PDA

View Full Version : Image Copyright Rules



beagler
January 11th, 2010, 05:47 AM
Sorry if this is the wrong thread, I didn't see anything that looked like too obvious of a spot for this relatively off-topic post.

Lately I've been trying to learn some image editing / graphic design and have ran into a few questions concerning copyright.

The first case is this: I see a copyrighted image of what I want to design and design my image by looking at the copyrighted work and emulating the features I like. Do I have all the rights to this image since I'm using the original as inspiration, or is my rendition still owned by the original producer? How different must my own rendition be to qualify as mine?

The next case, which seems more problematic, is the following: If I download a copyrighted image and trace one part of it, and turn that tracing into a .svg file, am I entitled to use the .svg as I see fit or is it still owned by the original owner?

For an example of the last case, I searched open source clip-art for a good palm tree but couldn't find one. So, I'm in the process of outlining a palm tree I found via google images, and once I'm done, if it turns out okay, I would like to be able to upload it to open source clip-art to save someone some work in the future.

Does anybody know what the rule is for these situations?

beagler
January 11th, 2010, 08:30 PM
Maybe seeing the images would help? I attached a comparison below.

alphaniner
January 11th, 2010, 09:04 PM
I think you'd be safe in the first instance, but maybe not in the second, especially when you do the 'tracing' digitally.

But then I'm too rational to properly understand the IP laws... you'd be better off asking on an art-related forum or some such.

lukjad
January 11th, 2010, 09:14 PM
I would put it to you this way. Never, ever while working for a company or large website should you use something that is even REMOTELY similar to a logo of another company.

For instance:

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/woolworths_logo_detail.gif

is being sued by:

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~sedwards/apple2fpga/apple_logo_rainbow_6_color.jpg


because their logos are too similar.


Is this the case? Errrr.......

But that would not stop you from drawing an apple with a bite taken out of it as part of your "art", as long as you are not selling it online.

In the end, if in doubt, you should consult a trademark or patent attorney.

alphaniner
January 11th, 2010, 09:24 PM
In the end, if in doubt, you should consult a trademark or patent attorney.

Copyright, trademark, and patent are completely different beasts...

beagler
January 11th, 2010, 09:32 PM
Thanks for the replies. It seems to me that those two logo's are markedly different. So much that if that is infringement, I would guess any digital think that resembles an apple would be the same.

I can't see it making any difference, but I'm a newb at image stuff so I did trace the tree by hand. Im guessing that using something as a logo is much more important than simply using it as a small part of a web design.

I think i'll leave the tree in my octopus game since it took me forever to trace and I only get like 4 unique visitors a year.

Its probably a bad idea to submit it as an open source image though since that would, i assume, definitely be infringement.

This stuff is so dumb.

Anyways, thanks for the responses :-)

Firestem4
January 11th, 2010, 09:56 PM
I would put it to you this way. Never, ever while working for a company or large website should you use something that is even REMOTELY similar to a logo of another company.

For instance:

(snip)

because their logos are too similar.


Is this the case? Errrr.......

But that would not stop you from drawing an apple with a bite taken out of it as part of your "art", as long as you are not selling it online.

In the end, if in doubt, you should consult a trademark or patent attorney.

Take this with a grain of salt. Apple is incredibly aggressive about their product image. They sued New York because of the use of the term "The Big Apple".

Read this: http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/mar/07/its_big_guy_vs_little_guy74198/

Remax sues Rehava because their logo's look similar.

Firestem4
January 11th, 2010, 09:59 PM
The first case is this: I see a copyrighted image of what I want to design and design my image by looking at the copyrighted work and emulating the features I like. Do I have all the rights to this image since I'm using the original as inspiration, or is my rendition still owned by the original producer? How different must my own rendition be to qualify as mine?

The Mona Lisa, and a painted woman in an old style dress are not the same, even if they are similar. Think of it as plagiarism. In school, when writing essays and reports you cant copy anything verbatim that you didn't write yourself (EG: facts from an encyclopedia. You must list sources and credit the quotes). You can however use the same fact, and rewrite it using your own words.

With regards to images: If you want to use the same color as in the photo, thats acceptable. Using the exact same tree copy/pasted from their logo? Not acceptable.


The next case, which seems more problematic, is the following: If I download a copyrighted image and trace one part of it, and turn that tracing into a .svg file, am I entitled to use the .svg as I see fit or is it still owned by the original owner?

This is difficult because it also depends on its end use. For instance ANYONE can reperform, record, and distribute videos of themselves performing popular songs (Cover bands, youtube videos etc). Because you are not using anything copyrighted. (You can't copyright sound waves.) This is ok so long as you don't market yourself as the band(s) being covered.

If you were to use a bands song in a short film however, you must get permission from the copyright owners. Generally you can email the copyright owners in question and ask them if what you intend to do is ok.


For an example of the last case, I searched open source clip-art for a good palm tree but couldn't find one. So, I'm in the process of outlining a palm tree I found via google images, and once I'm done, if it turns out okay, I would like to be able to upload it to open source clip-art to save someone some work in the future.

Read the license that the clipart has been distributed with. Certain licenses allow you to do whatever you wish with it (some may require credit, or restrict you from modifying. etc).

Disclaimer: I am not a copyright/license expert. Please verify for yourself before you go on. I am only hoping to clarify to the best of my knowledge.

starcannon
January 11th, 2010, 11:15 PM
Inspired by, and outright plagiarism are generally very distinguishable. If one is uninspired, there is where the problems arise, one ends up with a carbon copy of the original, and no inspirational value has made it into the end result.

Do as thou will, and harm none.

If like Woolsworth, you end up sued by a mega corporation, then grab hold of the ACLU, or whatever similar institution you have where you live, and stick it to them.

P.S. I'm really do not like Apple. I refuse to buy anything what so ever that they produce. The make MS look like a saint when it comes to consumer rights.

Firestem4
January 11th, 2010, 11:51 PM
P.S. I'm really do not like Apple. I refuse to buy anything what so ever that they produce. The make MS look like a saint when it comes to consumer rights.

Sadly, I agree with this sentiment.

Dark Aspect
January 11th, 2010, 11:58 PM
Take this with a grain of salt. Apple is incredibly aggressive about their product image. They sued New York because of the use of the term "The Big Apple".

Apple sould be sued for being so stupid, I think apples may have existed before Mac computers. Is Apple going to sue Publix next becuase they sell.......apples?

phrostbyte
January 11th, 2010, 11:59 PM
The Mona Lisa, and a painted woman in an old style dress are not the same, even if they are similar. Think of it as plagiarism. In school, when writing essays and reports you cant copy anything verbatim that you didn't write yourself (EG: facts from an encyclopedia. You must list sources and credit the quotes). You can however use the same fact, and rewrite it using your own words.

To a certain extent. You probably couldn't just rewrite a whole book in your own words. That probably wouldn't hold up in court.

The problem with these kind of questions (like the OP's question) is the fair use principal of copyright is incredibly subjective. The way the law is written puts no quantitative limits to fair use at all. So the same law could be interpreted to mean one sentence from a book, even in your own words, is copyright violation. There has been cases in the past which such absurdity (esp. regarding music) has been upheld.

Here is the written letter of the law: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

As you can see, there is no "quantitative" value associated with fair use. That's all for the judge to decide.

alphaniner
January 12th, 2010, 12:05 AM
The problem with these kind of questions (like the OP's question) is the fair use principal of copyright is incredibly subjective.

But the OP's predicament has nothing to do with fair use. As I see it, the question is would the products of his two cases (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8645169&postcount=1) be considered "derivative work"?

Note: my entire understanding of the situation comes from reading this (http://www.pdimages.com/law/10.htm).

koenn
January 12th, 2010, 12:08 AM
In the case of the Apple and Woolworths, Woolwoths is using a stylised apple as logo, and Apple trademarked logo is also a stylized apple. Hence the case - but it's a trademark issue, not a problem of copying or plagiarism.
As alphaniner pointed out, you really have to distinguish between copyright, trademarks, patents, ... because they're governed by different rules / laws / ...

phrostbyte
January 12th, 2010, 12:17 AM
But the OP's predicament has nothing to do with fair use. As I see it, the question is would the products of his two cases (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8645169&postcount=1) be considered "derivative work"?

Note: my entire understanding of the situation comes from reading this (http://www.pdimages.com/law/10.htm).

Well I think it's a derivative work, because he is using something else copyrighted to create it. But derivative work itself is a kind of a gray area. Copyright law is so complex and subjective even Harvard lawyers get it wrong sometimes.

beagler
January 12th, 2010, 02:57 AM
Thanks for all the info. I can see this issue is pretty ambiguous, subjective, and difficult.

Thanks to Alphaniner's link I saw this sentence, which seems to make it clear that my tree is an infringement:

"Modifying a work, say by cropping, coloring, distorting, enlarging, etc. is not a way around this law. Creating a derivative work "or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted" is an infringement."

I guess i'll just have to learn to draw things from scratch :-)

Simon17
January 12th, 2010, 03:24 AM
Apple litigates against some guy who ate an apple. (http://www.ubuntu.org)