copyright

[tcorn1965]

Oct. 2010...440 posts
Useful posts...0 (maybe more, I generally skip when I see your name attached)
Being banned...Priceless.

You know Addie, sometimes you do have posts that are helpful...but it is the exception not the rule.
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, because it appeared like you wanted to honestly adapt and change from your dumb outbursts from when you first joined. That changed when you started name calling Marlene, a very well respected and admired person on this forum.

Please leave,
Terry

 

[AUTO-FX]

Addie, you said - Blah blah blah blah blah - what???

 

[AUTO-FX]

Like the teacher in the Charlie Brown cartoons.....whomp whomp wha wha whomp....

 

[AUTO-FX]

Oh good, must be past your bedtime. DONT COME BACK !!!

 

[Locals Find!]

 

[iSign]

roflmao = ran off for loathing Marlene's avatar options

 

[natedawg9640]

lulz. this thread crashed and burned. but then again. that's been done before too.

 

[TheSellOut]

Alright, lets try and get this thread back on track.

Dan I wanted to touch on what you brought into light here....

I think its interesting that most people selling 'logos' to their clients that use clip art are unaware that that 'logo' is unable to be copyrighted

So is what you are saying is that if a designer uses is clip art in a logo, that anyone could have the right to reproduce it? This is quite interesting, how about if the clip art was manipulated in anyway?

Isign I never got back to you...

ummm... yeah, it would be "wrong" in the sense that it's not legal,

That is the answer I was looking for.

you're joking right?

Well what I was trying to get at was what Bob bought up about, that...

There is no distinction between innocent casual use and intentional malicious use. The traditional injunctions cast far too wide a net.

Being as there is no line between the two does that make every and any causal use of a copyrighted image illegal? If so I think its a little ludacris as has Marlene stated...

as a professional, I respect the laws and do the best I can to obey them. in my private life, I would make a big old Mickey Mouse for my grandson's wall.

Same here Marlene!

Here's the difference: if it is your photo (meaning that YOU took the photo) then you can create whatever derivative works you like (tracing it in Illustrator, tracing it on a light table). If someone else took the photo (for example: a photo studio took the picture of your dog) then you do not have the copyright to create derivative works (eg. a cartoon illustration). This is why Shepard Fairey got in hot water with the AP photographer -- he used a picture of President Obama that was not his (he did not hold copyright or permission to create derivative works).

Good post and as far as the Shepard Fairey "Hope" Poster, I understand why he got in hot water but I also feel it is somewhat sad for if he had attempted to get the permission and failed, that he might never have been inspired to create such a epic piece of modern American artwork.

To go a little further into your post, if I created the attached image using the picture from the following link...

http://www.photoscanada.com/gallery/american_bald_eagle/squamish_bald_eagles_089

as a reference for the eagle, I would be in violation of the copyright?

Please excuse my ignorance on all of this.

 

[GAC05]

Right under the eagle it says:
Copyright 2003 - 2008 © Bill McComish
All images on this website are legally protected from unauthorized use by international copyright law.
The images may NOT be used in other websites, published, copied to another computer or used as the basis for other photographs or illustrations.

But then again, this guy is Canadian..... do we really have to worry?
jk

wayne k
guam usa

 

[TheSellOut]

Well I guess I should have scrolled down a little further for my answer!

and lol, I think you are right, that probably only applies to Canadians...jk!

 

[Dan Antonelli]

Alright, lets try and get this thread back on track.

Dan I wanted to touch on what you brought into light here....



So is what you are saying is that if a designer uses is clip art in a logo, that anyone could have the right to reproduce it? This is quite interesting, how about if the clip art was manipulated in anyway?

I'm not a lawyer but what I understand (and you can check fine print on sites like iStock), you cannot copyright a logo which uses clip art since the artwork is royalty free, and therefore not original. The original artist always maintains the rights to the clip art, and you are granted certain usage for it, which may vary depending on use agreements.

Istock's use agreements clearly indicates this:

4. Standard License Prohibitions
(a) Prohibited Uses. You may not do anything with the Content that is not expressly permitted in the preceding section or permitted by an Extended License. For greater certainty, the following are “Prohibited Uses” and you may not:

use the Conte

• nt in design template applications intended for resale, whether on-line or not, including, without limitation, website templates, Flash templates, business card templates, electronic greeting card templates, and brochure design templates;
• use or display the Content on websites or other venues designed to induce or involving the sale, license or other distribution of “on demand” products, including postcards, mugs, t-shirts, posters and other items (this includes custom designed websites, as well as sites such as www.cafepress.com);
• use the Content in any posters (printed on paper, canvas or any other media) or other items for resale, license or other distribution for profit;
  [*]use any of the Content as part of a trade-mark, design-mark, trade-name, business name, service mark, or logo
  

;