Copyright: Fair Use/Appropriation/Derivation/Transformation & Trademark - Patent Law

[Br!an]

There have been several discussions taking place on other threads regarding the application and implications of copyright. This thread is to be the venue for further discussion of the topic.

Trademark and Patent law are similar and yet distinct from copyright law. They often work in combination with copyright law to offer a more complete protection for the creator. We can discuss those here as well.

Copyright is a property right created by law. The purpose of copyright is to grant to the creator of an original work exclusive rights to its use and distribution with the intention of enabling them to receive compensation for their intellectual effort. As soon as a work is written or recorded on some physical medium its author/artist is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work unless and until the author/artist explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires.

Copyright laws vary between countries, however many countries are signatory to reciprocal agreements that honor the copyrights of the other signatories to those agreements. Most countries laws contain the same basic elements with the greatest difference being the length of copyright protection. There are other limitations involved depending upon the countries involved.

The holder of a copyright (with rare exceptions) obtains exclusive rights to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies; to import or export the work; to create derivative works; to perform or display the work publicly; to sell or cede these rights to others; to transmit or display the work.

Copyright is usually a civil issue though there are some criminal penalties depending upon jurisdiction and level of infringement. That means that the creator must protect his copyright against infringement by bringing suit and proving the copyright. Copyright protects only the original expression of ideas and not the ideas themselves.

There are exceptions to copyright law. They include:

The First Sale Doctrine (Exhaustion Doctrine) - Basically the creator has the right of first sale of the intellectual property. Once sold, the purchaser has the right to resell the property. The first sale doctrine does not transfer the other rights of the creator.

Market Limitations - There are laws that restrict monopolies, encourage competition, limit discrimination, etc., that affect copyright.

Legal Limitations - There are various legal limitations on copyright depending on the country involved.

Fair Use / Fair Dealing - Basically fair use entails using the copyrighted material for other than commercial gain. It also means that the use does not harm the creator's copyright. A reviewer can sample a work even though they get paid to do so. Parody is also generally allowed.
Embodied in Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act are four elements courts must consider when determining whether fair use is an adequate and applicable defense: (1) the purpose and character of the work (i.e. the extent to which the work is transformative, not merely derivative of a earlier work), (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.

Accessibility: There are exceptions for accessibility for handicapped persons.

[Br!an]

Various copyright discussions from previous threads.


I remember the debate about a month or so ago about the custom-made edition of "The best 2007 american short stories", which from what I understood was an unofficial custom from signed paperbacks... therefore a custom rebound thing for about a hundred copy or so.
I am still convinced that doing so would be infringing copyrights, but...






I am still convinced that doing so would be infringing copyrights, but...
How so (USA CR law)?
If I buy a Toyota Camry and put gull-wing doors on it, paint it a garish non-factory puke green, stick decals on it that say Atoyot; I can legally sell the individual car I modified.
P.S. No I don't actually own such a POS.




It's legal under the first sale doctrine and Kipling v. G.P. Putnam’s Sons. As long as you don't change anything - then it could be an infringment.





I remember the debate about a month or so ago about the custom-made edition of "The best 2007 american short stories", which from what I understood was an unofficial custom from signed paperbacks... therefore a custom rebound thing for about a hundred copy or so.
I am still convinced that doing so would be infringing copyrights, but...

Books have been rebound for centuries. There is no copyright on the title. You aren't reproducing the content. It's perfectly legal.




The "value" is what the market will bear. Almost all rebound books I've seen were curiosities, but people are known to pay a lot for unique things.
I doubt the trouble and expense to convert a 1/600 'salem's Lot would be worth it. If the book up for auction sells for quite a bit (more than ~$1K), it might be easier to look for one of the other 29 in existence than trying to create one.

It may well be whatever the market will bear but the fact that anyone can have one of their own for the page block and binding restrains the market, or at least should. If Sai King had them bound himself then I could see a premium. Stu, not so much. The page blank is worth what?, $300?, and an awesome leather binding?, another $300?.

One of the wonders of book collecting is that no two collectors are alike. Some will value this more highly than others. I'm perhaps too much a realist.



I'll just offer this last observation about copyright infringement...

The infringement is when you reproduce something without giving up control of the original.

The problem with Napster is people were effectively copying/recopying a song thousands of times without giving up the song themselves.

If you sold a CD - or an IPod loaded with music - yeah, you've profited from the music, but you can only do it ONCE.

With books, you can do whatever you want to your own physical property - rebind, or whatever. Then sell it.

But you could NOT reprint the story ad nauseum and THEN rebind it - it has to be the original book that was your property. You can do whatever you want with the physical object - but obviously have no rights to the writing itself.

Same with cars. Buy 100 cars...buy 1000 cars...buy 10,000 cars and remodel them however you want - they are YOUR property but each sale your inventory drops by one.

If you cut and paste an image of a book cover and post it here, it is THEORETICALLY infringement of the designer's work. However - it clearly falls under fair use where we are all commenting and talking about it.

That's the fine line that photographers/artists/etc run into sometimes - they're trying to protect the image from mass (free) distribution while not violating our rights to talk about it.

But - if you took a book cover image, and silk-screened it on to a totebag and resold it as a mass-produced product, that's clear-cut infringement.

And then of course you get into why karokae bars have to pay a licensing fee to allow barflys to use the published lyrics. Because the lyric is now part of a 'performance,' and if you perform a work publicly, the writer gets a cut if there's money being made. Bar charges for booze, therefore the artist gets a cut; or, if you bought an in-home video game, again, the artist got a cut.

Copyright is a very complicated issue - what seems like "freedom of speech" is sometimes theft.





My question would be this: do the pieces up for auctions violate any copyright laws? This is a sincere question as I'm not well versed in such things and a lot of these things are very similar to the movie adaptations. I would rather something that doesn't look like an artist's lightly veiled, personal take on a movie character.

It is more than likely infringement since they are being sold. Assuming of course that the artist did not receive permission from the copyright holder.




I don't believe Andy Warhol was successfully sued by the owners of Campbell's soup.

http://arrestedmotion.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/AM_Warhol_MOCA.jpg







I don't believe Andy Warhol was successfully sued by the owners of Campbell's soup.



That was because the "appropriation" of the soup cans did not cause Campbell's any harm. It was credited with helping sales. If he had been sued he likely would have lost.

Warhol was sued by others for infringement and settled the suits.

http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/500/medium/4843441474_f175f96718_b.jpg


I have this limited edition cd pack from one of my favourite bands (well 2 bands formed by the same guy). The cd, mug and t-shirt are housed in an oversized soup can. Wonder if they needed permission for this?

That's fine. It varies enough from the original that it doesn't infringe.

[Lurker]

Work for Hire is also an important concept. Is your work yours or your employer?

The most interesting client I had for copyright wanted to protect his original tattoo art. Most people don't think of tattoos as possible copyright violations, but they certainly could be.

[Merlin1958]

I owned my own business and I had the logo "Trademarked". We also developed a proprietary computer program that I had copyrighted. It's an interesting and somewhat difficult process, but worth the effort IMHO

[Bev Vincent]

In Work for Hire, you typically don't get the copyright. When I wrote the Stephen King Illustrated Companion, the default contract assigned the copyright to the publisher; however, my agent negotiated that right back to me so that I could make use of my own material in the future. Also, people who write novelizations of movies or licensed works in the fictional works of other creators don't have ownership of that material. I can't, for example, publish my Doctor Who story anywhere other than the BBC anthology in which it first appeared.

[Dolso]

I’m by no means an expert or claim to know very much about the subject other than what I’ve gathered over the years about my use of titles, art, etc on the engravings for my cases. For exterior art engravings I use on my cases I always contact the artist to either commission and/or purchase new art outright or to license existing art for a limited number of reproductions. Even if the eventual owner of the case commissions the art for an engraving, I’m always up-front about our intentions – I want no surprises farther down the line. All of the artists have been very cooperative as long as we are honest about what we’re doing. I make sure that they are aware of what we are doing even if I request an interior piece that is for resale. I think you’d get into a lot of trouble if you tried to pull the wool over on someone.

My understanding is that the actual titles of books are considered ‘public use’ so can be used on a case with a couple of stipulations. The title/artwork cannot be actually copied, then engraved (as an example, the curved title of “Under the Dome”). King (or someone) paid an artist to get that ‘look’ and it can’t be copied without permission. However, if you used a public (–think free to use-) font and did your own manipulation of the title to get the curve, there would be no problem. One example is the title for ‘Night Shift’. If you compare the title of the book with the engraving on the case the only major difference is the upper portion of the ‘T’. One is straight, one is slanted. The font on the case is a public font – free to use, no problems – the font used on the book has been altered specifically for this book and then copyrighted so you’d be unable to use it without violating copyright.

http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/686/medium/Cover_Art_9_doc.JPG http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/686/medium/Title.JPG

I’ve been contacted several times by customers wanting an EXACT reproduction of a title or design. Most are perfectly agreeable and understanding when copyrights are explained. A couple of these contacts were more insistent, I can only assume they were copyright lawyers wondering if I was willing to violate regulations. I explained a time or two but then never heard from them again.

Hopefully, this post doesn't draw unneeded attention................

[Lurker]

Just looking up SK at the Copyright office there are 516 files. And that's just under his name.

[herbertwest]

I never considered that there could be a copyright issue with reproducing the title & font. Very intriguiing, thanks for sharing the info.

" The title/artwork cannot be actually copied, then engraved (as an example, the curved title of “Under the Dome”). King (or someone) paid an artist to get that ‘look’ and it can’t be copied without permission."
Do you mean that King got a trademark on the title in this manner, or a utility patent about the way the title is being represented, curvily?


I need to find the time to add something "interesting" to this thread, regarding an old / aborted project of mine.

[Bev Vincent]

The presentation can be copyrighted -- the same as the interior layout. When another publisher acquires the reprint rights to a book (for a limited edition, for example, or even for the paperback version), they cannot reproduce the way the book was laid out, including title style or embellishments within the text unless that was part of the deal.

[Dolso]

Do you mean that King got a trademark on the title in this manner, or a utility patent about the way the title is being represented, curvily?

I can't say for sure that he owns the trademark - I've never actually looked it up - But i have to assume that SOMEONE does. It may be the publisher, King, the artist or some corporation. All I know is that I don't want to copy and use it as is - the last thing I want to happen is some bunch of lawyers contacting me about copyright infringement!! From my perspective,an abundance of caution is the best bet!

I would be curious if anyone has specific info about the legality of using an author's name without permission on something like my cases. On the face it would seem to be a no-brainer that it wouldn't be a problem (as long as a public font was used.). It could be looked at as an actual part of the book, part of the title, book presentation, etc. It would just help in book recognition -or more accurately case recognition ( like he needs MY help in recognizing his book!! HA). But on the other hand, can an author's name be copyrighted so it couldn't be used? Or would it be looked at as available for public use?

[Bev Vincent]

There is lots to mull over in this post: http://leekottner.typepad.com/blogorrhea_ii/2008/03/book-arts-copyr.html

[chaos-consultants]

Just looking up SK at the Copyright office there are 516 files. And that's just under his name.

This is going to keep me up way too late! I know there is a Stephen King artist and a Stephen King computer business owner. As we look through the titles it is interesting to try and guess which ones may be unpublished stories. What do you think? Other than I have too much time on my hands LOL

John

[Lurker]

Do you mean that King got a trademark on the title in this manner, or a utility patent about the way the title is being represented, curvily?


A utility patent is only for an invention - books etc can't be patented. I did look up trademarks and a production company got one for "STEPHEN KING'S STORM OF THE CENTURY" but that is a film. Altho you can't trademark a title, you can TM a series: "Wheel of Time" and the circle design has been trademarked for those books. He could probably TM "The Dark Tower".



This is going to keep me up way too late! I know there is a Stephen King artist and a Stephen King computer business owner. As we look through the titles it is interesting to try and guess which ones may be unpublished stories. What do you think? Other than I have too much time on my hands LOL

John

Have fun with that!

[Merlin1958]

You're not gonna believe this. I just heard it on the radio. Apparently "Wiki" and a "Photographer" are engaged in a legal battle over a copyright. Apparently, the Photog somehow managed to get Indonesian moneys to take "selfie's". Wiki got a hold of them and posted them online. The Photog said "Wait, no they are copyrighted as I arranged for the photo's to be taken". Wiki replied that only humans can apply and be issued a copyright and since these photo's were actually taken by the monkeys, tough titty!!! LOL

I'm gonna go see If I can confirm the story online, but ain't life grand?

Damn, if it ain't true!! LOL


http://lightbox.time.com/2014/08/06/monkey-selfie/#1

[herbertwest]

You're not gonna believe this. I just heard it on the radio. Apparently "Wiki" and a "Photographer" are engaged in a legal battle over a copyright. Apparently, the Photog somehow managed to get Indonesian moneys to take "selfie's". Wiki got a hold of them and posted them online. The Photog said "Wait, no they are copyrighted as I arranged for the photo's to be taken". Wiki replied that only humans can apply and be issued a copyright and since these photo's were actually taken by the monkeys, tough titty!!! LOL

I'm gonna go see If I can confirm the story online, but ain't life grand?

Damn, if it ain't true!! LOL


http://lightbox.time.com/2014/08/06/monkey-selfie/#1


Yes it's true, it's been all over the news for a few weeks now. And apparently it cant be copyrighted
>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/22/monkey-business-macaque-selfie-cant-be-copyrighted-say-us-and-uk

[Br!an]

http://www.thedarktower.org/gallery/data/500/Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg

[Dan]

Brian, that's a great selfie of you! I'm pretty sure you can copyright this since you are most likely human.

[thegreattim]

I would be curious if anyone has specific info about the legality of using an author's name without permission on something like my cases. On the face it would seem to be a no-brainer that it wouldn't be a problem (as long as a public font was used.). It could be looked at as an actual part of the book, part of the title, book presentation, etc. It would just help in book recognition -or more accurately case recognition ( like he needs MY help in recognizing his book!! HA). But on the other hand, can an author's name be copyrighted so it couldn't be used? Or would it be looked at as available for public use?

Didn't Harlan Ellison tradmark his name or some such nonsense? I don't pretend to understand the legality of all the copyright laws, but I think most authors and their agent's wouldn't bat an eye at your use on cases like that. Except for Ellison, perhaps.

[Lurker]

I would be curious if anyone has specific info about the legality of using an author's name without permission on something like my cases. On the face it would seem to be a no-brainer that it wouldn't be a problem (as long as a public font was used.). It could be looked at as an actual part of the book, part of the title, book presentation, etc. It would just help in book recognition -or more accurately case recognition ( like he needs MY help in recognizing his book!! HA). But on the other hand, can an author's name be copyrighted so it couldn't be used? Or would it be looked at as available for public use?

Use of a name would fall under what's called "right to publicity" and that is a state issue, not federal. The specific law would depend on what state you live in.

[Rachel Readman]

Dick, the use of Stephen King's name or likeness on a product is a risky one. It is almost like you are suggesting his approval and or endorsement of the product without his permission to do so. I would suggest treading very carefully on that score.

[herbertwest]

What about book blurbs?

I've read that they are copyrighted materials, as are bookcovers... but on the other hand, I think/guess, that reproducing front & back covers is TOLERATED by publishers.
It is a common practive that book covers are shared online (eg : amazon, ebay, abebooks, publisher's websites), and thus helps promoting the work. Furthermore, I would say that it's different from the subject of fair use, as this is not an excerpt of the work itself....

So my opinion is that it's a grey line question : officially copyrighted, but would be complicated to sue the whole internet, and therefore it's tolerated.
What do y'all thing?

[Bev Vincent]

Book cover art is not an excerpt of the work (i.e. the book), but it's a reproduction of the artwork, which is itself copyrighted. Using a book cover falls under the "fair use" doctrine if the cover is used in conjunction with criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Some experts recommend crediting the cover artist, which would be looked upon favorably by a court if it came to that. "Transforming" the cover images to smaller sizes (low resolution thumbnails, for example) helps, according to the Perfect 10 v. Google ruling.

[herbertwest]

What about the TEXTS from the covers, and not the artwork?

[WeDealInLead]

Dick, the use of Stephen King's name or likeness on a product is a risky one. It is almost like you are suggesting his approval and or endorsement of the product without his permission to do so. I would suggest treading very carefully on that score.

I'm curious if King has asked permission for every product name, title of a book etc. in all the books he has published. Like, if somebody was drinking Coca-Cola or throwing a piece of trash into a Dumpster, or the politicians he mentions. Did they approve of that use? Or all the guns and vehicles?

[Randall Flagg]

From what I can see, King gets permission for quoted song lyrics. Not much if anything else.

[Bev Vincent]

Dick, the use of Stephen King's name or likeness on a product is a risky one. It is almost like you are suggesting his approval and or endorsement of the product without his permission to do so. I would suggest treading very carefully on that score.

I'm curious if King has asked permission for every product name, title of a book etc. in all the books he has published. Like, if somebody was drinking Coca-Cola or throwing a piece of trash into a Dumpster, or the politicians he mentions. Did they approve of that use? Or all the guns and vehicles?

You don't need permissions to mention a brand name in a work of fiction. However, if you use a brand in a defamatory way, you could end up in trouble. You can't use a brand name in a title without permission, though. Also, you shouldn't use a trademarked brand in a generic way, as that dilutes the brand and will ruffle feathers.

Similarly with living people -- it's okay to incorporate them into works of fiction so long as you don't defame them. King had Jimmy Carter show up in The Dead Zone, but it was a benign sighting. If he'd turned Carter into an axe murderer, that would have been a problem. You can't defame the dead, however, so they are fair game (except nothing prevents a family from suing...even if they're bound to lose).

[Rachel Readman]

Another thing is: It's Stephen King. Far less likely to have anyone complain or sue him as most brands etc would gain from and be flattered to be in his work. I'm sure he is still careful, respectful of the law and has well paid lawyers he can call to double check on anything he isn't sure on. Unfortunately for most of us lowly artists and individuals we don't have the money to afford such luxuries and have to do our own reading as far as we can and always take the cautionary risk free routes. Sometimes this means not being able to do the things we would like to do because we can't afford the licensing fees or the Copyright owner refuses a license request for whatever reason. Such is life.

[Lurker]

I wonder how thrilled Mercedes was over his last book.

[stroppygoblin]

I wonder how thrilled Mercedes was over his last book.

He picked an older model and there is no such thing as bad publicity...

[Bev Vincent]

I'm sure Scribner's attorneys cleared everything up front.

[racerx45]

I wonder how thrilled Mercedes was over his last book.

He picked an older model and there is no such thing as bad publicity...


I'm sure Scribner's attorneys cleared everything up front.

I have a friend that owns a Mercedes repair shop and of course I had to get him a copy of the book. He is enjoying it but said that the description of the cars bugs him because it was never available in the Mercedes line up. I think he is splitting hairs with coupe vs. sedan (2-door vs 4-door) with that engine but maybe the slightly inaccurate description made Mercedes OK with it. I don’t know, just a thought.

[Randall Flagg]

I wonder how thrilled Mercedes was over his last book.

He picked an older model and there is no such thing as bad publicity...


I'm sure Scribner's attorneys cleared everything up front.

I have a friend that owns a Mercedes repair shop and of course I had to get him a copy of the book. He is enjoying it but said that the description of the cars bugs him because it was never available in the Mercedes line up. I think he is splitting hairs with coupe vs. sedan (2-door vs 4-door) with that engine but maybe the slightly inaccurate description made Mercedes OK with it. I don’t know, just a thought.
That stuff really bugged me as I own a V-12 Mercedes (convertible, 2-door), but there were several other mistakes that a proof-reader (not a mechanic or engineer) should have caught.

[herbertwest]

What about the TEXTS from the covers, and not the artwork?

Since I didn't get a reply for this question...

[Priest]

Some "remarques" are absolutely beaufitul and it feels like a "waste" to just leave it closed in a book.
What do you do guys? Do you leave the book opened on display? Do you leave it closed in a book (and somehow protected with something) and display a scan/printed version...?

I try to find a solution for that at the moment, as i seam not to get a good way to take proper images from book drawings.
If anybody has an idea i am open to everything.

I did a solid for a member here and scanned the image at 1200DPI on a top of the line scanner. It was for his personal use and I did not mind helping out. There should be printers in your area that can do that for you for a small fee... then you can print a copy and frame it for your collecting room:)

I have questions about the copyright legality of this, even if it IS for your personal use.

John

You should be are allowed to make as many copies as you like for personal usage. At least in europe.
US Laws might be harder.


edit: asked

[webstar1000]

[QUOTE=herbertwest;913290]Some "remarques" are absolutely beaufitul and it feels like a "waste" to just leave it closed in a book.
What do you do guys? Do you leave the book opened on display? Do you leave it closed in a book (and somehow protected with something) and display a scan/printed version...?

I try to find a solution for that at the moment, as i seam not to get a good way to take proper images from book drawings.
If anybody has an idea i am open to everything.

I did a solid for a member here and scanned the image at 1200DPI on a top of the line scanner. It was for his personal use and I did not mind helping out. There should be printers in your area that can do that for you for a small fee... then you can print a copy and frame it for your collecting room:)

I have questions about the copyright legality of this, even if it IS for your personal use.

John[/QUOTE

True.. I did it for free though. No money changed hands. But the question then becomes... who owns the remarque? If an artist does a remarque in the book does he still own it or you? Good question John.... I am leaning towards it being ok. Be neat to know the definitive answer on that... I may ask my company lawyer about it.

The artist would still own the rights to the drawing. You would only own that single physical copy. Now this can be discussed and an artist may sell the rights to the image as well for an extra fee but the majority of artists, I believe, would retain the rights to the image. So you couldn't just publish that image in anything for sale without compensating the artist for the art.

That was my thinking Aron... so it would be ok for you to produce one (NOT FOR SALE) for personnel use.... it would be just that the artist would "own" the image in the remarque. That sound right?

[Kingfan24]

[QUOTE=herbertwest;913290]Some "remarques" are absolutely beaufitul and it feels like a "waste" to just leave it closed in a book.
What do you do guys? Do you leave the book opened on display? Do you leave it closed in a book (and somehow protected with something) and display a scan/printed version...?

I try to find a solution for that at the moment, as i seam not to get a good way to take proper images from book drawings.
If anybody has an idea i am open to everything.

I did a solid for a member here and scanned the image at 1200DPI on a top of the line scanner. It was for his personal use and I did not mind helping out. There should be printers in your area that can do that for you for a small fee... then you can print a copy and frame it for your collecting room:)

I have questions about the copyright legality of this, even if it IS for your personal use.

John[/QUOTE

True.. I did it for free though. No money changed hands. But the question then becomes... who owns the remarque? If an artist does a remarque in the book does he still own it or you? Good question John.... I am leaning towards it being ok. Be neat to know the definitive answer on that... I may ask my company lawyer about it.

The artist would still own the rights to the drawing. You would only own that single physical copy. Now this can be discussed and an artist may sell the rights to the image as well for an extra fee but the majority of artists, I believe, would retain the rights to the image. So you couldn't just publish that image in anything for sale without compensating the artist for the art.

That was my thinking Aron... so it would be ok for you to produce one (NOT FOR SALE) for personnel use.... it would be just that the artist would "own" the image in the remarque. That sound right?

I think scanning and or copying in any way shape or form and then disseminating the material regardless of if money changes hands or not is copyright infringement. It's probably best just to not do it.

[webstar1000]

[QUOTE=herbertwest;913290]Some "remarques" are absolutely beaufitul and it feels like a "waste" to just leave it closed in a book.
What do you do guys? Do you leave the book opened on display? Do you leave it closed in a book (and somehow protected with something) and display a scan/printed version...?

I try to find a solution for that at the moment, as i seam not to get a good way to take proper images from book drawings.
If anybody has an idea i am open to everything.

I did a solid for a member here and scanned the image at 1200DPI on a top of the line scanner. It was for his personal use and I did not mind helping out. There should be printers in your area that can do that for you for a small fee... then you can print a copy and frame it for your collecting room:)

I have questions about the copyright legality of this, even if it IS for your personal use.

John[/QUOTE

True.. I did it for free though. No money changed hands. But the question then becomes... who owns the remarque? If an artist does a remarque in the book does he still own it or you? Good question John.... I am leaning towards it being ok. Be neat to know the definitive answer on that... I may ask my company lawyer about it.

The artist would still own the rights to the drawing. You would only own that single physical copy. Now this can be discussed and an artist may sell the rights to the image as well for an extra fee but the majority of artists, I believe, would retain the rights to the image. So you couldn't just publish that image in anything for sale without compensating the artist for the art.

That was my thinking Aron... so it would be ok for you to produce one (NOT FOR SALE) for personnel use.... it would be just that the artist would "own" the image in the remarque. That sound right?

I think scanning and or copying in any way shape or form and then disseminating the material regardless of if money changes hands or not is copyright infringement. It's probably best just to not do it.
No offense Kingfan but we are trying to establish what the law is... not what we "think" is correct or not. I have put an email into my companies lawyers and will let us know what they say. I would rather know for sure as I am sure many here would too. It would be nice to display some of the remarques out there for sure! I know there are some great ones:)

[jhanic]

Kris, I agree. It's better to know for sure. If it's deemed legal, that's okay!

John

[Kingfan24]

[QUOTE=herbertwest;913290]Some "remarques" are absolutely beaufitul and it feels like a "waste" to just leave it closed in a book.
What do you do guys? Do you leave the book opened on display? Do you leave it closed in a book (and somehow protected with something) and display a scan/printed version...?

I try to find a solution for that at the moment, as i seam not to get a good way to take proper images from book drawings.
If anybody has an idea i am open to everything.

I did a solid for a member here and scanned the image at 1200DPI on a top of the line scanner. It was for his personal use and I did not mind helping out. There should be printers in your area that can do that for you for a small fee... then you can print a copy and frame it for your collecting room:)

I have questions about the copyright legality of this, even if it IS for your personal use.

John[/QUOTE

True.. I did it for free though. No money changed hands. But the question then becomes... who owns the remarque? If an artist does a remarque in the book does he still own it or you? Good question John.... I am leaning towards it being ok. Be neat to know the definitive answer on that... I may ask my company lawyer about it.

The artist would still own the rights to the drawing. You would only own that single physical copy. Now this can be discussed and an artist may sell the rights to the image as well for an extra fee but the majority of artists, I believe, would retain the rights to the image. So you couldn't just publish that image in anything for sale without compensating the artist for the art.

That was my thinking Aron... so it would be ok for you to produce one (NOT FOR SALE) for personnel use.... it would be just that the artist would "own" the image in the remarque. That sound right?

I think scanning and or copying in any way shape or form and then disseminating the material regardless of if money changes hands or not is copyright infringement. It's probably best just to not do it.
No offense Kingfan but we are trying to establish what the law is... not what we "think" is correct or not. I have put an email into my companies lawyers and will let us know what they say. I would rather know for sure as I am sure many here would too. It would be nice to display some of the remarques out there for sure! I know there are some great ones:)

That wasn't what I think.

"Under US law if an item is protected under copyright, then only the copywrite owner gets to choose who can and cannot copy, use, or reproduce the image in any manner". There are certain limitations to this so its not all inclusive of things like personal photographs that one takes with their digital camera.

Since you are located in Canada I don't know the law. The only way in the US you are free and clear to use images or text is if it is used for educational purposes. The whole "fair use" issue comes into play in the United states.

The question that you should be asking is this: what constitutes a publication in Canada and can it be reproduced.

[webstar1000]

Kris, I agree. It's better to know for sure. If it's deemed legal, that's okay!

John

Agreed John. Be nice to know for sure. I love remarques and Whelan has some amazing ones. I will let you all know what our lawyers say. Being in our biz they know this side of the law well. Other than my idea... any other ideas out there how to show off a remarque? I hate having them hidden too:(

[Aronstg]

One easy way to rectify this is to just asks the artist. If you are not going to be making money off of this and are not going to use this as the entrance to your website or anything like that, then I think most artists would be reasonable and give you permission to make a printed copy so you can hang it on your walls.

This kind of goes along the same lines, but another option on how to display your remarque is to see you can get the image engraved on the front of a Dolso case. Obviously it would depend on the book and you wouldn't get color included.. but its a neat way to be able to glance over the guts of your remarque.

[webstar1000]

It would be nice to display some of the remarques out there for sure!

They are already on display all over the internet. Many have posted pics on this site and Thomas has a whole section on his site devoted to them.

True... and no one is getting sued for that are they? lol

[herbertwest]

It would be nice to display some of the remarques out there for sure!

They are already on display all over the internet. Many have posted pics on this site and Thomas has a whole section on his site devoted to them.

True... and no one is getting sued for that are they? lol

I think, and this is just my opinion, that if an artist does a remarque and sell it, then he doesnt really care about what will then happen to it and how it will be shared on the net for instance.
They would probably be more interested if somehow they learn that those remarques are for sale / have been sold for thousands of dollars (very unlikely), but then that's pretty much it.

====

What about Picasso's paintings or any famous artists? Who owns the copyrights for paintings that his family do not own anymore? How does it work?

[wolfehr]

I'm not a lawyer so obviously take this with a grain of salt, but I think once you pay for the remarque it's your property and you can do with it as you'd like. In other words, my assumption is that the artists gives up rights to the remarque when they sell it.

Found this online...




First Sale Doctrine

The first sale doctrine establishes that once a copyrighted work has been legally purchased, the purchaser may transfer, sell, lend or give away the work. The first sale doctrine does not apply to works that are rented or leased, and it does not otherwise allow for copyright infringement. Although the first sale doctrine permits the resale of artwork, other resale regulations may be applicable.

Works Made for Hire

Some artwork is commissioned and created for a specific purpose. Depending on the terms of the arrangement between the artist and the purchaser, the art work may be considered a work for hire. If a work is made for hire the purchaser may be considered the original author rather than the artist. Despite accreditation allowed under moral rights or VARA, the legal rights of a work for hire will reside with the purchaser.

legalzoon >> What Is the Copyright Law Regarding Artwork? (http://info.legalzoom.com/copyright-law-regarding-artwork-22147.html)

[Br!an]

We do have a copyright thread... Copyright-Fair-Use-Appropriation-Derivation-Transformation-Trademark-Patent-Law (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?18644-Copyright-Fair-Use-Appropriation-Derivation-Transformation-amp-Trademark-Patent-Law) Perhaps this can be merged there when appropriate?

The artist owns all rights to the image. When an artist sells you a picture he is selling you the physical object. He is not selling (unless it's part of the deal) any rights to the image.

Any reproduction could be considered copyright infringement if not specifically permitted. That is at the discretion of the artist. If the artist feels as though his copyright is infringed then he can take civil action against you.

Simply photocopying an image for personal use probably wouldn't rise to that level. Distributing the image beyond that might. Scanning and storing high res images and then printing the image in a commercial establishment would IMHO rise to that level.

Most artists aren't going to pursue legal action unless the violation is fairly egregious. Most artists have no problem with the image being shared and discussed online (fair use) since it helps promote their work, although high res images are discouraged, and the artist should be credited for the work.

Copyright lasts for differing periods of time depending on the country. Once a copyright expires then the image is public domain and anyone can reproduce and distribute it.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I only play one on the internet.

[Kingfan24]

We do have a copyright thread... Copyright-Fair-Use-Appropriation-Derivation-Transformation-Trademark-Patent-Law (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?18644-Copyright-Fair-Use-Appropriation-Derivation-Transformation-amp-Trademark-Patent-Law) Perhaps this can be merged there when appropriate?

The artist owns all rights to the image. When an artist sells you a picture he is selling you the physical object. He is not selling (unless it's part of the deal) any rights to the image.

Any reproduction could be considered copyright infringement if not specifically permitted. That is at the discretion of the artist. If the artist feels as though his copyright is infringed then he can take civil action against you.

Simply photocopying an image for personal use probably wouldn't rise to that level. Distributing the image beyond that might. Scanning and storing high res images and then printing the image in a commercial establishment would IMHO rise to that level.

Most artists aren't going to pursue legal action unless the violation is fairly egregious. Most artists have no problem with the image being shared and discussed online (fair use) since it helps promote their work, although high res images are discouraged, and the artist should be credited for the work.

Copyright lasts for differing periods of time depending on the country. Once a copyright expires then the image is public domain and anyone can reproduce and distribute it.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I only play one on the internet.

Thank you for more eloquently stating what I was trying to.

[Rahfa]

I didn't cut and paste off the previous pages, but on the subject of copyright infringement.

If you scan a drawing and print it and give it to somebody - of course it's infringement. It's no different than downloading a song. You've taken the product, copied it, and distributed it.

Now, it's a victimless crime, and the scanned print has no money value, but you are still distributing the artists work without their permission or without any profit. The artist could make the case that by reducing the quality, changing the format, you've harmed the art's original value by making it seem more common and less unique(that's a big stretch). Michael Whelan might not appreciate his "art" being displayed in the form of a scanned, low quality copied print.

On THIS site, the distribution is in the form of digital images, etc., for the purpose of discussion and commentary - which is explicitly covered by fair use. But in THEORY, Michael Whelan could raise a stink about it. That's why YouTube will honor musicians requests and take down videos, etc - because YouTube is distributing the product (music) without consent. If it went to court, YouTube could certainly argue 'fair use,' but they have chosen to take the musician's side (and then you have Vevo which pays the artists via ads, etc) and take the videos down.

So - short answer. You are 100 percent infringing on the copyright if you copy a Whelan drawing, print it, and give it to someone else. Are you hurting anyone? No. Are you costing the artist a sale? No. But it's still technically infringement. Do with that info what you want. Because there's no sale involved here, my morality is it's not a big deal.

(I'm not going to go all "I'm a lawyer!" and I'm sure there are different scenarios with their own nuance, but I will arrogantly say you can take my explanation as the authority. I've actually been infringed on - and got paid for the trouble)

[webstar1000]

I didn't cut and paste off the previous pages, but on the subject of copyright infringement.

If you scan a drawing and print it and give it to somebody - of course it's infringement. It's no different than downloading a song. You've taken the product, copied it, and distributed it.

Now, it's a victimless crime, and the scanned print has no money value, but you are still distributing the artists work without their permission or without any profit. The artist could make the case that by reducing the quality, changing the format, you've harmed the art's original value by making it seem more common and less unique(that's a big stretch). Michael Whelan might not appreciate his "art" being displayed in the form of a scanned, low quality copied print.

On THIS site, the distribution is in the form of digital images, etc., for the purpose of discussion and commentary - which is explicitly covered by fair use. But in THEORY, Michael Whelan could raise a stink about it. That's why YouTube will honor musicians requests and take down videos, etc - because YouTube is distributing the product (music) without consent. If it went to court, YouTube could certainly argue 'fair use,' but they have chosen to take the musician's side (and then you have Vevo which pays the artists via ads, etc) and take the videos down.

So - short answer. You are 100 percent infringing on the copyright if you copy a Whelan drawing, print it, and give it to someone else. Are you hurting anyone? No. Are you costing the artist a sale? No. But it's still technically infringement. Do with that info what you want. Because there's no sale involved here, my morality is it's not a big deal.

(I'm not going to go all "I'm a lawyer!" and I'm sure there are different scenarios with their own nuance, but I will arrogantly say you can take my explanation as the authority. I've actually been infringed on - and got paid for the trouble)

It is somewhat different in Canada... It basically says... that scanning a copy for personal use is ok. You could not exhibit the art in public either though... but your own home is not considered public. Here is what I was given.

"(c) by way of trade distribute, expose or offer for sale or rental, or exhibit in public"

I think the best advice here... is do what you want in your own home and do what YOU feel comfortable with.

[Br!an]

I didn't cut and paste off the previous pages, but on the subject of copyright infringement.

If you scan a drawing and print it and give it to somebody - of course it's infringement. It's no different than downloading a song. You've taken the product, copied it, and distributed it.

Now, it's a victimless crime, and the scanned print has no money value, but you are still distributing the artists work without their permission or without any profit. The artist could make the case that by reducing the quality, changing the format, you've harmed the art's original value by making it seem more common and less unique(that's a big stretch). Michael Whelan might not appreciate his "art" being displayed in the form of a scanned, low quality copied print.

On THIS site, the distribution is in the form of digital images, etc., for the purpose of discussion and commentary - which is explicitly covered by fair use. But in THEORY, Michael Whelan could raise a stink about it. That's why YouTube will honor musicians requests and take down videos, etc - because YouTube is distributing the product (music) without consent. If it went to court, YouTube could certainly argue 'fair use,' but they have chosen to take the musician's side (and then you have Vevo which pays the artists via ads, etc) and take the videos down.

So - short answer. You are 100 percent infringing on the copyright if you copy a Whelan drawing, print it, and give it to someone else. Are you hurting anyone? No. Are you costing the artist a sale? No. But it's still technically infringement. Do with that info what you want. Because there's no sale involved here, my morality is it's not a big deal.

(I'm not going to go all "I'm a lawyer!" and I'm sure there are different scenarios with their own nuance, but I will arrogantly say you can take my explanation as the authority. I've actually been infringed on - and got paid for the trouble)

It is somewhat different in Canada... It basically says... that scanning a copy for personal use is ok. You could not exhibit the art in public either though... but your own home is not considered public. Here is what I was given.

"(c) by way of trade distribute, expose or offer for sale or rental, or exhibit in public"

I think the best advice here... is do what you want in your own home and do what YOU feel comfortable with.

Given by whom? Certainly not an attorney.

Didn't you mention copying a print for someone else? That is distribution.

***


Canadian Copyright Act (excerpt)


S. 3. (1): For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and includes the sole right to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work.


***

Without permission, copying and distributing someone else's copyrighted work is infringement anywhere that copyright laws exist.

[webstar1000]

I didn't cut and paste off the previous pages, but on the subject of copyright infringement.

If you scan a drawing and print it and give it to somebody - of course it's infringement. It's no different than downloading a song. You've taken the product, copied it, and distributed it.

Now, it's a victimless crime, and the scanned print has no money value, but you are still distributing the artists work without their permission or without any profit. The artist could make the case that by reducing the quality, changing the format, you've harmed the art's original value by making it seem more common and less unique(that's a big stretch). Michael Whelan might not appreciate his "art" being displayed in the form of a scanned, low quality copied print.

On THIS site, the distribution is in the form of digital images, etc., for the purpose of discussion and commentary - which is explicitly covered by fair use. But in THEORY, Michael Whelan could raise a stink about it. That's why YouTube will honor musicians requests and take down videos, etc - because YouTube is distributing the product (music) without consent. If it went to court, YouTube could certainly argue 'fair use,' but they have chosen to take the musician's side (and then you have Vevo which pays the artists via ads, etc) and take the videos down.

So - short answer. You are 100 percent infringing on the copyright if you copy a Whelan drawing, print it, and give it to someone else. Are you hurting anyone? No. Are you costing the artist a sale? No. But it's still technically infringement. Do with that info what you want. Because there's no sale involved here, my morality is it's not a big deal.

(I'm not going to go all "I'm a lawyer!" and I'm sure there are different scenarios with their own nuance, but I will arrogantly say you can take my explanation as the authority. I've actually been infringed on - and got paid for the trouble)

It is somewhat different in Canada... It basically says... that scanning a copy for personal use is ok. You could not exhibit the art in public either though... but your own home is not considered public. Here is what I was given.

"(c) by way of trade distribute, expose or offer for sale or rental, or exhibit in public"

I think the best advice here... is do what you want in your own home and do what YOU feel comfortable with.

Given by whom? Certainly not an attorney.

Didn't you mention copying a print for someone else? That is distribution.

***


Canadian Copyright Act (excerpt)


S. 3. (1): For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and includes the sole right to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work.


***

Without permission, copying and distributing someone else's copyrighted work is infringement anywhere that copyright laws exist.

I did. For free if you notice.... There was no exchange of funds.

[Rahfa]

Without permission, copying and distributing someone else's copyrighted work is infringement anywhere that copyright laws exist.

I did. For free if you notice.... There was no exchange of funds.

It doesn't matter, though - that's why Napster doesn't exist anymore. Because "for free" they were distributing music illegally. The money is not the issue, it's the distribution.

I don't want to sound like I'm being militant - I don't care, and I doubt very much Whelan would either.

But it's infringement - it's not even debatable in your example. You- literally - distributed a creative artwork outside of and in violation of the artist's express, specific copyright. It's textbook copyright infringement.

Again - I'm giving the letter of the law. I don't personally care.

[webstar1000]

Without permission, copying and distributing someone else's copyrighted work is infringement anywhere that copyright laws exist.

I did. For free if you notice.... There was no exchange of funds.

It doesn't matter, though - that's why Napster doesn't exist anymore. Because "for free" they were distributing music illegally. The money is not the issue, it's the distribution.

I don't want to sound like I'm being militant - I don't care, and I doubt very much Whelan would either.

But it's infringement - it's not even debatable in your example. You- literally - distributed a creative artwork outside of and in violation of the artist's express, specific copyright. It's textbook copyright infringement.

Again - I'm giving the letter of the law. I don't personally care.

Thanks for the heads up all on this. I emailed our lawyers on this and they had SO Many questions. Wanna hear the funniest thing? THEY COULD NOT UNDERSTAND why someone would pay someone to essentially destroy a valuable book. LOOOOOL They could not get it. Even though some do not care for remarques... I do to a degree... that was the biggest thing. I told the guy i was talking to that it is a collecting thing. haha ANyways, I told them not to spend much time on it but look into it. Probably a waste of time but hey... why not?