Image Copyright & Other Such Things...

[Erik]

Just see it like this: For a good quality desktop print you need 150 dpi. This means that a high quality jpg of 600x750pixels gives you a postcard.
For offset print you need 300 dpi. So for the same postcard you need 1200x1500pixels, and no jpg is ever good enough for high quality print.

I suppose it's more a question of stealing ideas. But that is in fact a very modern problem as in the fifteenth-eighteenth century painters simply copied one-another. The ego became more important with the rise of reproduction of artworks.

 

[Lynny]

This is an interesting subject, with use selling photos for a living, or trying to....my answer would be obvious, but before I got into photography, it was my understanding that if you changed a picture or photo(or anything for that matter) by 10% then you could consider it your's, and do with it as you wish. As the copyright was void.....now I don't know where I heard that, if it was just someones opinion or a fact, but it sounded ok, so I never checked it out, so I was innocently stealing stuff all over the show....

What I'm getting at is, the rules should be there for any newbie that maybe interested, and written especially for them, cause as someone before said, the people that know better and still do it, aren't even going to read it, and will never learn.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Lynn

 

[crashandburn]

OMG please don't tell me i have to change all my model release forms

 

[fdeaton]

My experience is that about 99% of the people have no knowledge of copyright law or have a very skewed idea of what it is. Go straight to the copyright office and publish their guidelines and follow them!

 

[fdeaton]

Lynny,
I should have followed this post from the top but I didn't so everything is a bit off kilter. I was in a meeting at work just a couple of weeks ago and heard this whole thing of a 10% change (actually I thought it was a bit less) constituting an avoidance of copyright and the possibility of the the legal theft of 90% of an artists work. This is in a large government organization. I expressed my opinion that this was outrageous, but I don't know if it got us anywhere! Copyright is important and should be followed up upon. Do not allow your work to be stolen for any purpose.

Damn, gonna have to work on my rant section on this topic. Stay tuned and I will show a path!

 

[Rantin Al]

I've got some info on this 10% infringement 'allowance'. I'll extract and post it up. I also had some links to Copyright websites. I'll see if I can find these as well

Mark, my earlier post (Excuse my language) might be better shifted to this thread. Edit and transfer as you see fit.
This is the link to the page:

http://www.photoshopgurus.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2977

Cheers Al

 

[Rantin Al]

I couldn't find a direct link for this article so here is the main text:

Quote from MacUser Magazine.

How Much Can You Copy?

We've all heard of the 10% rule. As long as you don't copy more than 10% of an image, or you change at least 90% of it, it's not an infringement of copyright. Some people say 15%, some 20%, so it's possibly a bit of a grey area, but everyone knows that's the basic principle. Right?
Horribly, dreadfully wrong. "There's no such principle at all", says barrister Tim Ludbrook.
"Absolutely none", agrees Richard Hodgson. The law
says infringement takes place if all or a substantial part of a work is copied, but 'substantial' doesn't simply refer to quantity. In many cases very tiny parts have been ruled to be substantial.

Both barristers cite the recent case of Designers Guild Ltd versus Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd as an instructive example. Here, the Law Lords considered what would constitute copying of a substantial part and found it didn't simply depend on the similarity of the allegedly infringing work to the original. The copied features had to represent a substantial part of the skill and labour contributed by the original author, but needn't have formed a substantial part of the defendant's work. So an infringement could have taken place even though the two looked different.
What does this mean for designers who routinely grab bits and bobs of imagery from the Internet, old magazines, videos and other sources, and comp them into multilayered Photoshop extravaganzas?

They should be very concerned, understates Ludbrook.
So how can you collage with confidence? The straight answer is that you can't, unless you really have the time and patience to find and negotiate with the copyright holder of every image you use. You can minimise the risks, however, by avoiding the sort of material that's most likely to provoke litigation.

Forget classic cartoon characters: copyright will be the least of your
worries if you infringe such jealously protected trademarks. If you want the
face of a celebrity, pinch it from the least distinctive photo you can find and you may avoid action by the photographer. Don't use it to sell or endorse anything, or the celebrity will be on your back. When relying on blanket permissions, ensure the copyright owner is correctly credited.
In short, don't get cocky. Using "found" material may be oh-so postmodern, but it could land you in front of a judge with traditional values.

"Every creative industry seems to have its own rule of thumb for allowable percentage copying, groans Hodgson. "Rest assured, the courts won't be impressed".

End Quote.

So now you know.
Cheers Al

 

[Alistair]

Hey I didnt vote here and it says I did... or was there a date it stopped?

 

[mflintjer]

I voted yes to this question! But have some reserves to copyright infringement!

1. If the artist (such as myself) posts a creation to the net for the first time on a "FREE" site, then that artist should be FULL aware that when someone else downloads it and uses it, then turns around and posts the new creation (let's say as a login screen or bootscreen or a theme pack built around this pic he/she found for FREE) to a different FREE site -- then the original author should not get hot about the use of his/her work being used! The second artist simply used something that he/she didn't have pay for because the original author was shortsighted enough to give it away for free! THIS IS THE BELL RINGER THOUGH -- IF THE SECOND ARTIST TRIES TO SELL THE ORIGINAL WORK BY ANOTHER ARTIST, THEN I SEE IT AS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!

2. No matter what any of our collective preferences are on viewing copyright infringement, we should ALL make the genuine effort to contact the author of the original work and humbly ask for permission to use their work! Most times, the author will say "Sure, go ahead, as long as you don't sell it as "YOUR" work" or "Sure, go ahead, as long as you give me credit for the actual original artwork, I don't care"! This is my experience in using other people's art work! Simply ask, and generally they will say yes -- I have only run into one instance where the author didn't give permission to use the art! This is out of about 10 - 12 authors I have talked to via e-mail! And, furthermore, it is the polite thing to do! If the original author gives you the go ahead -- be sure you save that e-mail for archival purposes too!...just in case!

With all that said, If anyone finds these statements objectionable -- then I apologize in advance. This is how I see it, and I am a "Traditional" person with "Traditional" values!!

 

[MsOz]

mflintjer, I think most of what you say is rational and reasonable. But, in today's ever shifting universe of Internet connectivity, there are many gray areas...

What if, instead of necessarily making money by selling your original works as their own, theives sell the perceived skills and talent your works represent? Two quick examples:
1. Artist Thief uses the works of 3-4 other artists with similar styles, combined with some work of his own into a portfolio in which to apply for work, without crediting of any sort. Skills are adequate enough for the position he's applied for, and his portfolio is the best seen of all the applicants. He gets the job. Art theft or no?
2. Artist Thief designs his WebDev website with killer graphics, most of which are "lifted" from forums, gallery sites, etc...People pay to have their websites created by the Artist Thief, with the argument that they are not buying the stolen graphics (which they are not), they are buying the skills to design websites (although without the stolen graphics, theArtist Thief website wouldn't look all that impressive...). Art Theft or no?

 

[mflintjer]

Aaaahhhh yes, very good points MsOz!!

In those 2 cases, I would have to say yes, art theft! However, there is an arguement for those unknowing victims of these scenarios...

1. Art thief is found out by his/her new employers that he/she didn't actually do the work because of copyright lawsuit filed against company because of the thief stealing the work! Employer fires said thief -- moral to story, don't steal and do thorough background checks on all applicants that submit artwork as their own (look for copyright watermarks on pics, monitors and prints!)

2. Unfortunately for the website design buyers they will have a messy situation on their hands!! They do have the option to sue the bogus designer for their money back, but chances are they will die of old age before they see that money! Moral to story -- check any references to validate legitimacy of person doing the work (uses their own artwork) -- ask to have copies of their work on a CD so that you can peruse them at your own pace! This way you can load the images into a graphics editor like...PS...or even PaintShopPro, and if the image is copyrighted, click on file info to find out who's artwork it really is!!

But you really do take your own life into your own hands when you hire someone to create something for you based on "their artwork" without checking the validity of any claims made by that person!

 

[beyondenraged]

Mark,

Being a college grad, I've been given the complete rundown on pleagarism. When the use of copywritten materials becomes a problem is when you're passing off the work as your own. Every time I decide to use some copywritten work for a basis for my work or for an experiment I will take it upon myself to e-mail the creator of the file. I have never been shunned by the creator. In fact, the results are quite the opposite. They are usually flattered when people take such an interest in their work and will actually offer you tips for tips to use you as a sort of a colleague.

I always take it upon myself to send them my version of the file after I'm finished as well.

Getting back to the topic... What we're doing here is Art! You cannot be an artist without a deep appreciation for the art, and other people's work. The problem is not with posting other people's work, but when you claim it is your own. That would, in my opinion, be grounds for policing, but just for the everyday forum activity it should be as it always has.

BE

 

[MsOz]

mflintjer, Now you start to get an idea of how slippery this snake can be...
The first scenario is based upon the "if" of a copyright suit being filed against the employer. Remember, here the stolen art was used as a personal portfolio, not for use by the employer, just utilized to gain the employment. Provided the Art Thief is able to fulfill the job's skill requirement, the stolen art was not directly used for monetary profit by the Art Theif...
The same situation applies to this scenario, as well. The Art Thief does not directly sell the works as their own, merely represents the skill level and creativity contained therein. Any customers not recieving a web site quite as visually creative as the stolen work can always be convinced that it is because of them, not the Art Thief's lack of the fraudulently presented talent...
By the "accepted" definitions of Art Theft, do these situations apply?

... You cannot be an artist without a deep appreciation for the art, and other people's work. The problem is not with posting other people's work, but when you claim it is your own. That would, in my opinion, be grounds for policing, but just for the everyday forum activity it should be as it always has.
BE

Actually, part of the appreciation you speak of is to always credit the creator of any and every .jpeg, .gif, .doc, .pdf, or anything else that YOU did not create.

It isn't that hard to take a few moments to correctly source cite where you found something so cool you need to share it, and who created it. It's just lazy. It's easier to just right click and save something than it is to document where you got it, and who made it. That is NOT creating art, that's theft. At the very least, it is disrespect for the art that you say such a deep appreciation of is needed...

 

[mflintjer]

To MsOz and beyondenraged,

I got to thinking about my last reply...I know SCARY (thinking)...I think the three of us (as well as maybe others too) have missed one key issue.

The issue being, copyrights on ideas and skills -- can't be done! No one can patent or copyright something that is not physical, i.e. ideas and skills.

If you had an idea for a specialized item (twidget for arguements sake) and told a dozen people about your idea. Let's say one of those people you told has an inventive mind and actually designs the twidget very close to, or the exact, same thing you described to him or her, and that person copyrights or patents that twidget! You are SOL because they did it first -- not you. Although you had the idea first, the "inventor or artist" did it before you and beat you to it!

Another thing to think about is, If someone says (in reference to your or anyone's work) "I can do that"; and then puts out something that is clearly inferior to the model -- then you can say he/she is not able to do that! But that goes back to my original statement of investigating claims made by any individual trying to sell themselves!

And anyone that went through high school was informed of plaegerism then. To plaegerize is a weak attempt to emulate a great artist (regaurdless of realm) not to mention illegal! Not to take away from any one person's scholastic acheivements in ANY way, I know we were all taught in high school not to plaegerize ANY work!

But ideas and skills are not copyrightable or patentable for that reason! This is to reduce the law suits that would arise if you COULD copyright or patent an idea or skill!

 

[MsOz]

mflintjer, I'm sorry, but you are either extremely young, or extremely naive...

To burst your bubble regarding ideas, if you do some studying on copyrights, you will find a great many ideas that have yet to be physically created on this planet, but which, nonetheless, have been copyrighted.

It is not having the idea, it is what you do with it.

A friend of mine will cry to anyone who will listen how he came up with the idea of CD's being read by low level laser beams back in the early 1970's, but has never made a penny from it.
He stopped crying to me when I pointed out that he had never bothered to document and register the idea, he had only yapped about it to friends and acquaintances when he was sufficiently drunk enough to share his ideas on improving the Universe as we know it...

To further shoot your idealistic, yet impractical perceptions down, skills most certainly are able to be copyrighted, as they are also documentable proceedures. There are some very famous hairstyling schools (Vidal Sassoon is one) who most certainly have Copyright on their haircutting skills, which they teach others, for a fee...

 

[mflintjer]

No, it is not being young nor being naive (of which I am neither!). It is a simple matter of tangability!

You cannot patent an idea because of the fact that an idea is simply that until it takes a PHYSICAL form. Be it a picture, book or whatever it may be -- it has to be physical! Prime example: E=mc?, Einstien couldn't patent the equation -- even though he figured it out and is given credit for it in the annuls of history -- because it is an idea or theory! It took the german physicists that the U.S. brought to America to build a bomb, to actually apply the idea or theory!!

As for techniques, that is exactly what they are...techniques! If Photoshop patented their "Vector mapping" technique, then why does JASC PaintShopPro use the very same IDEA & TECHNIQUE without copyright infringement? Because it is a technique! Photoshop holds the copyright on the PROGRAM and thus no one can make their program the exact same way! JASC PSP uses the same ideas and techniques in their program, but it is not the exact same -- Although similar enough to be catagorized as the same thing!! So why no law suit for copyright infringement?

If you read the one post earlier in this topic, if you use a copyright protected item as a base -- you must change it enough so that the new item does not get confused with the ORIGINAL! I believe the % is 90 on the side of change!

 

[beyondenraged]

Actually, part of the appreciation you speak of is to always credit the creator of any and every .jpeg, .gif, .doc, .pdf, or anything else that YOU did not create.

The only time I need to document the source is if I'm displaying his work. The only thing I will usually use the files for are for formatting, color schemes, and to try to generally match specific effects (PS). If the source of a particular file says he wants me to credit (not cite) him for something then I will, but it has never been the case as of yet.

BE [/quote]

 

[mflintjer]

Yes, I too don't want to use what someone else made. As I have said in another thread, I am too creative for that! I agree with you BE, try to emulate techniques, textures and such! That really is the only path to learn how to use this program (PS) or any other graphics editor for that matter!

Glad to see that you try to be creative in that light! If only there were alot more of us on the net posting pics and such (like us at this forum) that use their respective creative minds to make something new! I think there are WAY too many people that plaegerize!

Give credit where credit is due!

 

[neogenensis]

learn something new everyday.