Copyrighted Artwork?

[SignProPlus-Chip]

Your not even clear on idea/concept vs. design/work.

If a client walks into my shop with a scribble on a napkin providing a basic concept, guess what, it's ALREADY PROTECTED under copyright because it's in a fixed form as a napkin sketch. What you would created from that may be a refined version, but is still derivative of the clients doodle.

An idea or concept cannot be Copyright because it exists in no physical form.

Contracts have no bearing here whatsoever, unless it's purpose is to define a "work for hire" agreements, which is a whole other discussion.

FYI - Copyright does provide for automatic ownership of a created work....THAT IS ITS PURPOSE.

Yes, you can.

The only way that Shop A can protect his design concept as opposed to his work is to have his client sign a contract specifically limiting the use of Shop A's design concept without proper permission.

If Shop A did not did not have the client enter into a contractual agreement limiting the use of the design concept then you are free to recreate it, but you are not free to copy it directly using any physical, automatic or mechanical means.


I can imagine that many of you are rolling your eyes right now -- Oh!!! Goodness gracious, that can't be right.

But it is true. Copyright law does not provide for automatic ownership of a design concept. But a contract can do that for you.

 

[WhiskeyDreamer]

 

[Techman]

The only way that Shop A can protect his design concept as opposed to his work is to have his client sign a contract specifically limiting the use of Shop A's design concept without proper permission.

This could be stunningly mistaken.

As I posted above..

Shepard Fairey sits in his probation chair. He got caught trying to alter the facts after he was busted and sued for making a derivative work from an AP photo. They went after him in a civil suit so he tried to alter the evidence and got caught. In fact he was busted by his employee. There was no friggin contract connected to that photo..

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2012/09/07/shepard-fairey-obama-poster/

 

[SignProPlus-Chip]

Techman,

Don't even get me started on Shepard Fairey. Somehow he is one of the biggest "designers" out there, but he is also a penultimate thief. All he does is steal and they praise him for his work....sigh.

 

[CES020]

Not trying to split hairs, but when OldGoat is saying is very different than what Shepard Fairey did. He took an actual photograph, digital, and modified the ACTUAL photograph.

If I am reading what OldGoat says, he's saying if you Shepard Fairly would have opened the photo up, printed it out, and then sat at his desk and referenced the photo visually, not digitally, then his creation would have been protected. However, he didn't do that. He digitally used an existing photo, modified it, and used that.

Had he done it the way I stated above, he would have been fine. It would have been no different than someone looking at a photo of the golden gate bridge and painting a painting from looking at that photo.

I'm not suggesting I even remotely understand it all, I'm just saying that I think there is a difference in what he is saying, and that's the difference that might be overlooked in some of this.

I know many artists that pull photos from the internet, get their brushes out, and use those photos to paint their paintings. I've never once seen any of them be sued or even talked about being sued. In fact, they most often hang their paintings in galleries.

 

[SignProPlus-Chip]

And Oldgoat would still be wrong.

If I use someone else photograph even as a visual reference for a drawing, I am infringing on their Copyright. It's a derivative work, plain and simple.

It doesn't matter how much work you put into it, either mechanically or by hand. Copying someone else work is an infringement, period.

You cannot measure how right or wrong something like this is by whether of not your seeing people get sued over it. Copyright is a civil matter. If you were to infringe upon my work, it remains at my discretion to take action against you. There is no Copyright police to call that will come make an arrest, or level charges against you. The owner of the original work has to be aware of the infringement, and take action to protect it. Also, lack of action on the part of the rights owner does not constitute a lapse in protection over the work either.

Not trying to split hairs, but when OldGoat is saying is very different than what Shepard Fairey did. He took an actual photograph, digital, and modified the ACTUAL photograph.

If I am reading what OldGoat says, he's saying if you Shepard Fairly would have opened the photo up, printed it out, and then sat at his desk and referenced the photo visually, not digitally, then his creation would have been protected. However, he didn't do that. He digitally used an existing photo, modified it, and used that.

Had he done it the way I stated above, he would have been fine. It would have been no different than someone looking at a photo of the golden gate bridge and painting a painting from looking at that photo.

I'm not suggesting I even remotely understand it all, I'm just saying that I think there is a difference in what he is saying, and that's the difference that might be overlooked in some of this.

I know many artists that pull photos from the internet, get their brushes out, and use those photos to paint their paintings. I've never once seen any of them be sued or even talked about being sued. In fact, they most often hang their paintings in galleries.

 

[CES020]

I don't agree with what you said there.

I don't believe it's against copyright law to look at a photo and paint your interpretation of it. If that were true, there would be no art world, or it would be a hollow shell of what exists today. Name me an artist that hasn't clipped a photo to their easel and painted from that.

I think you are dead wrong there. How do you think portrait paintings get done? Do you think the people sit there for a week? No, they take the photo, given to them, and they paint it, using the photo for reference. The person that takes does the painting didn't take the photo.

 

[Gino]

I don't agree with what you said there.

I don't believe it's against copyright law to look at a photo and paint your interpretation of it. If that were true, there would be no art world, or it would be a hollow shell of what exists today. Name me an artist that hasn't clipped a photo to their easel and painted from that.

I think you are dead wrong there. How do you think portrait paintings get done? Do you think the people sit there for a week? No, they take the photo, given to them, and they paint it, using the photo for reference. The person that takes does the painting didn't take the photo.

So, if you do a self portrait, you're gonna sue yourself ??

C'mon folks, get real, some of these examples are comfortably explained as being commissioned pieces. If you want to paint a picture of a clipping and put it up on your wall at home.... who's gonna know ?? You will, so if you can live with it... that's all that matters.... if you don't mind someone coming in one day and telling you they know you copied someone else's work.

I was at a fancy restaurant one time in Alaska, which had fantastic paintings of owls and my wife adores owls. I took out my camera and started taking pictures of some of them and someone called me aside and asked me what I was doing ?? I said, taking pictures of these owls, my wife really likes them. He said, unless you want your camera confiscated, stop now and read the sign over there on the wall. Sure enough, there was a sign stating anyone duplicating these pictures would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law regardless of what medium was used.

I said, :Oops: .......... I didn't know. I'll stop. Little did he know, I had already taken about 15 pictures and I was quite satisfied. I did make some large format prints out of some of them, but we've since replaced them.


It's basically a self-discipline law or rule one has to follow. Sure, you'll probably never get caught, but do you want to know you're no better than a common thief, just not caught ??

 

[oldgoatroper]

Copyright does provide for automatic ownership of a created work....THAT IS ITS PURPOSE.

I have said this myself in this thread, already.

But I think you take the word "work" to also encompass the design/ideas/concepts depicted by the physical manifestation of the "work", yes?

So, if your statement were to be expanded it would read as follows:

"Copyright does provide for automatic ownership of a created physical work as well as the ideas/design concepts/layout this physical work conveys."


Do I understand you correctly, Chip?

 

[sfr table hockey]

I don't agree with what you said there.

I don't believe it's against copyright law to look at a photo and paint your interpretation of it. If that were true, there would be no art world, or it would be a hollow shell of what exists today. Name me an artist that hasn't clipped a photo to their easel and painted from that.

I think you are dead wrong there. How do you think portrait paintings get done? Do you think the people sit there for a week? No, they take the photo, given to them, and they paint it, using the photo for reference. The person that takes does the painting didn't take the photo.

What my art customers have said to me was that they need to be the one who took the photo when they paint a picture of it. Or the person who took the photo has to give the ok to use it. But this does not mean they can take a photo of anything and paint it like Gino's owls.

 

[WhiskeyDreamer]

I have said this myself in this thread, already.

But I think you take the word "work" to also encompass the design/ideas/concepts depicted by the physical manifestation of the "work", yes?

The design aka layout aka logo is what is copyrighted. From what you're saying, someone can take another person's design/layout/logo and copy it/print it legally as long as they don't use the original file. And that's bull.

 

[oldgoatroper]

The design aka layout aka logo is what is copyrighted. From what you're saying, someone can take another person's design/layout/logo and copy it/print it legally as long as they don't use the original file. And that's bull.

Please let Chip answer the question, thank you...

 

[ForgeInc]

I have still YET to see Old Goat Roper back up anything to support this statement: "So, you can recreate the artwork from scratch to look as close as you like as long as you do not use -- in any way -- the actual file/printout that came from the other vendor. "

One can argue about what the definition of "copy" means or whatever other word you want but I am 99.99% sure he will never be able to provide anything to back it up either. Be that as it may...doesn't common sense play into this? I mean - Seriously????

If you have ever created any sort of original art or design or logo and have any smarts at all, why would you possibly think it would be remotely okay to copy, (literally to make an exact a duplication as possible) a logo or other artwork from "business A" and then use it for your own purposes as "business B" as long as you didn't use the original digital art or print or whatever?? How could you ever prove you didn't use the original file??

Also, let's play devil's advocate. If this WERE the case, then why would literature and music be exceptions?

It can't just be me who thinks this ludicrous. Seriously? Does this make ANY SENSE?

 

[WhiskeyDreamer]

please let chip answer the question, thank you...

:ROFLMAO:

I have still YET to see Old Goat Roper back up anything to support this statement: "So, you can recreate the artwork from scratch to look as close as you like as long as you do not use -- in any way -- the actual file/printout that came from the other vendor. "

I'm waiting for his "evidence" too.

 

[oldgoatroper]

I have still YET to see Old Goat Roper back up anything to support this statement: "So, you can recreate the artwork from scratch to look as close as you like as long as you do not use -- in any way -- the actual file/printout that came from the other vendor. "

One can argue about what the definition of "copy" means or whatever other word you want but I am 99.99% sure he will never be able to provide anything to back it up either. Be that as it may...doesn't common sense play into this? I mean - Seriously????

If you have ever created any sort of original art or design or logo and have any smarts at all, why would you possibly think it would be remotely okay to copy, (literally to make an exact a duplication as possible) a logo or other artwork from "business A" and then use it for your own purposes as "business B" as long as you didn't use the original digital art or print or whatever?? How could you ever prove you
didn't use the original file??

Also, let's play devil's advocate. If this WERE the case, then why would literature and music be exceptions?

It can't just be me who thinks this ludicrous. Seriously? Does this make ANY SENSE?

Forge, how about you?

Would you agree with the statement I presented back to Chip for his confirmation?

"Copyright does provide for automatic ownership of a created physical work as well as the ideas/design concepts/layout this physical work conveys."


<edit> what about you, Fenris? Are you in agreement with Chip?

 

[WhiskeyDreamer]

"Copyright does provide for automatic ownership of a created physical work as well as the ideas/design concepts/layout this physical work conveys."
<edit> what about you, Fenris? Are you in agreement with Chip?

Before I answer, let's define some of these words as they are used in the sentence YOU wrote.

Physical work: final output product that is either a sign, vehicle lettering, or print ready file.

Ideas/design concepts/layout: Hand rendered drawings, digital proofs of logo up until the final logo is created.

Under those definitions, YES, I agree with Chip. They are copyrighted to the person (or the company that they work for) the moment they are created and it is NOT legal to reproduce them in anyone without the person's (or company's) written consent for reproduction.

 

[ForgeInc]

I don't, but why does it matter? Your statement of "So, you can recreate the artwork from scratch to look as close as you like as long as you do not use -- in any way -- the actual file/printout that came from the other vendor. " has nothing to do with whether or not a copyright is a "work" or an "idea".

I get the fact that you can't copyright an "idea". Yes, Check, got it 100%. For instance, in our company logo, I can't copyright the "idea" of using an anvil as a logo with "forge" written under it. But the minute I execute said manifestation of that idea as a logo and publish it ("the work") THEN it's under copyright correct? And by your twisted logic, You, "OldGoatRoper, Inc." could then take the logo I designed, set a print out on your desk, and recreate it for your own personal use, correct?

Try it!

 

[Rick]

This looks like a googled photo slapped on a shield... if it is, my furry, pitted buttock has more copyright protection... if it's clipart... then I'm trademarking me bum...

 

[oldgoatroper]

I'm confused, now... Are both of you saying that you don't agree with the following statement?

"Copyright does provide for automatic ownership of a created physical work as well as the ideas/design concepts/layout this physical work conveys."

 

[The Vector Doctor]

This looks like a googled photo slapped on a shield... if it is, my furry, pitted buttock has more copyright protection... if it's clipart... then I'm trademarking me bum...

Old Paints' speedos are copyrighted. You might be infringing with your avatar