause, y'know, we could just bung up a sign-up page somewhere for people to list their names and then go 'yey, look, they're students!' <_<
Also, aaaaalso. Surely the first step in any legal proceeding about copyright infringement is to politely ask/demand that whoever is using an image they should takes it down. So... I don't really see a problem with only being 90% sure and then just taking it down if asked. :P But then, I'm not a fan of copyright anyway. <_<
2009-12-29 [Nioniel]: You know what I mean.
Erm...I don't know. I don't think that it would be a good idea. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I think that the idea that I suggested was a good one. Providing people with a clear explanation on the topic and being discriminating with what we accept.
2009-12-29 [SilverFire]: Agree with the first part, not sure about the second. :P Go make the wiki already! :P