Quick Copyright question

[legofreak]

I am designing a geocoin and I need to know, If I own a christmas ornament of a Star Trek Klingon Bird of Prey, and I take a picture of it to use on the front of my geocoin, is that considered copyright infringement? I know the ship is, but since it is my picture would that ok it?

[avroair]

Yes, it's infringement. Taking a photo isn't but you will be making a coin for profit, it is.

[+maldar]

Depending on your artistic abilities, I suggest that you try to conceptualize what you think might be a new version of one of the many craft of Star Trek. Heck, you can call it the NCC-2008-A Geocacher if you want, just give me an honorable nod if you use that.

 

maldar

[+wkmccall]

I am designing a geocoin and I need to know, If I own a christmas ornament of a Star Trek Klingon Bird of Prey, and I take a picture of it to use on the front of my geocoin, is that considered copyright infringement? I know the ship is, but since it is my picture would that ok it?

 

You bought the right to own the ornament, but not the reproduction and digital rights to the ornament or image on the ornament.

The makers of the ornament had to (for the lack of a better word) "rent" the reproduction rights to image..

Good news is; you only have to change 20% of the the image to move out of infringement.

[+Renegade Knight]

I am designing a geocoin and I need to know, If I own a christmas ornament of a Star Trek Klingon Bird of Prey, and I take a picture of it to use on the front of my geocoin, is that considered copyright infringement? I know the ship is, but since it is my picture would that ok it?

 

Potographers take photo's of copyrighted things every day and sell those images for fun and profit. You can't avoid this even if you wanted too. That's how pervasive copyrighted, trademarked, and patented things are.

 

Normally those items are incidental to the larger composition the photo represents. The photo itself is copyrighted. Yes you can take a copyrighted photo of a copyrighted logo and have two different copyright owners.

 

If it's a personal coin, I think it's fair use and you are good to go.

If it'sa commercial coin, the photo is perhaps too specific.

 

That said if you were a freelance photographer and captured the perfect photo of the set of star trek I'm not sure there is a problem at all selling your perfect photo.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+tsunrisebey]

It's great that you asked BUT the best thing you can do for yourself is become familiar with the law by referring to US Govt. sites where the facts are written. However, if you have a question, best you write the authority on the matter and get a qualified opinion. Unfortunately too many people ignore all this information or don't care to abide by the laws set forth and just go about doing their own thing. I did not directly answer your question because I do NOT know the answer with 100% certainty nor am I an attorney qualified to give you an answer reagrding your question. I can tell you this much; if you got dragged into court and said; "but your Honor, on the internet in the Groundspeak forums, they said it was ok to do this...." isn't going to fly

 

http://www.copyright.gov/

 

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

 

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

 

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

 

the nature of the copyrighted work;

 

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

 

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

 

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

 

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

 

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

 

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised July 2006

 

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

 

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

 

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

 

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

 

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

 

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I am designing a geocoin and I need to know, If I own a christmas ornament of a Star Trek Klingon Bird of Prey, and I take a picture of it to use on the front of my geocoin, is that considered copyright infringement? I know the ship is, but since it is my picture would that ok it?

 

The answer is No. Copyright law protects the image, but that's not even your biggest hurdle. Trademark is arguably much stronger and more strictly enforced. Trademark covers anything even remotely resembling it by protecting against "likenesses" and such.

 

Look at this way. What you're proposing is the same as setting up a video camera to tape a movie that you're playing on dvd. You then take that recording and sell it for profit. How long do you think it will take before trouble comes knocking on your door?

 

Maldar's got the best option! Make up your own ship. This is a personal coin so it should represent you in a way that is unique to yourself. I'm much more interested in your story myself.

[+Eartha]

Please remember, the advice you are being given does not come from lawyers, and is not to be considered legal advice.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Eartha

[+JegMag]

Be very careful! A friend is a vendor for Scrapbooking supplies. She bought some products from her vendors that Hershey felt was an infringement. Even though she was only the 'middle man' so to speak, Hershey threatened her with all kinds of legal action and huge fines. She ended up paying Hershey a considerable amount of money to settle the deal.

Apparently companies employ people to search the internet for possible infringements.

[+Eric K]

Be very careful! A friend is a vendor for Scrapbooking supplies. She bought some products from her vendors that Hershey felt was an infringement. Even though she was only the 'middle man' so to speak, Hershey threatened her with all kinds of legal action and huge fines. She ended up paying Hershey a considerable amount of money to settle the deal.

Apparently companies employ people to search the internet for possible infringements.

 

I think you put that quite well. It doesn't matter if you 'think' you are right. Big companies have highly paid lawyers. You could be right but they know you don't have the deep pockets to fight them even if they are wrong.

[+Renegade Knight]

Please remember, the advice you are being given does not come from lawyers, and is not to be considered legal advice.

Even if it did come from lawers, Fair use is settled in courts. it's a valid defence, but it's murkey all the way until the court rules on it. Fair use does have some better known examples referenced in tsunrisebey post. Even then that won't save you form court.

 

Example. Barbie Girl a song by Aqua. Clearly a parody based on a Barbie Doll. Matell sued. They lost. It didn't stop the lawsuite.

[+Renegade Knight]

Be very careful! A friend is a vendor for Scrapbooking supplies. She bought some products from her vendors that Hershey felt was an infringement. Even though she was only the 'middle man' so to speak, Hershey threatened her with all kinds of legal action and huge fines. She ended up paying Hershey a considerable amount of money to settle the deal.

Apparently companies employ people to search the internet for possible infringements.

 

This is utter crap. Your friend infringed on nothing. They relied on vendors to sell legitmate goods like most all of us would do. The infringers created the goods somewhere else. True infringment would be your friend either creating the supplies, or painting her walls with the Hershey Logo and calling her store the Hershey Shack.

 

Hershey relied on having a larger legal budget to bully your friend into submission. She could have simply demanded her vendors take back the questioned products and go with the Nestle items next time around.

 

Monstor cable does this tactic. I posed a link to one of their legal bluffs in another thread.

 

You are 100% right. Companies do pay folks to search the internet for infringment. I recently bought a laptop. It came with XP installed. I bought Vista and installed it. Then I learned that I was entitled to a free upgrade to Vista, which I got. I tried to sell the free upgrade (never used, never installed) and Microsoft issued a DCMA takedown notice on the basis that it was a part of the computer that it was never installed on. Trying to work this out with Microsoft was nothing more than an experience in "talk to the hand". Trying to get a copy of the takedown notice from eBay was also frustrating. They said I need a sopena (can't spell that). I don't, they just don't want to deal with the all the folks getting DCMA takedown notices.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Renegade Knight