Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
CL - If you truly want to understand the legalities of the situation read this: http://webnet77.com/webstuff/copyright.html .
I think it was IamSam who originally pointed out this nice summary to this forum. Please don't complain that one page of text was too long to read and then continue to make utterly naive statements / arguments.
As you have been told before, the bottom line is that if you didn't create it, it isn't yours.
However, should you decide to ignore this guideline and modify (without explicit permission) and post an image that someone else created, the chances are nearly 100% that you'll get away with it because of various factors such as (a) the copyright holder isn't aware of the infringement, (b) the image, modified or not, has no commercial market, so there is no big money to be made from suing you, (c) the copyright holder or his assignees don't have deep enough pockets to pursue a legal remedy.
That being said, consider the considerable surprise of the street/graffiti artist, Shepard Fairey, when he was recently fined $25,000 and sentenced to probation in the case involving him modifying and re-distributing (in the form of a poster and T-shirts) an image of President Obama from the Associated Press, and then making matters worse by lying about the source of the image: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...d-sentenced-to-probation-in-hope-poster-case/ .
Earlier in this thread, you said:
To be blunt, if you ever found yourself talking to a lawyer or a judge, they would laugh at your statements, exactly as they would laugh at someone who stated that "going the speed limit is a real bother", or "it's kinda hard or sorta impossible to know all the rules about driving".
Also, as a friend who is a patent attorney once cautioned me, attribution (as evidence of good intention) may keep an aggrieved individual from becoming mad enough to sue you, but once they do, attribution, good intentions, lack of legal knowledge, etc. mean almost nothing when it comes to copyright issues. What matters is whether you had a license to use the work or not.
On discussion forums such as this, I either (a) use my own images, (b) rely on an implied license granted when someone asks for help 'shopping their image, or (c) rely on the TOS of some photography forums which, by signing up to use the forum, you grant other members the right to tweak your images for educational purposes. I would never EVER use a photo or piece of art created by someone else and tweaked by me beyond that venue unless the TOS explicitly allowed it.
Finally, you mentioned that you use zerochan.net and that they are completely silent on these issues. This may be because they are located in a country with less strict copyright rules than the USA, or it might be that they are equally naive / immature and don't mind risking the small chance of actually facing a lawsuit. Personally, I would regard them much the same way one would regard a great deal from a shady character selling electronics from the back of his car: It probably belongs to someone else but changed hands a few times before it got to him. You may argue that the situation is different because you are not paying zerochan.net any money. It isn't different. They may not be getting money from you, but they are getting it from their advertisers for the use of art which in some cases isn't theirs.
HTH,
Tom M
I think it was IamSam who originally pointed out this nice summary to this forum. Please don't complain that one page of text was too long to read and then continue to make utterly naive statements / arguments.
As you have been told before, the bottom line is that if you didn't create it, it isn't yours.
However, should you decide to ignore this guideline and modify (without explicit permission) and post an image that someone else created, the chances are nearly 100% that you'll get away with it because of various factors such as (a) the copyright holder isn't aware of the infringement, (b) the image, modified or not, has no commercial market, so there is no big money to be made from suing you, (c) the copyright holder or his assignees don't have deep enough pockets to pursue a legal remedy.
That being said, consider the considerable surprise of the street/graffiti artist, Shepard Fairey, when he was recently fined $25,000 and sentenced to probation in the case involving him modifying and re-distributing (in the form of a poster and T-shirts) an image of President Obama from the Associated Press, and then making matters worse by lying about the source of the image: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...d-sentenced-to-probation-in-hope-poster-case/ .
Earlier in this thread, you said:
To be blunt, if you ever found yourself talking to a lawyer or a judge, they would laugh at your statements, exactly as they would laugh at someone who stated that "going the speed limit is a real bother", or "it's kinda hard or sorta impossible to know all the rules about driving".
Also, as a friend who is a patent attorney once cautioned me, attribution (as evidence of good intention) may keep an aggrieved individual from becoming mad enough to sue you, but once they do, attribution, good intentions, lack of legal knowledge, etc. mean almost nothing when it comes to copyright issues. What matters is whether you had a license to use the work or not.
On discussion forums such as this, I either (a) use my own images, (b) rely on an implied license granted when someone asks for help 'shopping their image, or (c) rely on the TOS of some photography forums which, by signing up to use the forum, you grant other members the right to tweak your images for educational purposes. I would never EVER use a photo or piece of art created by someone else and tweaked by me beyond that venue unless the TOS explicitly allowed it.
Finally, you mentioned that you use zerochan.net and that they are completely silent on these issues. This may be because they are located in a country with less strict copyright rules than the USA, or it might be that they are equally naive / immature and don't mind risking the small chance of actually facing a lawsuit. Personally, I would regard them much the same way one would regard a great deal from a shady character selling electronics from the back of his car: It probably belongs to someone else but changed hands a few times before it got to him. You may argue that the situation is different because you are not paying zerochan.net any money. It isn't different. They may not be getting money from you, but they are getting it from their advertisers for the use of art which in some cases isn't theirs.
HTH,
Tom M
Last edited:
