Stealing is Stealing-Copyright Issue

[vmax549]

hUM I have seen thousands of pictures of Vettes on the net ALL claiming a copyright. They all can't be right,(;-)

(;-) TP

[SignTorch Vector Art]

Whoever takes a photo is the copyright owner of the photo, not of any rights (except fair use) in any copyright or trademark depicted in the photo, it then depends on how the photo is used.

With trademark (without fraud, deception, or confusion) you have a certain right to use a mark in association with associated products, so they can't put their mark on something they don't own or control and then dictate where it may or may not appear (basically)....



Generally, just don't advertise or offer anything that you don't have the rights to.

Then when a customer asks for things you don't have rights to replicate, just do it all under contract with certain disclaimers like below, and make sure not to offer or provide anything you don't have rights to, simply insist and require that the customer provide any and all pre-existing work that they want replicated and have them sign off on it (and probably don't sub it out or bring in a 3rd party).


Cutting services may include custom artwork and design that we provide, which may include 'extra-custom artwork' which is artwork provided by the customer to be replicated by us, over which we have and take no rights, opinion, control, liability or responsibility, in any intellectual property rights or disputes associated with or arising from any use, including display, of said extra-custom artwork, nor do we approve or authorize any use of any extra-custom artwork. Providing extra-custom artwork to be replicated by us constitutes acceptance of the foregoing, and agreement by the provider to indemnify us from any and all cost or liability stemming from ownership or use of said extra-custom artwork.


plus other disclaimers.....

It might not be bullet proof, but it might provide some protection if you ever need it.


As far as asking a trademark owner for permission, it would be heroic of a large corporation to have provisions to allow individuals to produce trademark bearing merchandise with little or no approval process, smaller organizations like schools often offer production rights for small set fees, which is one way they generate funding, I can't imagine many brand name companies just saying yes or taking the trouble to validate exactly what they're approving without fees and hurdles.

[DAP]

This discussion about stealing images is just a small symptom of a much larger problem. Humans the world over have evolved to a point of "anything goes" if it serves their interests. Honor, integrity and respect are forgotten words. Theft of intellectual property is standard procedure in many countries. We have all heard about the fake Levi's, Rollex watches. pirated music, hacked software programs, etc. The recent fake Apple Computer store in China was a glaring example of this.

It's sad to say but it does'nt appear this trend will change and will most likely get worse. Unless it involves millions of dollars, risk of prosecution is minimal or non existent. Dropping your membership to this forum might make you feel better, but it is a mere drop of water in an ocean of a problem.

DAP

[WSS]

This discussion about stealing images is just a small symptom of a much larger problem. Humans the world over have evolved to a point of "anything goes" if it serves their interests. Honor, integrity and respect are forgotten words. Theft of intellectual property is standard procedure in many countries. We have all heard about the fake Levi's, Rollex watches. pirated music, hacked software programs, etc. The recent fake Apple Computer store in China was a glaring example of this.

It's sad to say but it does'nt appear this trend will change and will most likely get worse. Unless it involves millions of dollars, risk of prosecution is minimal or non existent. Dropping your membership to this forum might make you feel better, but it is a mere drop of water in an ocean of a problem.

DAP

That is actually biblical. End times? hummm.....

[DAP]

WSS,
That thought has crossed my mind as well............

DAP

[SignTorch Vector Art]

It's the 'evolution' of the digital age, creating a global wild west of sorts, people are the same as adam and eve....

There's some potential legislation that might turn the tables on the richest intellectual predators of all.

[jonn3y]

What about famous figures? IE: Bob Marley had a few customers want this guy but I kinda cringe on doing them. I say no, for fear of being sued, but if its a photo taken by a customer or drawn on paper is it still theft? I don't see how it could be, I see pictures of famous people in the paper or a book or a magazine. A few teachers in design school told me that after I vectorized a photo ive changed the initial properties, thus making it an artistic rendering of what that object, in my eyes looks like.
I have been buying photos from stock photo sites and local photographers to build my portfolio, but its getting very expensive and its only the beginning of the work I have to put into it to make it a cut able dxf. I'm assuming you guys mean the clip art on Google or the dingbats on font sites that are copyrighted from commercial sale?

Clarification would be awesome and this sites been great for learning!

[S4metaoworks]

I have a question them. If you pay to be a member of a site ( plasmaspider lets say). You post a file in the "file share area". Are you able to use it, lets say to use / resale. If not them why is it called file sharing, Not files stealing. I would think if your posting files for other people, then your are saying here's my art use it. If not then don't post it up for use. I thought that was the point of having file sharing and paying to be a member. If you can take a picture and change it to a vectorized image it becomes your art. So if I take a file off this site and use part it not stealing. Since I'm only use a portion of the file not sale the direct file. Hence making my own image. It's my image at the point I change the image. Is it not the same as you take picture and change them, that's is okay. One more If I buy file from various web sites. Those images become my at the point cash changes hand. Correct? I can then sale them copy them, What ever. If payed money to get them. Those are my file.

[muzza]

You have dug up an old thread which was largely related to a couple of other threads running at the time and I think you may be getting a little confused so I'll answer as brief and simply as I can.

Files shared in file sharing are there for all members to download and use wholly or partly as they see fit.

If a file contains all or part of a copyrighted image including one purchased from a vendor (ie Signtorch) which you have only purchased the right to use and not distribute you cannot share that file, but you can share a photo of the item in the project gallery providing you are not breaching your licence agreement.

Either item can be sold, given away etc. provided you are operating within your copyright licence.

Murray

[Gamelord]

If you make it, you can use it. If you post it up on the file sharing portion, you are basically saying here it is,have at it. If you don't want your work copied, don't post it on the internet.

[S4metaoworks]

Thank you I'm just getting started. I don't want to steal people's stuff. However I do like some of the content. So I try to use pieces not entire art. I am a painter and a draw artist. That was my major. I don't want to piss off people or become a thief. Just wanted to make sure it was okay to use stuff I may use in pieces. Do get me wrong all work should be protected do to the fact some has there heart and soul into the work. Think you for your time Eric

[SignTorch Vector Art]

It's my image at the point I change the image..those images become my at the point cash changes hand..I can then sale them copy them, What ever. If payed money to get them. Those are my file.

by that logic I can claim the entire internet (or at least this web site) because I just changed it by typing (I paid for membership), and now allow me to just give it to you (all).....now we all own it equally and independently and may do as we please and make copies and claim it to our heart's content..................

and I could buy famous artists' work anywhere at any price, counterfiet or not, and take that to mean, if so much as the temperature changes, I now own all rights to the art the same as the original author and then in my good heart I can just give it away and that artist can kiss my....

how about somebody on here sell me your property and I'll be over to get it and if you don't like it just kiss my.... don't worry, I will change it, and make it all mine, I know you won't mind since it was all your idea..... or just let me rent it, with conditions, that's mine to.... since the conditions won't apply if I change it, right....

in reality, ownership and conrol over intellectual property follows the same principal as real property, we all know and understand how mere possesion of stolen property is unilatterally unjustifiable. Don't count on intellectual property being any different when it comes down to it.

[S4metaoworks]

Well maybe you should re read this "Or, if the new art is creative and transformative then it is original for all practical purposes. Transformative basically means to create a whole new work with a new character for a new purpose and different market.. So which is it.

[S4metaoworks]

I'm not trying to make you mad. I just wanted to make sure that I understood the site correctly. That I could use the images I find in the sharing forum for use and recreating new pics.

[plain ol Bill]

Reading this thread I thought for a minute there that Dumb ol Bob was back - kinda miss him.

[SignTorch Vector Art]

I'm not mad, please forgive my sarcasm, it was only for illustration

"to create a whole new work with a new character for a new purpose and different market.."

actually, I have read that, among other things, enough to understand what it means

Intellectual property (IP) law got started in the US constitution section 8 paragraph 8

[congress shall pass laws] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

There is a need to strike a balance between IP owners' interests (by protecting them from wholesale infringement by society) and society's interests (to incorporate and build upon prior advances in art and science), or else there would be no progress and society would be one big conflict between those who have IP and those who want to use it for their own gain.

IP law is focused where value meets competition

IP that isn't commercially viable or valuable doesn't need protection and there's no point in sharing it

IP that is valuable needs protection because everyone except the owner would love to share it freely

Since there must be some middle ground, IP law focuses on preserving value and having fair competition in the marketplace.

To that end it, it is not so much the IP content itself that matters, but how it affects the market and whether any competition is fair.

In this case, you cannot 'copy' a black and white image (or part thereof) designed for cutting into another black and white image for cutting without adversely affecting the market for the original, if there is one. That's neither creative or transformative, and it is directly competitive.

To a lesser extent you cannot simply repurpose an existing image (for display) to be used for plasma cutting, it may have a new purpose but it is not a new expression of any artistic creativity over which you'd deserve to claim any new rights for yourself in any market.

The more you try to break it down the more confusing it can be. When you get into details of whether a photo of a natural object or being is creative, and whether recasting an unused photo of something the photographer didn't create into a useful new work of art in a market space that does not impact any existing market for the photo, with a new purpose for which it otherwise would remain useless, then it depends on who has the best lawyer, most money, and or greater desire and ability to prevail.

My rule of thumb is just avoid using pre-existing artwork (it is indefensable)

Picasso once said "good artists copy, great artists steal"

I think he meant marginal artists copy others' work, while great artists steal their ideas from God himself....

just wish I could explain it all better............

[SpartanKen]

just my 2 cents on the vette side of things. I am a owner of a 65 Mustang. I'm savvy with a computer. I combined the two and came up with a website that took off. MichiganMustang.com. It was basically a forum for Mustang owners from around the state. I started doing pretty good in advertising and tshirt sales. That's when I received a letter from a lawyer per Ford Motor Co. to cease and desist. I was in violation of copyright laws. The used of the Mustang logo, ford logo AND using pictures of Mustangs, even my own. Since I hadn't gained enough pennies to battle them, I folded and shut down the site.

It was not my intent to "steal" their work and I even stated my case if anything I was advertising for them and I was bringing more people to their brand. Didn't matter to them... Now I'm sure Bill Ford did not intend for their customers to be "attacked" but some pencil pushers decided by doing this, it was going to make them money in the short or long term.

I don't know exactly what is right and wrong but the chances of someone on our level(small business) getting a copyright law for art to hold up, without bankrupting both parties in the process, has to be low, maybe I'm wrong.

Good read people.

Ken

[CNCCAJUN]

I agree it is very wrong to buy a image sold to you for the purpose of making product to sell and re-distributing the image in the very market place "YOU BOUGHT IT IN" . . .

My understanding of copyright infringement comes from an retired attorney who specialized in this type of business law.

1. The "where it stops is where it stops" rule applies . . .

For instance, if I am selling a fire ring with a "generic Bengal Tiger & the letters "LSU" in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the school is coming after me. I have increased the value of my product tremendously in my area by doing so. At the same time I have seen LSU turn a blind eye to things offered just like that sold for charity.

The bottom line is, who, why & when will someone pursue you.

I can assure you that you could make the same fire ring with "YAHOO" on it, and you would never hear a word from anyone. They would probably thank you . . . Why, because by using their name in this case would doubtfully add any value to your product, but would offer advertising for a company that never gets enough . . .

The bottom line is this . . . Are your actions depriving or have the potential to deprive the creator of what ever you are distributing? In this case, sharing images on here is wrong.

[SignTorch Vector Art]

your understanding of copyright infringement is all about trademark infringement

those are two different things, sharing an image on here might be one or the other or neither but not both

sharing (without rights or permission) does not deprive the creator of whatever is being distributed

with copyright it deprives the author or owner of attribution and potential profit

with trademark it dilutes the value of the mark and possibly impinges the reputation of the mark owner (by not meeting their standards) and unfairly competes against the owner and authorized distributors

cashing in on a companies trademarks, trade dress and reputation, without their permission is wrong, sharing the capability to do so is more wrong, and it is not wrong for a company to intervene when it comes to their attention

the bottom line is, someone will pursue you when you give them a reason to....

[abmetal]

At the risk of opening up a hornet's nest, what's the thoughts of a corporation's image/logo being cut and donated to a charity auction?

Allen

[KeeYaw]

I agree it is very wrong to buy a image sold to you for the purpose of making product to sell and re-distributing the image in the very market place "YOU BOUGHT IT IN" . . .

My understanding of copyright infringement comes from an retired attorney who specialized in this type of business law.

1. The "where it stops is where it stops" rule applies . . .

For instance, if I am selling a fire ring with a "generic Bengal Tiger & the letters "LSU" in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the school is coming after me. I have increased the value of my product tremendously in my area by doing so. At the same time I have seen LSU turn a blind eye to things offered just like that sold for charity.

The bottom line is, who, why & when will someone pursue you.

I can assure you that you could make the same fire ring with "YAHOO" on it, and you would never hear a word from anyone. They would probably thank you . . . Why, because by using their name in this case would doubtfully add any value to your product, but would offer advertising for a company that never gets enough . . .

The bottom line is this . . . Are your actions depriving or have the potential to deprive the creator of what ever you are distributing? In this case, sharing images on here is wrong.

I hear ya CNCAJUN, I'm in Lafayette area and big supporter of UL Football (Go Cajuns!) The problem with college sports is that the NCAA owns the rights to LSU, UL, FL, etc etc. To make a long story short. A lot of monies are share among the conference, so the NCAA is strict on who makes a profit off logos, etc because in their eyes its not fair that someone doesn't have to share profits when the schools have to. (I'm not taking up for NCAA, just saying) I give thousands to UL sports ever year, way more than the Licensing Fee cost and I had to buy it because the NCAA controls the show.

[KeeYaw]

At the risk of opening up a hornet's nest, what's the thoughts of a corporation's image/logo being cut and donated to a charity auction?

Allen

As long as you get permission there shouldnt be a problem.

[CNCCAJUN]

If it's A Harley logo I can assure you the local Harley dealer will bless it.

And that is the end of it . . .

Steve

[plain ol Bill]

If it's a Harley logo you can be sure your dealer cannot "bless" it. That is something reserved to a corportate decision and the Harley Davidson corporate boys don't play games.

[AnotherDano]

Too true, Bill.

I was developing the website for the Tennessee HOG rally and added a 'flaming' Bar & Shield graphic.
The 'gatekeeper for HOG (Harley Owners' Group) made me get rid of it.