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

[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=Aronstg;913479]

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=webstar1000;913487]

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=Kingfan24;913493]

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=webstar1000;913494]

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?

[Br!an]

We do have a copyright thread... Copyright-Fair-Use-Appropriation-Derivation-Transformation-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 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.