fair use and copyright decision

[+DocWahala]

Interesting thread, especially with my most recent experience with this question as it pertains to gel pins. A few weeks ago, I asked someone to look at a possible coin idea. I sent two drawings, one was a fine line drawing and the other was done in charcoal.

 

The response back was along the line of no matter how much I had changed my drawing, I was violating copyright laws.

 

Interesting, because this was not a case of one drawing being based on the other. Also interesting because the drawings were works I had commissioned a regional artist to do for me, with the explicit understanding the drawings would be used as the basis for a geocoin, in which I was invoiced for, and our contract addresses this as well.

 

As the owner of the artwork, I know I would not want someone to financially gain from something I have invested time and money in. As I am not a graduate of Juliard, even though I know I can draw, I am still going to pay someone else to do the finer work. I also know I am not going to be retiring from my day job, not on coin sales.

 

It is the coins which are so clearly a copyright ,knockoff that make me laugh. Just run the word "star" - (stargaze, star wars, star trek) and see how many copies there are.

 

And let's not get started on co-defendants.

 

Lesson - stay away from copying, unless absolutely sure it it public domain. That, and work with the graphic artist department of the manufacturer.

 

DocWahala

[RedShoesGirl]

Not to change subject... but I went to a local art gallery yesterday and was surprised to see a. an original Durer (don't know how to type the umlaut into the name) print of a bagpipe player, a Picasso piece, and a Rembrandt. So.... as I understand it.... the Rembrandt and the Durer pieces would be public use... but the Picasso is protected. The Durer works are amazing! It is hard to believe that anybody could carve that into wood.... and actually carving it in reverse as to pick up the ink on the ridges. That would be an awesome idea for a coin... just a real plain finish... but with intricate art work to stamp with.

 

the pieces themselves may be in the public domain, but any photos of the works by someone other than yourself would be copyrighted by the photographer.

 

and the gallery may have strict rules as to what can be photographed by whom. it isn't as easy as it seems to use works by the likes of picasso etc. even though the copyright may have run out on a painting, it is protected by other laws that govern how a photograph of something may be used.

 

for example, there is this very famous tree on some golf course or something near monterey. the tree is on private land and the owners of that land have protected their right of ownership when it comes to someone making money off that tree.

 

another example. i take photos for stock photography, like shooting on spec in case someone want to use a pic of a couple holding hands, or a spiffy house. both the couple and the house are protected and in order for me to use the work commercially i have to have model releases from the couple and the home owner. commercial use of anything you don't own is a sticky wicket. even editorial work like in textbooks is getting stricter. model releases required for property and recognizable people.

 

so while you might be able to take a photo of a scarab from king tut's tomb and make a coin out of it, unless you have permission from the owner of that scarab to first take a photo of it and second make a coin from your photo, you could be in deep doo-doo. that's why galleries and museums and such have such strict rules on photography. and don't even think about using a photo in a book of art works. books are protected, photos in the book protected.

 

ever heard of disney's rules on photos in their parks? no commercial photography allowed. period. you can shoot free-range children or your own children, but no commercial work is allowed. not even magazine work even though that is considered editorial. one has to jump through all the hoops with disney PR folks to gain admittance and to shoot a story.

 

now if you "hire" someone to make a drawing or photo for you for a coin, the artist is working for hire - and you own the copyright to that work if the contract specifically says "work for hire."

 

often there is a deal struck between the hirer and the hiree for joint copyright. work for hire sucks because the artist can possibly lose all rights to their work.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Interesting thread, especially with my most recent experience with this question as it pertains to gel pins. A few weeks ago, I asked someone to look at a possible coin idea. I sent two drawings, one was a fine line drawing and the other was done in charcoal.

 

The response back was along the line of no matter how much I had changed my drawing, I was violating copyright laws.

 

Interesting, because this was not a case of one drawing being based on the other. Also interesting because the drawings were works I had commissioned a regional artist to do for me, with the explicit understanding the drawings would be used as the basis for a geocoin, in which I was invoiced for, and our contract addresses this as well.

 

As the owner of the artwork, I know I would not want someone to financially gain from something I have invested time and money in. As I am not a graduate of Juliard, even though I know I can draw, I am still going to pay someone else to do the finer work. I also know I am not going to be retiring from my day job, not on coin sales.

 

It is the coins which are so clearly a copyright ,knockoff that make me laugh. Just run the word "star" - (stargaze, star wars, star trek) and see how many copies there are.

 

And let's not get started on co-defendants.

 

Lesson - stay away from copying, unless absolutely sure it it public domain. That, and work with the graphic artist department of the manufacturer.

 

DocWahala

If you drew the copy yourself, inless it's a trademark, then the new work is owned by you.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

the pieces themselves may be in the public domain, but any photos of the works by someone other than yourself would be copyrighted by the photographer.

 

So then I have no worries in photographinh the painting hung on the side of that garage in Stinson Beach.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Oh, what a tangled web...I've always wondered who owns the copyright on an original painting that I own...that was bought, and not a work for hire. Bwahaha

[+fox-and-the-hound]

... but the Picasso is protected.

Not necessarily. In the US, any work that's been published before January 1st 1923 is in the public domain (even if the work hasn't been published in the US, as long as it happened in complience with US copyright formalities), even though the same work may not be in the public domain in other countries.

 

Actually, this is only a partly true. Copyrights run out after a specific amount of time. Last I checked it was 50 years. As the deadline on the copyright is running out, anyone who can show proof of ownership of the piece in question may renew that copyright all over again. This is why some pieces that are not that old are public domain and some pieces even hundreds of years old are still copyrighted. There is a lot that makes up copyright law and very few all encompassing rules.

 

What makes me cringe are the blatant copyright violations I see in the coin and tag production lately. If you think this will go one forever without anyone taking notice then you are betting against the devil. No one is going to get away with this in the end. There are companies who's only business is to seek out and prosecute copyright violators. Sooner or later these pieces are going to be picked up on someone's radar. The worst part is there are some who know far better and are still breaking the law despite the fact. Each to their own I suppose, but the time is coming...

[RedShoesGirl]

 

the pieces themselves may be in the public domain, but any photos of the works by someone other than yourself would be copyrighted by the photographer.

 

So then I have no worries in photographinh the painting hung on the side of that garage in Stinson Beach.

 

goes back to how old the work is. is the painter still alive? has the work passed its copyrightable date? and if it is on private property, the garage belongs to someone. sure you can photograph it, but can you turn that into a commercial enterprise, i.e. a geocoin? i don't think so.

[RedShoesGirl]

Oh, what a tangled web...I've always wondered who owns the copyright on an original painting that I own...that was bought, and not a work for hire. Bwahaha

 

the artist owns the copyright. just as when i sell a photographic print, the owner can hang it on his wall, lay it on the floor, use it as a frisbee, but he may not reproduce the print as i still retain copyright and the print is protected. that is a concept folks often have problems with.

[YemonYime]

... but the Picasso is protected.

Not necessarily. In the US, any work that's been published before January 1st 1923 is in the public domain (even if the work hasn't been published in the US, as long as it happened in complience with US copyright formalities), even though the same work may not be in the public domain in other countries.

 

What makes me cringe are the blatant copyright violations I see in the coin and tag production lately.

 

(snip)

 

Each to their own I suppose, but the time is coming...

 

Seconding that. "Borrowing" and/or "enhancing" ideas is its own can of worms around here. But the trend of blatantly using copyrighted images of familiar characters on a final product is increasing because it's easy money for the folks behind it. Think about it, all the marketing is already done for them. However, the practice is drawing some very unwanted attention to our kind of collecting, and I agree with Chris in that it's only a matter of time before they get hit with a legal fastball.

[+the4dirtydogs]

... but the Picasso is protected.

Not necessarily. In the US, any work that's been published before January 1st 1923 is in the public domain (even if the work hasn't been published in the US, as long as it happened in complience with US copyright formalities), even though the same work may not be in the public domain in other countries.

 

What makes me cringe are the blatant copyright violations I see in the coin and tag production lately.

 

(snip)

 

Each to their own I suppose, but the time is coming...

 

Seconding that. "Borrowing" and/or "enhancing" ideas is its own can of worms around here. But the trend of blatantly using copyrighted images of familiar characters on a final product is increasing because it's easy money for the folks behind it. Think about it, all the marketing is already done for them. However, the practice is drawing some very unwanted attention to our kind of collecting, and I agree with Chris in that it's only a matter of time before they get hit with a legal fastball.

Completely agree. I was wondering when the mention of the tags would come up. It seems like the majority of those listed for sale online contain copyrighted images. It makes you wonder when that ticking time bomb is going to burst. After reading through the thread, am I correct in assuming that not only the seller of the questionable items could be in serious legal trouble but those that helped make the items as well? If that is the case, why would these companies put themselves in jeopardy?

[RedShoesGirl]

...

Completely agree. I was wondering when the mention of the tags would come up. It seems like the majority of those listed for sale online contain copyrighted images. It makes you wonder when that ticking time bomb is going to burst. After reading through the thread, am I correct in assuming that not only the seller of the questionable items could be in serious legal trouble but those that helped make the items as well? If that is the case, why would these companies put themselves in jeopardy?

 

i have wondered about that too. in the case of tags, much of what you see is not just copyrighted but trademarked! zorro, cinderella and a long list of others are some blatant examples. on the tags site there is a disclaimer that say something to the effect that the responsibility of making sure there is no copyright violations is up to the creator of the tag, not the minter. i am not sure how that would stand up under a challenge when SO many tags are copies of recognizable cartoon characters. the manufacturer of those tags must know that as they makes the tags! talk about being booed when i pointed that out. "off with her head!"

 

so the same issues must be faced in the coining community. this is why i am always lobbying for original art in geocoins and decrying art that is obviously from a book or a photo found online.

 

what i find most interesting is even when it is pointed out a new coin looks the same as a photo of something, folks don't seem to care. they all line up with oohs and aahs over the coin. i have given up saying "but the emperor has no clothes." at some point i figure it just ain't my business.

 

edited for really lousy spelling

Edited March 29, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[+keewee]

... but the Picasso is protected.

Not necessarily. In the US, any work that's been published before January 1st 1923 is in the public domain (even if the work hasn't been published in the US, as long as it happened in complience with US copyright formalities), even though the same work may not be in the public domain in other countries.

 

What makes me cringe are the blatant copyright violations I see in the coin and tag production lately.

 

(snip)

 

Each to their own I suppose, but the time is coming...

 

Seconding that. "Borrowing" and/or "enhancing" ideas is its own can of worms around here. But the trend of blatantly using copyrighted images of familiar characters on a final product is increasing because it's easy money for the folks behind it. Think about it, all the marketing is already done for them. However, the practice is drawing some very unwanted attention to our kind of collecting, and I agree with Chris in that it's only a matter of time before they get hit with a legal fastball.

Completely agree. I was wondering when the mention of the tags would come up. It seems like the majority of those listed for sale online contain copyrighted images. It makes you wonder when that ticking time bomb is going to burst. After reading through the thread, am I correct in assuming that not only the seller of the questionable items could be in serious legal trouble but those that helped make the items as well? If that is the case, why would these companies put themselves in jeopardy?

 

I am another who completely agrees - the whole thing with tags is shocking. It is so blatant that it isn't funny. There's been no attempt at originality what-so-ever and I hope those few people doing it get severely burnt! Some of them have been getting away with doing it for 3 years or longer now. And the worst part is that these tags are selling for ridiculous prices. As Lara said - Off with their heads!

[avroair]

What makes me cringe are the blatant copyright violations I see in the coin and tag production lately.

Seconding that. "Borrowing" and/or "enhancing" ideas is its own can of worms around here. But the trend of blatantly using copyrighted images of familiar characters on a final product is increasing because it's easy money for the folks behind it.

 

I agree with this yet it is very hard to discriminate between drawing your own artwork as a homage and just lifting copyrighted material. To most they look identical but the intent is different. There is plenty of both out there and it gives an artist pause to think and a reason to change their artwork. The only safe bet is to step back from the can.

[RedShoesGirl]

... but the Picasso is protected.

Not necessarily. In the US, any work that's been published before January 1st 1923 is in the public domain (even if the work hasn't been published in the US, as long as it happened in complience with US copyright formalities), even though the same work may not be in the public domain in other countries.

 

What makes me cringe are the blatant copyright violations I see in the coin and tag production lately.

 

(snip)

 

Each to their own I suppose, but the time is coming...

 

Seconding that. "Borrowing" and/or "enhancing" ideas is its own can of worms around here. But the trend of blatantly using copyrighted images of familiar characters on a final product is increasing because it's easy money for the folks behind it. Think about it, all the marketing is already done for them. However, the practice is drawing some very unwanted attention to our kind of collecting, and I agree with Chris in that it's only a matter of time before they get hit with a legal fastball.

Completely agree. I was wondering when the mention of the tags would come up. It seems like the majority of those listed for sale online contain copyrighted images. It makes you wonder when that ticking time bomb is going to burst. After reading through the thread, am I correct in assuming that not only the seller of the questionable items could be in serious legal trouble but those that helped make the items as well? If that is the case, why would these companies put themselves in jeopardy?

 

I am another who completely agrees - the whole thing with tags is shocking. It is so blatant that it isn't funny. There's been no attempt at originality what-so-ever and I hope those few people doing it get severely burnt! Some of them have been getting away with doing it for 3 years or longer now. And the worst part is that these tags are selling for ridiculous prices. As Lara said - Off with their heads!

 

i meant they were saying "off with her head" about me! because i questioned it all.

[RedShoesGirl]

What makes me cringe are the blatant copyright violations I see in the coin and tag production lately.

Seconding that. "Borrowing" and/or "enhancing" ideas is its own can of worms around here. But the trend of blatantly using copyrighted images of familiar characters on a final product is increasing because it's easy money for the folks behind it.

 

I agree with this yet it is very hard to discriminate between drawing your own artwork as a homage and just lifting copyrighted material. To most they look identical but the intent is different. There is plenty of both out there and it gives an artist pause to think and a reason to change their artwork. The only safe bet is to step back from the can.

 

i'm sorry mark, but i don't see artwork as a homage listed as a legit reason for trademark infringement.

[+farrtom]

... but the Picasso is protected.

Not necessarily. In the US, any work that's been published before January 1st 1923 is in the public domain (even if the work hasn't been published in the US, as long as it happened in complience with US copyright formalities), even though the same work may not be in the public domain in other countries.

 

What makes me cringe are the blatant copyright violations I see in the coin and tag production lately.

 

(snip)

 

Each to their own I suppose, but the time is coming...

 

Seconding that. "Borrowing" and/or "enhancing" ideas is its own can of worms around here. But the trend of blatantly using copyrighted images of familiar characters on a final product is increasing because it's easy money for the folks behind it. Think about it, all the marketing is already done for them. However, the practice is drawing some very unwanted attention to our kind of collecting, and I agree with Chris in that it's only a matter of time before they get hit with a legal fastball.

Completely agree. I was wondering when the mention of the tags would come up. It seems like the majority of those listed for sale online contain copyrighted images. It makes you wonder when that ticking time bomb is going to burst. After reading through the thread, am I correct in assuming that not only the seller of the questionable items could be in serious legal trouble but those that helped make the items as well? If that is the case, why would these companies put themselves in jeopardy?

 

I am another who completely agrees - the whole thing with tags is shocking. It is so blatant that it isn't funny. There's been no attempt at originality what-so-ever and I hope those few people doing it get severely burnt! Some of them have been getting away with doing it for 3 years or longer now. And the worst part is that these tags are selling for ridiculous prices. As Lara said - Off with their heads!

 

I agree about the tags! I am new to geocoins and when I first went to ebay to look at some, I was very suprised by the tags and how they use copyrighted materials.

 

I am no lawyer, but because Groundspeack has to approve geocoin designs, aren't they opening themselves up to some possible legal problems by approving designs with copyrighted materials?

[RedShoesGirl]

...

 

Event banner:

 

Coin diameter: 2"

Thickness: 3.5 mm

Trackable: yes

Unique Icon: yes

Cool features: magnet and tag slot in middle

Versions: AS light side version, BN dark side (rumored) version

 

And the front of the coin (light side version):

 

Back of the coin with Boba Fett modeling the tag area:

 

The trainers (tags), produced from composites:

...

 

isn't this exactly the kind of thing were are talking about in the copyright/trademark thread? these are not made-up characters, but recognizable characters from star wars. and the banner uses a star wars image to advertise the event and sale of the coin and tags? isn't that using a copyrightable image for a commercial event.

 

like i said in that thread, i don't see the "homage" part at all. an homage would be painting something in the style of picasso but not copying a picasso, wouldn't it?

[RedShoesGirl]

...

 

I agree about the tags! I am new to geocoins and when I first went to ebay to look at some, I was very suprised by the tags and how they use copyrighted materials.

 

I am no lawyer, but because Groundspeack has to approve geocoin designs, aren't they opening themselves up to some possible legal problems by approving designs with copyrighted materials?

 

pathtags as such are not part of Groundspeak although there is some sort of tag thing Groundspeak is affiliated with i think. but not the pathtags from that other site. that's where you see most of the tags like the ones you see on ebay that are full of trademarked characters and designs.

 

i am not sure what Groundspeak's liability would be for approving designs that have copyrighted or trademarked art work.

Edited March 29, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[+keewee]

... but the Picasso is protected.

Not necessarily. In the US, any work that's been published before January 1st 1923 is in the public domain (even if the work hasn't been published in the US, as long as it happened in complience with US copyright formalities), even though the same work may not be in the public domain in other countries.

 

What makes me cringe are the blatant copyright violations I see in the coin and tag production lately.

 

(snip)

 

Each to their own I suppose, but the time is coming...

 

Seconding that. "Borrowing" and/or "enhancing" ideas is its own can of worms around here. But the trend of blatantly using copyrighted images of familiar characters on a final product is increasing because it's easy money for the folks behind it. Think about it, all the marketing is already done for them. However, the practice is drawing some very unwanted attention to our kind of collecting, and I agree with Chris in that it's only a matter of time before they get hit with a legal fastball.

Completely agree. I was wondering when the mention of the tags would come up. It seems like the majority of those listed for sale online contain copyrighted images. It makes you wonder when that ticking time bomb is going to burst. After reading through the thread, am I correct in assuming that not only the seller of the questionable items could be in serious legal trouble but those that helped make the items as well? If that is the case, why would these companies put themselves in jeopardy?

 

I am another who completely agrees - the whole thing with tags is shocking. It is so blatant that it isn't funny. There's been no attempt at originality what-so-ever and I hope those few people doing it get severely burnt! Some of them have been getting away with doing it for 3 years or longer now. And the worst part is that these tags are selling for ridiculous prices. As Lara said - Off with their heads!

 

i meant they were saying "off with her head" about me! because i questioned it all.

LOL - opps.

 

Oh well - off with their heads - the tag makers, not yours

[RedShoesGirl]

isn't this exactly the kind of thing were are talking about in the copyright/trademark thread?

 

Which is precisely why I am revising them.

 

now i understand what you meant about changes. sorry!

[+goosefraba1]

What do you think of the use of the alteration of this man's photo in an add? It says that he and his crew signed up for a promotional use of the photo... but then it was altered and used in a different way.

 

Firefighter

 

Would this be about the equivalent to asking say the Michael Jackson Estate for the use of an MJ photo as a base for a Coin.... and then spinning it around for prescription drug abuse awareness?

[+AtlantaGal]

isn't this exactly the kind of thing were are talking about in the copyright/trademark thread?

 

Which is precisely why I am revising them.

 

I think the people ones are without a doubt okay. I mean those are graphic sketches not cleaned up artwork belonging to someone else.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

What makes me cringe are the blatant copyright violations I see in the coin and tag production lately.

Seconding that. "Borrowing" and/or "enhancing" ideas is its own can of worms around here. But the trend of blatantly using copyrighted images of familiar characters on a final product is increasing because it's easy money for the folks behind it.

 

I agree with this yet it is very hard to discriminate between drawing your own artwork as a homage and just lifting copyrighted material. To most they look identical but the intent is different. There is plenty of both out there and it gives an artist pause to think and a reason to change their artwork. The only safe bet is to step back from the can.

 

i'm sorry mark, but i don't see artwork as a homage listed as a legit reason for trademark infringement.

 

Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup Cans is an excellent example. A very specific, copyrighted and trademarked image used in an entirely new way. Not unlike doing a painting, photo or drawing of a sculpture, monument or building. The sculptures, monuments and buildings were all somebody else's work initially. These new works are sold at a profit so this is a tough argument on both sides. I'm all for making original work of iconic images. It is the artist's responsibility to show original idea in the process though

 

I was curious about your mention of the building and the tree as being protected though. It's an interesting thought, but as a photographer you're obviously aware that any visible site that can be seen by the public without breaking any laws to catch the view is open to being captured and sold as original work. Have you seen any cases where it was successfully prosecuted against?

[+fox-and-the-hound]

like i said in that thread, i don't see the "homage" part at all. an homage would be painting something in the style of picasso but not copying a picasso, wouldn't it?

 

No. An homage can be created in the style of an original. It can also be a new piece celebrating a cultural icon. I think it's safe to say these are all cutural icons. Copyright is not the issue here, and neither is originality. The issue would be trademark. It is my understanding though that Lucas Arts encourages fans of the the Star Wars series to create original work.

[RedShoesGirl]

like i said in that thread, i don't see the "homage" part at all. an homage would be painting something in the style of picasso but not copying a picasso, wouldn't it?

 

No. An homage can be created in the style of an original. It can also be a new piece celebrating a cultural icon. I think it's safe to say these are all cutural icons. Copyright is not the issue here, and neither is originality. The issue would be trademark. It is my understanding though that Lucas Arts encourages fans of the the Star Wars series to create original work.

 

i think the folks that control the elvis stuff and the license for marilyn monroe stuff might have a problem with that IF it was a commercial enterprise. and who is to say what constitutes an homage and what is trademark infringement. that would be a sticky issue that seems to me would have to be resolved in court as to intent.

 

i don't think the fact we are looking at a simplified version of recognizable characters has anything to do with it. i am not talking copyright here, but trademark. if you know what you are looking at is yoda, then it doesn't really matter what medium it is used to create the likeness.

 

this is all just logical thinking on my part since we left the arena of copyright and entered the den of trademark. think of a toymaker. he makes a toy figure that appears to be yoda and sells it at a local convention for yoda-ites. just because it is simpler than what we see in a photo and because it is an "homage" then does that make it ok? i think even the lucas camp might have a problem with that.

 

safer to just stay with original concepts i think.

[RedShoesGirl]

as to warhol and his can of soup... it is my understanding you can create a work of "art" — drawing or painting an established trademarked item - sell the work as art, but it was created as Art and not as a commercial enterprise.

 

same as if i photographed a southern pacific railway train — i can photograph it, sell the photograph, put the photo in a book, but can't use the photo as the basis for an ad because of trademark violation.

 

the documenting of something is different than using something to sell another thing. if that makes sense.

 

...

 

I was curious about your mention of the building and the tree as being protected though. It's an interesting thought, but as a photographer you're obviously aware that any visible site that can be seen by the public without breaking any laws to catch the view is open to being captured and sold as original work. Have you seen any cases where it was successfully prosecuted against?

 

the tree is on private property and you have to drive a toll road through Pebble Beach Properties in order to see the tree. not sure whether or not any successful prosecutions have taken place but the trademark issue of a live tree has been ongoing.

 

tongue in cheek but very good explanation of trademark/contract/copyright law:

 

cypressgate

 

the pertinant stuff is at the bottom of the article.

Edited March 31, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[+fox-and-the-hound]

as to warhol and his can of soup... it is my understanding you can create a work of "art" — drawing or painting an established trademarked item - sell the work as art, but it was created as Art and not as a commercial enterprise.

 

same as if i photographed a southern pacific railway train — i can photograph it, sell the photograph, put the photo in a book, but can't use the photo as the basis for an ad because of trademark violation.

 

the documenting of something is different than using something to sell another thing. if that makes sense.

 

 

So the Warhol original is okay, but poster prints being sold of it and photos of it being sold to art history books are not. Any such venture would be in violation with Campbells, correct?

[RedShoesGirl]

as to warhol and his can of soup... it is my understanding you can create a work of "art" — drawing or painting an established trademarked item - sell the work as art, but it was created as Art and not as a commercial enterprise.

 

same as if i photographed a southern pacific railway train — i can photograph it, sell the photograph, put the photo in a book, but can't use the photo as the basis for an ad because of trademark violation.

 

the documenting of something is different than using something to sell another thing. if that makes sense.

 

 

So the Warhol original is okay, but poster prints being sold of it and photos of it being sold to art history books are not. Any such venture would be in violation with Campbells, correct?

 

books are ok because they are editorial use. i would think a poster is still art, just not the original painting. it is being sold as art in its own right. it is not being used to sell cigars. i think what the article above says explains it much better than i can.

 

edited to edit

Edited March 31, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[avroair]

books are ok because they are editorial use.

 

That is 100% not true. Books are a commercial enterprise. If you are making a book you need to get permission for every image that is not an author or staff person's contribution that appears in that book. Some owners may give you the picture for free and not want a credit. Same for power point presentations that will be presented to the public or published on the web... If you are making an educational point, you still need to source, but don't have to have permission. This is simply not the case with any books, magazines etc.

[RedShoesGirl]

books are ok because they are editorial use.

 

That is 100% not true. Books are a commercial enterprise. If you are making a book you need to get permission for every image that is not an author or staff person's contribution that appears in that book. Some owners may give you the picture for free and not want a credit. Same for power point presentations that will be presented to the public or published on the web... If you are making an educational point, you still need to source, but don't have to have permission. This is simply not the case with any books, magazines etc.

 

you are partially right. yes, COPYRIGHT law says images in a book have to have permission of the copyright holder. but not because the book is a commercial enterprise, but because of copyright law regarding the use and reuse of images. i have hundreds of photos in textbooks. one in particular used more than 400 photos. each and everyone copyrighted by me and the company has had to ask my permission for each new edition of this college textbook. and now with electronic media being distributed, totally new contracts have to be drawn up.

 

using the example i used before, i can photograph a train that has a TRADEMARKED logo on it, put it in a textbook, sell art prints. but i cannot use the image to sell cigars! plus i retain the copyright of my photo.

 

it's a sticky wicket, non-lawyers trying to delve into the intricacies of contract, trademark and/or copyright law.

 

but we have ventured far from the OP post about infringement and how infringement can affect geocoins. that is the crux of the matter.

[avroair]

i can photograph a train that has a TRADEMARKED logo on it, put it in a textbook, sell art prints. but i cannot use the image to sell cigars! plus i retain the copyright of my photo.

 

No you can't. I have run into this problem 3 or 4 times at a magazine where we were using a photo which had a logo in the background. We were ok to move forward since the photos were news, but if you are using them for art, and benefiting even 1 cent from the sale of a poster, book or other art medium then you have to get permission. Our lawyers fought tooth and nail over this. The trademark owner may see it as a benefit and leave it alone (this happens quite frequently).

[RedShoesGirl]

i can photograph a train that has a TRADEMARKED logo on it, put it in a textbook, sell art prints. but i cannot use the image to sell cigars! plus i retain the copyright of my photo.

 

No you can't. I have run into this problem 3 or 4 times at a magazine where we were using a photo which had a logo in the background. We were ok to move forward since the photos were news, but if you are using them for art, and benefiting even 1 cent from the sale of a poster, book or other art medium then you have to get permission. Our lawyers fought tooth and nail over this. The trademark owner may see it as a benefit and leave it alone (this happens quite frequently).

 

well, we have two different opinions on this. i am pretty sure the publishing companies that used my train pics in their college textbooks would not have used the photos without being reasonably sure there would be no legal problems.

 

but i am also reasonably sure i cannot use a Union Pacific logo on a geocoin.

[+Team kizb]

Its been some interesting reading so far with this thread. I do have one thing to add. As brought to lite with the new Jedi Mickey Mystery Geocoin. There seems to be a gray area concerning whats being discussed in this thread and the enforcement by Groundspeak.

 

Should the Moderators here be discouraging this sort of thing by shutting down the treads that clearly contain trademarked material or continue to turn a blind eye?

[avroair]

i can photograph a train that has a TRADEMARKED logo on it, put it in a textbook, sell art prints. but i cannot use the image to sell cigars! plus i retain the copyright of my photo.

 

No you can't. I have run into this problem 3 or 4 times at a magazine where we were using a photo which had a logo in the background. We were ok to move forward since the photos were news, but if you are using them for art, and benefiting even 1 cent from the sale of a poster, book or other art medium then you have to get permission. Our lawyers fought tooth and nail over this. The trademark owner may see it as a benefit and leave it alone (this happens quite frequently).

 

well, we have two different opinions on this. i am pretty sure the publishing companies that used my train pics in their college textbooks would not have used the photos without being reasonably sure there would be no legal problems.

 

but i am also reasonably sure i cannot use a Union Pacific logo on a geocoin.

 

 

Mine is not an opinion. I am stated what happened. Maybe your publishers didn't bother to contact the trademark owner, or maybe they did and got permission. In my experience I wouldn't call editorial departments an authority on this. And nothing will probably come of it since it's not incriminating. Put a pacific logo on a coin and selling it is no different than taking a photo of a logo and selling it.

[RedShoesGirl]

i can photograph a train that has a TRADEMARKED logo on it, put it in a textbook, sell art prints. but i cannot use the image to sell cigars! plus i retain the copyright of my photo.

 

No you can't. I have run into this problem 3 or 4 times at a magazine where we were using a photo which had a logo in the background. We were ok to move forward since the photos were news, but if you are using them for art, and benefiting even 1 cent from the sale of a poster, book or other art medium then you have to get permission. Our lawyers fought tooth and nail over this. The trademark owner may see it as a benefit and leave it alone (this happens quite frequently).

 

well, we have two different opinions on this. i am pretty sure the publishing companies that used my train pics in their college textbooks would not have used the photos without being reasonably sure there would be no legal problems.

 

but i am also reasonably sure i cannot use a Union Pacific logo on a geocoin.

 

 

Mine is not an opinion. I am stated what happened. Maybe your publishers didn't bother to contact the trademark owner, or maybe they did and got permission. In my experience I wouldn't call editorial departments an authority on this. And nothing will probably come of it since it's not incriminating. Put a pacific logo on a coin and selling it is no different than taking a photo of a logo and selling it.

 

well mark, since you seem to be the end all and be all authority on textbook publishing i shall defer to your knowledge on how images that contain a logo are used editorially. to say nothing of using trademarks and/or copyrighted material on a commercial geocoin.

Edited April 3, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[RedShoesGirl]

and as we can tell from the other thread on the new mystery coin that combines both disney trademarks and those from star wars, very few in the geocoin community really care if a coin has trademark or copyrighted details on it, as long as it is cool looking or is a great mystery coin. i find that rather sad.

[+MustangJoni]

and as we can tell from the other thread on the new mystery coin that combines both disney trademarks and those from star wars, very few in the geocoin community really care if a coin has trademark or copyrighted details on it, as long as it is cool looking or is a great mystery coin. i find that rather sad.

 

Nobody did more to promote the Tranquility coin than you. You had to have each and every one of them.

 

But you also raged against the use of the Anne Frank quote on the back.

 

Here is an interesting difference. You spent money buying those coins. You spent money on coins which you clearly stated, in your opinion, violated a copyright. You not only promoted them, you rewarded the maker by buying them and gushing over them in the forum. I came home to find a Mickey Jedi in my mailbox.

 

So, pot...meet kettle!

[RedShoesGirl]

and as we can tell from the other thread on the new mystery coin that combines both disney trademarks and those from star wars, very few in the geocoin community really care if a coin has trademark or copyrighted details on it, as long as it is cool looking or is a great mystery coin. i find that rather sad.

 

Nobody did more to promote the Tranquility coin than you. You had to have each and every one of them.

 

But you also raged against the use of the Anne Frank quote on the back.

 

Here is an interesting difference. You spent money buying those coins. You spent money on coins which you clearly stated, in your opinion, violated a copyright. You not only promoted them, you rewarded the maker by buying them and gushing over them in the forum. I came home to find a Mickey Jedi in my mailbox.

 

So, pot...meet kettle!

 

gosh joni, you are absolutely correct. but in my defense i do have to say i didn't discover the quote was from anne frank until after i had collected most of the tranqulities. and it seemed hypocritical to want to keep collecting them as my thoughts on how copyrights are abused in geocoins became more solidified as i found more and more violations.

 

so even though i have financial reasons to sell my coins, it was an easy decision this time to sell the tranquilities because of my oft stated opinions on the use of the quote on the back. and yes, why gush over a coin when i think the maker has violated principles i hold dear.

 

the world is not black and white but shades of grey and thus convictions can grow and become more solid as time passes.

 

thanks for pointing all this out, seriously.

Edited April 3, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[+teamhaynes]

I have been following this thread for a little while and find it quite interesting.. I hope the thread stays as a civil discussion and that differences in interpretation are handled maturely.

 

Anyway I ran across an interesting site that I thought might be a good resource for those further interested in copyright. The Stanford University Library has quite an extensive section online about copyright versus fair use.

 

One particularly interesting section was summaries of copyright/fair use rulings..The artwork section had quite a lot of information about fair use ruling that I found quite educational.

 

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html#2

 

.

[RedShoesGirl]

I have been following this thread for a little while and find it quite interesting.. I hope the thread stays as a civil discussion and that differences in interpretation are handled maturely.

 

Anyway I ran across an interesting site that I thought might be a good resource for those further interested in copyright. The Stanford University Library has quite an extensive section online about copyright versus fair use.

 

One particularly interesting section was summaries of copyright/fair use rulings..The artwork section had quite a lot of information about fair use ruling that I found quite educational.

 

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html#2

 

.

 

fabulous! the koons example is well known in the photographic world. glad to see it used as an example of "not fair use."

 

as for keeping it civil, well, i do try but sometimes ... my thoughts get away from me. darn thoughts.

[+teamhaynes]

I find the whole discussion interesting mainly because as a teacher I capitalize on the whole Fair Use issue with using images/media for instructional purposes.

 

I used to never worry about crossing the line in my own classroom since anything used was strictly seen by only my students, now so much is being uploaded to classroom websites and classroom blogs now so I have to watch what I do.

[+Team kizb]

and as we can tell from the other thread on the new mystery coin that combines both disney trademarks and those from star wars, very few in the geocoin community really care if a coin has trademark or copyrighted details on it, as long as it is cool looking or is a great mystery coin. i find that rather sad.

 

Nobody did more to promote the Tranquility coin than you. You had to have each and every one of them.

 

But you also raged against the use of the Anne Frank quote on the back.

 

Here is an interesting difference. You spent money buying those coins. You spent money on coins which you clearly stated, in your opinion, violated a copyright. You not only promoted them, you rewarded the maker by buying them and gushing over them in the forum. I came home to find a Mickey Jedi in my mailbox.

 

So, pot...meet kettle!

 

Well said MustangJoni, never looked at in that way.

[Theotokos]

 

so even though i have financial reasons to sell my coins, it was an easy decision this time to sell the tranquilities because of my oft stated opinions on the use of the quote on the back. and yes, why gush over a coin when i think the maker has violated principles i hold dear.

 

the world is not black and white but shades of grey and thus convictions can grow and become more solid as time passes.

 

thanks for pointing all this out, seriously.

 

So you "SOLD" your coins that violated your principles - which I'm sure made a handsome profit as compared to the original selling price. I'm all for copyright protection but too often in these forums it seems more of a personal beef than true commitment or maybe only when it doesn't affect us.

 

I'll leave the use of 'potential' copyright images/quotes to the individuals creating the coins...me, I'll just enjoy them as they come.

[+keewee]

Folks, just because it has started to get personal does not mean that everyone should now jump in a poke a stick at those concerned - it's not the way things should happen, and it is not kosher. Everyone else should stay on topic and hopefully the mood will shift entirely back across that line.

[RedShoesGirl]

 

so even though i have financial reasons to sell my coins, it was an easy decision this time to sell the tranquilities because of my oft stated opinions on the use of the quote on the back. and yes, why gush over a coin when i think the maker has violated principles i hold dear.

 

the world is not black and white but shades of grey and thus convictions can grow and become more solid as time passes.

 

thanks for pointing all this out, seriously.

 

So you "SOLD" your coins that violated your principles - which I'm sure made a handsome profit as compared to the original selling price. I'm all for copyright protection but too often in these forums it seems more of a personal beef than true commitment or maybe only when it doesn't affect us.

 

I'll leave the use of 'potential' copyright images/quotes to the individuals creating the coins...me, I'll just enjoy them as they come.

 

since you don't know what i paid for my tranqs nor the loss i took in selling most of the them, you really can't say whether it is a personal beef or not nor what my true commitment is.

 

let's not make this a dump on redshoesgirl thread. as i said there are shades of grey, nothing is black and white. and learning and solidifying a point of view is part of the whole process.

 

what it comes down to is whether or not it is appropriate or legal to use a trademark or copyrighted image on a geocoin. that's the real question. what is fair use and what is not.

[Theotokos]

Folks, just because it has started to get personal does not mean that everyone should now jump in a poke a stick at those concerned - it's not the way things should happen, and it is not kosher. Everyone else should stay on topic and hopefully the mood will shift entirely back across that line.

 

My comment was not personal..it's a point. I'm trying to understand the topic because we seem to change it depending on how it affects us. I'm merely shifting along with it.

[RedShoesGirl]

and as we can tell from the other thread on the new mystery coin that combines both disney trademarks and those from star wars, very few in the geocoin community really care if a coin has trademark or copyrighted details on it, as long as it is cool looking or is a great mystery coin. i find that rather sad.

 

Nobody did more to promote the Tranquility coin than you. You had to have each and every one of them.

 

But you also raged against the use of the Anne Frank quote on the back.

 

Here is an interesting difference. You spent money buying those coins. You spent money on coins which you clearly stated, in your opinion, violated a copyright. You not only promoted them, you rewarded the maker by buying them and gushing over them in the forum. I came home to find a Mickey Jedi in my mailbox.

 

So, pot...meet kettle!

 

Well said MustangJoni, never looked at in that way.

 

please read my original response to joni.

[Theotokos]

 

since you don't know what i paid for my tranqs nor the loss i took in selling most of the them, you really can't say whether it is a personal beef or not nor what my true commitment is.

 

let's not make this a dump on redshoesgirl thread. as i said there are shades of grey, nothing is black and white. and learning and solidifying a point of view is part of the whole process.

 

what it comes down to is whether or not it is appropriate or legal to use a trademark or copyrighted image on a geocoin. that's the real question. what is fair use and what is not.

 

You are right..I don't know what you sold them for but I do know it was more than what the originals sold for. As for your commitment I was only pointing out that it seemed strange (to me anyway) that you said it was against your principles and yet still sold them. I'm not dumping on you...just trying to understand the purpose of all this. I don't question your commitment or view...just that it seemed strange to me is all - to be so against it and yet still sell them afterwards.

 

Which is why I questioned it...I don't know if it's legal use or not...but to be fair to the thread I think we need to understand how we view it under various circumstances.

[RedShoesGirl]

 

since you don't know what i paid for my tranqs nor the loss i took in selling most of the them, you really can't say whether it is a personal beef or not nor what my true commitment is.

 

let's not make this a dump on redshoesgirl thread. as i said there are shades of grey, nothing is black and white. and learning and solidifying a point of view is part of the whole process.

 

what it comes down to is whether or not it is appropriate or legal to use a trademark or copyrighted image on a geocoin. that's the real question. what is fair use and what is not.

 

You are right..I don't know what you sold them for but I do know it was more than what the originals sold for. As for your commitment I was only pointing out that it seemed strange (to me anyway) that you said it was against your principles and yet still sold them. I'm not dumping on you...just trying to understand the purpose of all this. I don't question your commitment or view...just that it seemed strange to me is all - to be so against it and yet still sell them afterwards.

 

Which is why I questioned it...I don't know if it's legal use or not...but to be fair to the thread I think we need to understand how we view it under various circumstances.

 

the original price has nothing to do what i personally paid for my tranqs. as for selling them, would you rather i gave them away and take a tremendous financial loss because i am against the copyright infringement of the quote on the back? sorry, i can't afford that being in rather dire financial straits. i don't see that as a contradiction. if i didn't care about the abuse of copyright on the back, i would just simply keep the coins. maybe that is looking at the issue under different circumstance.

 

you are still questioning MY commitment rather than address the issue at hand, which is blatant copyright and trademark infringement in geocoin design. by your own words

 

I'll leave the use of 'potential' copyright images/quotes to the individuals creating the coins...me, I'll just enjoy them as they come.

 

you don't care whether or nor the coins are "legal" or "illegal" in terms of design, as long as you can enjoy them. that's ok, it's your paradigm.

 

the issue at hand, as i just said, is what the OT was about. is it ok to create a commercial geocoin using copyrighted or trademarked details? and it appears that most people don't care.

 

i am not a kettle black, nor am i a pot black, just a severely conflicted individual trying to do the right thing without losing my shirt. if you can't understand that, oh well.

[+MustangJoni]

Here is a comparison. Lets say that I buy a bunch of knock off Chanel purses. I go and sell those purses at the flea market. The cops raid the place and confiscate those purses (I've seen news stories about this). I'm then out the money I paid for those purses. I knew they were knockoffs, so I am just as guilty as the person I bought them from. Even if I didn't know they were knockoffs, I'd still lose the purses.

 

I had no problems with you arguing with the others about copyrights and what you believe is right. But when you criticized those admiring the Jedi Mickey coin, I just found that hypocritical.

 

You did what you did, and you did what you felt you had to do. But just remember that when you are criticizing others.