copyright

[J Hill Designs]

well, the songs ARE copyrighted...

 

[Marlene]

Last four posts, off topic. lol.

yep they arematey

 

[Locals Find!]

Oh Goodness.....where's my button...where is it......

BLEEEEEEEEEP....(that's the sound of my game show buzzer)

wrong answer. i'm not trying to bust your balls...but this is what kills me ... why make statements on a subject like this if you don't know them to be correct? it is obvious that the poster of this statement doenst have a good grasp of the subject we are talking about or as a professional in the trade he would not have used copyrighted images in his logo..let alone the US Post Office's images, I'm not trying to be mean here it is just abundantly clear you are not clear about this topic.

Obviously at some point Adtech thought it was acceptable to take bits and pieces of other's work and use that to make his own original 'logo' (off a disc he purchased from his statements) he has learned it isnt the case, i'm sure that was embarrassing and it takes work & money to remove it from his companies image, that could have been avoided. But where did he get that idea? Just look at some of the questions that have popped up in this thread about using sports logos for your own use and such...the misinformation or misunderstanding is everywhere and at some point it is going to cost you or your customers money if you do not understand the basics.

ok back to the song 'happy birthday' it is protected until 2030 because of the copyright extension law of 1998....and here's a little trivia for you. many will say it is owned by Clayton F Summy Music Production Company (and that is usually the correct answer in trivia games) but it is currently owned by the Time Warner Co. estimates are that it brings in over $2M per year in royalties.

Ok Happy birthday was a bad example. Here is a better one twinkle twinkle little star. Is public Domain. Is that better?

 

[Marlene]

this is kind of long but really interesting to read. it goes into old artwork and photos of old artwork.

Copyright protects both published and unpublished works but it does so for different terms. All unpublished works (pieces found in attics, archives, etc. and some that are in private collections) that were created before 1888 are in the public domain in the U.S. and may be freely reproduced. One odd wrinkle in our law: a work that was created before 1978 and first published between 1977 and 2003 is still protected by copyright until 2048 (no matter how old the work). That wrinkle may have been ironed out by now but I don't think so.

The artwork that you mention are all published works however. Each is in the public domain. In short, all works that were first published (anywhere in the world) before 1923 are now in the public domain. For a work first published after 1923 there is a complicated process to determine the duration of its copyright protection.

Now comes the interesting part: It is lawful to reproduce in whole or in part, take pictures of, and create derivative works from, artwork that is in the public domain. It is lawful to "copy the original." It is not lawful, however, to "copy a copy." So, while you are free to go to the Sistine Chapel and take as many pictures as they'll permit and then sell those pictures, you may not reproduce a picture that someone else has taken of the Sistine Chapel. Copyright attaches to that other person's picture and precludes you from reproducing it without permission of the owner of the copyright in the picture.

More interesting news: If the picture of the artwork that someone else took is of the entire work and has little if any of its own creativity then copyright does not protect that picture and it may be reproduced by anyone. But if the picture of the artwork that someone else took is of a particular angle of the art or is only a discrete part of the work or is lighted in a creative way or has any other indicia of creativity then copyright attaches to those creative elements of the picture and you may not reproduce them (or the picture) without permission.

 

[Bigdawg]

Adtechia... you missed his whole point... and focused in on the trivia. The point was...

it doesn't seem like you know what you are talking about in regards to copyright so your advice should be taken with a big ole' grain of salt.

 

[Marlene]

it doesn't seem like you know what you are talking about in regards to copyright so your advice should be taken with a big ole' grain of salt.

or until you at least, remove the USPS eagle off your logo on your website. why the delay? you've had plenty of time to pull it

 

[J Hill Designs]

guys, its probably Addie's worm posting again...

 

[Marlene]

guys, its probably Addie's worm posting again...

it's the doppelganer again! I hate it when mine does bad things

 

[Just Another Sign Guy]

The irony of threads like this, is that when people that are without law degrees that rattle off this is/isn't allowed on whatever law is dangerously close to be violating the law as well. Whether or not what they say is correct.

Professions such as Law and Medical have very strict rules and regulations over such things due to the "intimate" nature of those professions. Now with the internet, there is some room to scratch and burp with regard to what you say until things catch up, as most people see the internet as a place that people still have to vet the information they read very carefully. As the internet is steadly becoming the first place people go for information(if it isn't already there by now) that'll change for sure.

But if you were to go up to someone during a "physical" conversation and say this or that is or isn't allowed under the law. You could be sued. Or if you say to someone, sounds like your kid is sick or sounds like you are sick, you could be sued unless you have certain letters after your name.

Case in point, I knew a barn manager that told a boarder at his barn that it looked like her horse was lame. She sued and won. The claim was giving medical(in this case vet.) advice without a license. Now, you might be thinking why as that seems to be kinda harch reaction. They were on the outs and I think she was especially wanting to get something to stick it to him. Not many people have evoked that law in my experience, but it's still on the books and that's all that matters. I don't know what he does now, but he doesn't manage that barn anymore. I've done it numerous times with boarders at my barn, still do. After so many years you pick up on that just by experience, but it is still against the law. As it is in TN anyway.

That's just another irony, that isn't far off from the irony that DanStriker mentions. It's because of what Dan finds ironic is why we have rules and regulations for certain professions. Regardless of whether or not they offender is correct.

no what is ironic is the above post coming from a 'professional graphic artist' who is trying to offer services to the trade making the above statement, when the whole reason i started this thread was because of your statements in another thread in which you were passing along erroneous information about changing artwork by a percentage and stating that they were legal opinions of a judge you could not recall the name of ....

we are not dealing with complex copyright issues here. these are the basics that anyone who earns a cent in this industry should understand.

 

[Joe Diaz]

I thought I would post this:

All posts and other information available at Signs 101 should be viewed as the opinion only of the poster. No claim is made that any information is accurate. As such, each reader should not rely on any information available here as accurate and should independently verify such accuracy. In addition, no claim is made that posts made here will be free from profanity, obscenity, rude, hurtful, libelous or insulting opinions of the poster. Such posts should, however, be reported to an Administrator for review.

Neither the owners, employees, officers nor directors of Signs 101 shall be held responsible or liable under any legal theory for any loss or injury resulting from any post, information made available, policy, action or lack of an action at Signs 101. Your use of this website is your acceptance of these terms and conditions of use.

It's at the bottom of every page.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

no what is ironic is the above post coming from a 'professional graphic artist' who is trying to offer services to the trade making the above statement, when the whole reason i started this thread was because of your statements in another thread in which you were passing along erroneous information about changing artwork by a percentage and stating that they were legal opinions of a judge you could not recall the name of ....

Do you know how many rulings, how many court cases one studies in pre-law? Especially a small niche ruling here when a judge that is a part of the majority that offers their own opinion, but may not be the speaker for the majority, they just added their supplemental opinion as well? Add that to the fact that this job wasn't even a shimmer in my mind at the time. Copyright issues don't come up much in the horse industry as far as artwork goes, which was the business that I was in(and still am) at the time.

Now just because I couldn't recall the name of the court case(or judge) doesn't mean that it doesn't exists, does not mean that it does either and it's hard to prove one way or the other, especially when I can't remember year or title of the court case and good luck trying to find it, that would be looking through a lot of abstracts one by one.

Here is the kicker though, whether you're right or not about this issue it is a big no-no for you to state what you do about the legality of the issue. It really is unless you have JD after your name(I did the same thing, hard not to expound one's opinions at times), if you do that's something else. Let's say that you are right and I was just off my rocker and you said that what I did was illegal, because that law doesn't exist. Unless you add the stipulation "I'm not a lawyer...(or like caveat)" you are giving the impression that you are expert enough in legal matters and interpretations of the law. In other words, acting like a lawyer when you aren't. You may not intend such an act, but that's the impression that you are giving and what happens if you talk like that someone in person and they actually had "good faith" on their side and took your advice and lost(or won actually)? That wouldn't be good for you.

If you think I'm off my rocker on that one as well. Think about the stipulation that Joe Diaz posted and why there would be such a need for that? I know one forum I belong to as in one of their rules that no legal discussion what so ever will be tolerated. Also, if you ever watch a show say for instance Dr Phil and it says at the end of the show something to the tune of "for entertainment purposes only", chances are they let whatever certification lapse and legally they can't give advice. I bring up Dr Phil, because I think(key word there think) he was one that did that. I wonder if the Dr still has a "." after that. There was a big stink about that with Dr Pepper and the medical profession and the "." had to be removed in order for people not to think that the soft drink was named after a true Dr.

 

[Locals Find!]

or until you at least, remove the USPS eagle off your logo on your website. why the delay? you've had plenty of time to pull it

Actually I have attempted to change out the logo multiple times. For some reason the service that provides the backbone of that site keeps putting up the old logo. I have emailed customer support on it many times. I really want it down before I end up in court. I have managed to get it changed every where else. Which was not inexpensive to say the least reprinting ever scrap of literature and replacing every sticker that goes out on every box.

By the way whats up with using the Dr. Who phone booth as an Avatar. Isn't that a copyrighted image also?

As, for not knowing what I am talking about, that wasn't a legal opinion. That was a generalization based on a small part of the conversation concerning a few pieces. Now what I said does not apply to all pieces of artwork and shouldn't. Just like what many others on here have said doesn't apply to every case. It wasn't offered as legal advice. It was offered simply as part of the conversation. Many on here I am sure myself included can't determine whether every piece of work that comes across our computers/desks is original or copyrighted. We all have made mistakes, I for one freely admit I did and have been attempting to rectify it. This is probably why most lawyers send you a cease and desist prior to taking you to court when a mistake is made.

 

[fmg]

BBC Own the copyright on the Dr Who Tardis

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Tardis:Copyrights

 

[CES020]

Okay, I'll raise my hand with a question for the brain trust here.....

If I open a photo and lock it, then I spend the next hour tracing it, then I delete the photo, according to copyright law, I have broken the law. I can't do that.

Now, if I'm a tattoo artist, I can take that same picture, put it on a light box, trace the exact logo, run it through that machine that makes the transfer, then stick it on someone, tattoo those exact lines, and I'm all good.

How many times have you see HD tattooed on people? How many times have the people on Miami Ink and LA Ink and all the other "Ink" programs had someone walk in the door, hand them a photo, and they go right back and trace it to make the template.

I don't see the difference. If they put a light behind it and trace the logo, what's the difference in my doing that electronically? In my opinion, tracing a logo on a light box is no different than tracing it in illustrator. Both are wrong in my opinion.

However, one person is considered a thief and the other is considered a "brilliant artist".

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I don't see the difference. If they put a light behind it and trace the logo, what's the difference in my doing that electronically? In my opinion, tracing a logo on a light box is no different than tracing it in illustrator. Both are wrong in my opinion.

It would depend on what you are tracing. If it's a picture of my dog and I want to use that for an illustration, I don't think that would be a problem. Very first illustration that I ever did was one of a young horse that I had with a cat on her back. I did it from a picture that I had taken. I wouldn't consider that wrong in a legal sense, but then again I don't know enough to comment on that aspect with any authority. Maybe from an "artistic" sense, but I would have no problem with the term illustrator versus artist. If Illustrator was good enough for Norman Rockwell, it certainly is for me.

However, doesn't the Vector Doctor trace logos and clipart for people? I would hope they would be people that have rights to those logos(clipart), but that would still be tracing logos.

It would just depend on the situation. Like so many things, it isn't black & white like people try to make it seem.

 

[natedawg9640]

this guy seems to be actively breaking plenty of copyright laws, but the web site is still alive.

http://stickershock23.com/Cartoons.html

I think the how to apply video was stolen from another site to boot.

Question regarding the final paragraph (disclaimer) on that user agreement...

would that in effect displace any legalities regarding the printer (aside from moralities) and hold up if you were to end up in court over a spongebob picture?

so????

 

[iSign]

so?

hey, those keystrokes, in that sequence... are already taken!!

CEASE AND DESIST!

 

[natedawg9640]

lol... sue me.

 

[iSign]

and furthermore, for all you phuqin' know-it-all's out there...

YOU DON'T KNOW-IT-ALL!!!

quit acting like you know-it-all for christs sake.. and
not only do you not know-it-all, but another thing you don't know is if I think I know enough to know you don't know it all, does that mean I think I know it all???

....you don't know do you? Well I do! I know that I don't think I know it all, and even though I know that I don't, I still know enough to know that you don't either... and you know what else (of course you will say, because you... oh nevermind) I'll tell you what else... not only do you not know it all around here, neither does anyone else around here... YET, much to your amazement I'd imagine, everybody else also knows you don't know it all...


so quit acting like a bunch of know-it-alls... and not only will the world be a better place... but you will probably feel an incredible sense of relief that you no longer have that unbearable weight of keeping up appearances on you anymore!!!

 

[Marlene]

By the way whats up with using the Dr. Who phone booth as an Avatar. Isn't that a copyrighted image also?

go to the BBC and they have a lot of Dr Who avatars to download for message boards which if I am correct, this is. I did add my cat to it, I'm pretty sure, won't land me in jail. so bite me. it's just one example that you don't know crap about much