Internet copyrights?

[Leesters]

So, after daydreaming of owning the free world market on hurricane candles, an important question came up...

Lets say I want to use art I find on the internet as a picture embed.

Something like this....

http://www.wildwestart.com/ArtistPage.cfm?ArtistID=1

If you scroll down, you'll see his online galery.

So easy to right click and hit save as.. and do the digital thing, and use it for whatever you want.

To the question....

Is anything found on the intenet copyright protected?

If I sell a million hurricanes with his pictures wrapped around it, can he sue me for use of a screenprint on the net?

My daydream hopes for no "He'll sue your skin off" respones.

[SatinDucky]

Often, you'll see somewhere posted on the site that the actual site and all it's contents are copyrighted.

Even if it's not, it's just wrong to steal from other people...

[Candle Man]

Yes works of art are copyrighted by the artist and he can sue you if he finds out.

I'm going to do the new thing with photos on the net, when I get my web site up. I have come across quite a few sites that you can still right click on, but the image will not copy or print. The images will not even print direct from their web site, only the words.

Here is an example http://www.cafepress.com/buy/pet+photography

[Leesters]

Thanks, the website is copyrighted real small at the bottom, like you said.

Not sure what that means on the internet though.

And about the stealing thing, it doesn't really feel that way. I'm thinking of buying one of the art pieces for my western room. On canvas, framed..real art.

But a screenprinted copy of it on the net doesn't feel like "stealing product". Am I wrong? Is it standard to make a contract with the artist or something?

Or is stuff on the internet just "free game".

*edit* Thanks Candle Man, you posted while I was typing. Guess I'll just have to use those beauties for my own house, and if I ever do progress to selling them (which I believe is where the liability comes in), find out how you get permission.

[Vicky_CO]

Most image are copyrighted and can not be used with out written permission of the original artist unless they have sold the right to someone else and then you have to have their written permission.

[Candle Man]

It is free untill you get caught. In the back of my mind it would always haunt me, though, so I would't do it, myself.

Their is royalty free photos, clipart, and images out there. Some sites are totaly free or just a small sample and some charge you a monthly fee for all they have to offer and yet others charge you a 1 time fee. Some have stipulations on how you can use the images. Some say you can use them for personal use but not for use to gain profit, as in a business.

[UrbanFool]

You can always write the artist for permission. The worst he can do is say no! He might say yes! Some people are very generous if you just ask first.

By the way, it doesn't have to say it's copyrighted to be copyrighted. It doesn't matter if that's written at the bottom of the page.

Kelly

[Stella1952]

Graphic images do not have to be formally copyrighted to be legally considered intellectual property of the webmaster, photographer or artist. The best rule to follow is that if you did not take the photo or create the image, you may not know to whom it is copyrighted, but you DO know it ain't yours!

ASKING is the right thing to do. Many times, an artist will be pleased to allow you to use his/her design or photograph, but ASK first. If you see an image on the web, write the webmaster and go from there. There are certain exceptions, such as using a copyrighted image for educational purposes or private use (not for resale or distribution) where no profit is intended or derived from its use - these are called the "fair use" provisions, but that doesn't sound like what you have in mind.

Example: If you wanna make you an Elvis (before he got fat) hurricane and use his image (which is copyrighted), so long as it is solely for your enjoyment and home decor, that's "fair use." BUT, if you decide to become the Hurricane King of the World and use that image for your "The King" line of 'canes, you would have to seek permission to use the photo from his heirs/estate (or in the case of certain works of the Beatles, the person to whom the intellectual rights have been sold, namely Michael Jackson).

There is nothing wrong with looking at another person's artwork and allowing it to inspire you to do your own version... artists have been inspiring and sharing each others works since the cave days. If it's a direct steal from a living artist, it is polite to give them credit for the idea which you rerendered. If you wanna make plaid dogs your thing (with apologies to Blue Dog's George Rodrigue), at least make them substantially different and give George a nod...

Leesters, I suggest you email that artist and tell him you would like to use one (or more) of his images for your 'canes. Hey, who knows? They might be so happy that they not only give you permission, but allow you to sell the 'canes from the artist's website as well!! Sometimes great partnerships are created this way! Good luck!

[Leesters]

I knew I could count on some awesome posts here.

I considered writing him, but in his bio on the site it says he is the top selling western artist in the country.

Sounds like I'd be asking a corporation. If I ever DO figure out wrap-around hurricanes, and want to sell them, I might give it a shot though.

Or find other options, but I really love his stuff!

Thanks everyone.

[Leesters]

. Hey, who knows? They might be so happy that they not only give you permission, but allow you to sell the 'canes from the artist's website as well!! Sometimes great partnerships are created this way! Good luck!

PS. Thanks Stella for the fantastic post, and the kick back to daydream land with this ending.

*imagines putting the artists huge signature at the top corner*

*imagines making a big "warning label" on the bottom is all about the artist and advertises his website*

*imagines making the perfect wraparound hurricane and sending it to him as a gift*

*imagines a 1000 a month order of western wraparound hurricanes*

Yeah, I'm there now... thanks.

[MissMary]

Stella hit it right on the head!

I create 3d clothing for a virtual gaming environment, and even though I may not have it drawn on paper, it's still my intellectual property. If it's merely something he created on a computer and doesn't exist in tangible form, it's covered by the DMCA.

Otherwise, it's the norm for non computerized works displayed.

I agree with the others, it never hurts to ask. Those are some great pictures!

[cnfrost]

I think everybody has already pretty much covered this one with some accurate answers. As soon as he creates the artwork, it's copyrighted. Using it is very illegal, and I can't imagine how not fun a lawsuit would be. Stella had it right about just dropping him a line and asking about using his images. If you're planning on selling canes, there's a decent chance that he won't care if you use his images, if you give him credit. Or you may be able to reach an agreement on a royalty fee. Either way, make sure you get it all in writing. It simply wouldn't do to have him change his mind.

On a related note.....you might want to check out istockphoto.com. You can get unlimited commercial use of all different kinds of photos and vector art for just a couple of bucks each.

I kinda like this one:

[NattyCat]

This is exactly what I did with a picture I found on a website that didn't mention any copyright detail.

I now have a $4,000 fine from Getty Images and an impending court case. They own the copyright of the picture, not the website that was using it - and because I hadn't paid for it, and didn't even know it was copyrighted - i now have a big fine. Ignorance is NOT an excuse - you are still liable.

Do NOT take pictures from other people's websites whether there are copyright notices or not. There is a software company in Israel who have developed software that scans the internet with image recognition software catching out people using copyrighted images - this is how I got stung.

[happy_paws_haven]

Yes and the fines can be staggering. These people are also being pursued and convicted under the full penalty of the laws, which states “penalties of up to five years' imprisonment and $250,000 in fines for each infringement". So that would be per item sold. So if you use artwork without permission and say sell 10 of those pieces the fine could be up to 10 x 5 years in prison plus 10 x $250,000. A lot of people do not realize that. We use artwork on our candles, but have the written permission from the artists to do so.

[happy_paws_haven]

But then if you really would like to use art, you can always do your homework and find out where the copyright has expired. It is safe to say, that if an artist passed away 100 years ago and his estate did not renew the copyright those images can be used. But as mentioned, do your homework and make sure no copyright exists.

[SaraScribbles]

I've e-mailed a few artists about using artwork of theirs I found online. All 3 wrote me back..1 said no because her pictures are on (I believe) IStock and they hold the rights, (don't know if it's true or not, but it sounded good at the time) and the other 2 said sure no problem.

This was a while ago though, and one even sent me a disk of pictures that he'd taken (outdoor and landscape prints).

It never hurts to ask and even if they say no, at least you'll have your answer, (and they'll do it nicely).

HTH,

Sara

[KristineG]

I've e-mailed a few artists about using artwork of theirs I found online. All 3 wrote me back..1 said no because her pictures are on (I believe) IStock and they hold the rights, (don't know if it's true or not, but it sounded good at the time) Sara

Probably true. It's posted on the iStock site in the terms and conditions and in the license you accept when you download.

[UrbanFool]

I considered writing him, but in his bio on the site it says he is the top selling western artist in the country.

He puts his pants on one leg at a time like everyone else!

Kelly

[Twoscentsworth]

"And about the stealing thing, it doesn't really feel that way. I'm thinking of buying one of the art pieces for my western room. On canvas, framed..real art.

But a screenprinted copy of it on the net doesn't feel like "stealing product". Am I wrong? Is it standard to make a contract with the artist or something?"

This bothers me on sooo many levels. OF COURSE it's STEALING...you are stealing someone's idea and design. This is how they make their living and you think taking it is not stealing because you are "thinking" about buying one of their pieces "on canvas, framed...real art" good grief anything made from the original is "real art" .

Professional artists are in business and to take, make that steal, their creations and not even think it's wrong to do amazes me. Who in heck is teaching these kind of values?

geesh.

[arkangel]

Well I have a Bachelor's Degree in Fine Arts and although my concentration was graphic design, I was commissioned by quite a few people for paintings over the years. I can't think of any artist that would say to someone - 'sure make something out of my artwork and profit from it all you want...just my signature on your item is all I want out of the deal'

If this truly is one of the best selling western artists, I think he would expect and deserve at the very least, royalties from each item sold. Buying one of his paintings is nice, but does not justify taking his art and using it to enhance your products.

[thesoapbox]

Just a bit of input on this. This was discussed in another forum I frequent. You can say that yes your work is copyrighted which normally deters people from stealing, however, if you do not actually have the copyright paperwork for each piece of art then no, it is not legally copyrighted. I actually saw a case on the People's Court about this. A gentleman was sueing another gentleman because the Defendant was using the Plaintiff's photos that he had showcased online. Well, the Plaintiff did NOT have any copyright paperwork on any of the photos so he lost the case. The judge stated that Federal law trumps State law and the Federal law says in order to sue someone over using your artwork you better have each and every piece of your artwork copyrighted and have your paperwork or you will lose your case.

Here is some info. and the link to the US copyright office:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#protect

When is my work protected?

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

Note where it says that your copyright does exist from the moment the work is created HOWEVER, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement you will have to register your artwork and just a note, it needs to be registered prior to you bringing the lawsuit.

It's a tough subject but the Plaintiff did lose his case. Judge Milian told him that if he is posting his photos, artwork, what have you on the internet without any of his work actually registered for copyright (and she said it has to be each and every piece, not just a blanket copyright) then he is basically putting his work out there for anyone and everyone to use at free will as he has no legal basis to sue for infringement with no registered copyrights in his hand.

So it is a matter or morals really. I doubt that many artists out there have everything they have created registered just because of the cost of it, but it is indeed their work and the moral thing would be to either ask if you can use it or simply not use it. Now you may come across those few people that will use it but usually a simple cease and desist will deter them from using it anymore, unless you get that one who is savvy on the law and will use it until you bring a lawsuit.

Angi

[MissMary]

Actually, this is a hot debate for the medium I mentioned (check out Second Life if you want an idea).

Copyright exists from moment of creation yes, but you DO NOT have to register it for it to be a stand in a court of law. Any notarized documentation, with a summary of the item, and signed serves as a notice of the date of creation. That is enough proof on it's own to stand in court. This has played out time and time again, and I can provide you with specific cases in where this has worked if you'd like. Most are local cases, a few state though.

Intellectual virtual property works very, very differently, and would probably be the course how it's viewed since these things were taken from the internet, regardless of whether they exist in tangible form or not, because what you actually stole, was a course of binary numbers, per se.

Up until very recently, most online works, had really no laws or anything to them, it was a judgement call. An additional segment to the DMCA now allows intellectual rights over anything and everything that is on the internet. The verification, when challenged in court, can come from various sources, even so much as a host or ISP.

I'm not sure what time frame the episode taped in for the People's Court, but that's how it works as of now for virtual property, which includes images derived from tangible items.

[Late Night]

If you think it's stealing...it probably is.

If you didn't make it...it isn't yours.

If it isn't yours...don't use it!

[thesoapbox]

It was a fairly recent People's Court and the reason he lost is because when you take your case out of your State like this guy did then the Federal law trumped the State Law so he lost. So, you may win in your state because of the state laws but if the defendant wants to take it higher, then the Federal law will take effect which is where it says that you need to have your stuff registered if you are going to file suit.

Angi

[Twoscentsworth]

If you're going to quote the uspto.gov site on copyright don't just quote what suits you.

Read on:

Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

• Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.

• If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

• If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

So what you have stated is incorrect...and so was that TV judge.