What is 'Original Artwork'?
Paul R.
car), would it be acceptable to take an existing photograph (that I do not
own the copyright to), cut out the vehicle, completely paint the layer to
create a silhouette, then resize and transform to fit the purpose?
I have already taken my own photographs of the vehicle on the dealers lot,
and have done my own editing to my own images for my personal project, but
during the process, I began to wonder 'does at some point, an image become
so transformed that it becomes a "different" original artwork/image'?
Is the issue cut & dry, or more of a gray area?
--
Paul R.
please reply to group
Tacit
>car), would it be acceptable to take an existing photograph (that I do not
>own the copyright to), cut out the vehicle, completely paint the layer to
>create a silhouette, then resize and transform to fit the purpose?
No. This is considered a "derivative work" under copyright law.
>I began to wonder 'does at some point, an image become
>so transformed that it becomes a "different" original artwork/image'?
No.
>Is the issue cut & dry, or more of a gray area?
If you start with anyone else's work, then no matter what you do, you don't own
copyright to the result. In order to own the copyright, you cannot at any point
whatsoever have started with someone else's work.
No matter how much you modify a copyrighted work,the result is still a
derivative work.
--
"Quand la morale triomphe, il se passe des choses tres vilaines."
Literature. Art. Photography. Forums. Shareware. Kink. Sex.
All at: http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Paul R.
I'll read up on "derivative work" for clarification and a better
understanding.
--
Paul R.
please reply to group
"Tacit" <tac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020516124226...@mb-fo.aol.com...
John Stafford
"Paul R." <re...@newsgroup.please> wrote in message
news:A1758EF15023F4CB.F12210E6...@lp.airnews.net...
> If I needed a particular graphic for a website (silhouette of a particular
> car), would it be acceptable to take an existing photograph (that I do not
> own the copyright to), cut out the vehicle, completely paint the layer to
> create a silhouette, then resize and transform to fit the purpose?
I know of one case where you cannot use the profile of a car in a business,
regardless of source: the profile of the Classic Volkswagen Bug. It's
trademarked. Maybe there are other cases.
Joseph Bellofatto
"Tacit" <tac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020516124226...@mb-fo.aol.com...
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Regardless of the case you have, I believe in the following fact: "We
are not committed to pay Chinese people a royalty every time we write
on a piece of paper because they invented paper"! In the same manner,
Star War is not credited to Star Trek in any way whatsoever, unless
otherwise specified!
However, some companies or even individuals pay governmental bodies
periodically to protect graphics, products, plans, statements,
algorithms, etc. In such cases they announce this protection in a way
or another in various literature explicitly. However, you have to deal
with the subject of infringing the rights of others by the following
ethical self-questioned rule:
"If I would be them, and somebody from somewhere, in my shoes, has
done such a manipulation to my artwork, does that lead to a moral
and/or material damage to me, or distort my corporate ID in the way
others may recognize a clone of mine?"
If the answer was "Yes", then you are doing something wrong, otherwise
if the answer was "No", then you are on your own!! Therefore,
definition of original artwork (from my point of view) is the work
that is either built from scratch, or derived partly from others'
artworks and been taylored into a new attire. For example, nobody will
blame me to use globe lineart sketch found somewhere, having modified
that sketch in a way or another, in my original poster! In the same
way Adobe may never claim that my artwork is derived, because I used
Gaussian Blur in that artwork.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer
Tacit
>blame me to use globe lineart sketch found somewhere, having modified
>that sketch in a way or another, in my original poster!
Actually, that is not true.
Think of it this way: Could you have made that globe? Could you have made the
poster without it? If you couldn't make the globe yourself, then you must
appreciate the talent of the person who DID. Don't steal his work. It's
illegal, and it's wrong. If you are caught doing this, then yes, someone WILL
blame you, and rightly so.
> In the same
>way Adobe may never claim that my artwork is derived, because I used
>Gaussian Blur in that artwork.
Incorrect analogy. There is a distinction between a TOOL and a WORK.
A camera is a tool; it is not a work. The photographer uses the tool to take a
photograph; he owns the photograph.
Photoshop is a tool; the image is the work. The artist uses Photoshop to create
the work.
A manufacturer of a tool to create artistic works has no claim to copyright. If
you use someone else's camera to make your work, you own it. If you use someone
else's PHOTOGRAPH to make your work, then you are wrong.
I don't understand why people find this so hard to comprehend. It is very
simple. If. You. Use. Someone. Else's. Artwork. Without. Permission. Then. You.
Are. Wrong. It's that simple.
Darryl
> > If. You. Use. Someone. Else's. Artwork. Without. Permission. Then. You.
> Are. Wrong. It's that simple.
PERIOD!!! Well Said. Simple, to the Point, times 13 :-)
Darryl
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
What you say is completely void of logic when we speak about a sketch
of the globe. Actually, nobody invented that globe, and thereby
considered to be a common property or Public Domain Property. You
cannot amend borders, projections, etc., you have to immitate them as
they are... Borders should be correct to your best. After you color
that sketch in your way or annotate map, then it is now completely new
attire.
Can I blame you if you reproduced a circle with a red stroke and white
fill, and of radius 10 inches from my artwork. Can I attribute you as
stealing my artwork? This is completely insane. Flashes (and other
design elements) are used in many magazines, should publishers of such
magazines hit each others and accuse each others of stealing each
others' red flashes?
From legal point of view (ask your lawyer) when you take a plan of
invention from patent office and modify that design by either
improving it or degrading it you can claim your invention to be
original, and a patent will be granted accordingly.
Stealing somebody's work means that you are reproducing that artwork
in a whole and/or make some negligible change on it, then you put your
signature, without crediting the original designer.
At last Gaussian Blur is not a tool. It is a filter! See... I can be
so picky too! Does this has weight or effect?!
David Goerndt
>
> What you say is completely void of logic when we speak about a sketch
> of the globe. Actually, nobody invented that globe, and thereby
> considered to be a common property or Public Domain Property. You
> cannot amend borders, projections, etc., you have to immitate them as
> they are... Borders should be correct to your best. After you color
> that sketch in your way or annotate map, then it is now completely new
> attire.
>
> invention from patent office and modify that design by either
> improving it or degrading it you can claim your invention to be
> original, and a patent will be granted accordingly.
>
The idea of the globe isn't the issue, if you use artwork containing the
globe, someone had to create that image. Using that image to create your own
would be wrong. Make it up on your own, and you own it.
Patents are completely different. The drawing used in a patent is simply a
graphic representation of a physical object and required by the Patent
Office to file for a patent.
David Goerndt
thretoe
something (technology, for example) in a new way to do something that
isn't being done already -- I could patent a Point of sale software
program that is new and different then anything out there, based on Mac
or windoze OS's, but i would still have to liscence the use of that OS.
Above and beyond, i still might not be granted a patent accordingly,
it's up to the patent office.
Stealing artwork means reproducing said artwork in total or in part,
without permission. crediting the artworks creator doesn't mean that
you have permission to use the artwork.
Dan Silvertree
In article <4972a2d6.02051...@posting.google.com>, Mohamed
Al-Dabbagh <mohamed_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
-snip-
Tacit
>considered to be a common property or Public Domain Property. You
>cannot amend borders, projections, etc., you have to immitate them as
>they are... Borders should be correct to your best.
No, you are missing the point.
If you need a globe, YOU DRAW THE GLOBE, and your drawing is yours. If you use
someone else's drawing, you are stealing the time and effort that went into
creating it.
You're confusing two diffeent issues. Any work is instantly copyrighted by its
creator at the moment it is fixed in tangible form. If I create a drawing, even
of something which is universally recognized (like a globe), you can't use my
drawing. If you need one, buy it from me or make your own drawing.
The globe is universal; the effort I put into creating an image of it is not.
>From legal point of view (ask your lawyer) when you take a plan of
>invention from patent office and modify that design by either
>improving it or degrading it you can claim your invention to be
>original, and a patent will be granted accordingly.
Incorrect.
As a matter of fact, I HAVE a patent attorney. He works for Fowler White, one
of the largest and most respected legal firms in the United States; he has
almost four decades' experience in intellectual property law; and he states
that your conclusion is incorrect. You misunderstand patent law, which, like
copyright law, covers derivative works.
You also misunderstand the relationship between the two. We are discussing
copyright, not patent. A drawing, painting, sketch, photograph,writing, or
other similar work is not covered by patent law; it is protected by copyright
law, an entirely separate body of law.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
It seems for me that copyright is partly a cloudy concept. The reason
why I am discussing this topic, that I saw many people use my design
elements and design concepts without saying a word. I used to SWALLOW
that and don't care, as long as they are not reproducing my artwork in
full.
You just can't sue all people because they learnt something from you.
No designer was delivered to air as an artist. We all saw others
artworks and learnt and inspired by them. We all know that typing
styles may characterize an artist, but soon all who admire that style
begin to immitate it. Can you actually stop all those people to
immitate you. We have to be more tolerant in permitting people to
learn from us, the same way when our masters permitted us to do so. I
do not believe in seizing knowledge, and actually I feel that you are
too, otherwise, we'd never discuss our ideas in an open newsgroup.
I am trying to reach at a compromise, and try to find a definition for
the infringement of artworks... I still insist on my concept mentioned
when I first participated in this thread.
Before you try to formulate a statement, I feel that it is helpful to
read this web page (in full please):
http://www.copyright.com/CopyrightResources/default.asp
I see a combination of thoughts said in this thread. I will be more
than happy if ng members participating in this thread try to provide
formulation, in the light of what is discussed, and in the light of
the above website.
Tacit
>read this web page (in full please):
>
>http://www.copyright.com/CopyrightResources/default.asp
>
>I see a combination of thoughts said in this thread. I will be more
>than happy if ng members participating in this thread try to provide
>formulation, in the light of what is discussed, and in the light of
>the above website.
I read the complete text of that site, but I see nothing in it that in any way
supports your assertion that it's OK for you to use someone else's image of a
globe.
Simple fact is not copyrightable, but any *expression* of that fact *is.*
Is a sketch of a globe an expression? You bet. Absolutely. Is it original or
creative? Yes, especially in light of the fact that I have seen an *entire
stock photo CD* that is nothing but hundreds of different sketches of the
globe--pencil sketches, wireframes, ink sketches, paintings, brushwork,
computer rendering, texture-mapped renderings, watercolors, and so on, and so
on.
Copyright law is very clear on this point--any original interpretation or
rendition of factual matter is covered by copyright.
What it comes down to is this: If it's a creative work (which any painting,
drawing, sketch, doodle, or whatever is), and you didn't make it, don't steal
it.
Remove the 2nd @toemailme Dwight Williamson
Al-Dabbagh) wrote:
>It seems for me that copyright is partly a cloudy concept.
It's really not that cloudy (at least from a legal viewpoint) if you
take the time to learn about it. Here is a good starting point for the
U.S. legal version of what copyright is: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/
Most of this is really pretty easy to understand, even for the layman.
Check out the FAQs and circulars for answers to specific questions
like fair use, length of copyright, at what point in time does a work
become copyrighted, etc...
Of course there may be 2 different issues here. One is the concept of
copyright law as it stands legally (at least in the U.S) and the other
is how "you" personally believe that works of intellect should be
protected if at all.
>The reason
>why I am discussing this topic, that I saw many people use my design
>elements and design concepts without saying a word. I used to SWALLOW
>that and don't care, as long as they are not reproducing my artwork in
>full.
And no one is trying to stop you from doing that if you wish. But just
because you feel that way about your work is no reason that others
should or do feel the same about their work. I, and many others,
believe the people that create the intellectual property should be
the ones that decide how is used, not the people that did not create
it.
>I am trying to reach at a compromise, and try to find a definition for
>the infringement of artworks... I still insist on my concept mentioned
>when I first participated in this thread.
And you are certainly allowed to feel that way if you wish, but it may
well have very little to do with the legal process of copyright.
>Before you try to formulate a statement, I feel that it is helpful to
>read this web page (in full please):
>
>http://www.copyright.com/CopyrightResources/default.asp
O.K. I read it. It seems to quite clearly cover the "legal" aspects of
copyright, and I agree with most, if not all, of what it says. Are
there certain parts that lead you to believe that it is generally and
legally acceptable to use other people's copyrighted work without
permission; or is there some other point(s) you are trying to make?
>
>Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
>Senior Graphic Designer
Dwight Williamson
http://www.dwightwilliamson.com
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
> there certain parts that lead you to believe that it is generally and
> legally acceptable to use other people's copyrighted work without
> permission; or is there some other point(s) you are trying to make?
>
Yes...
I believe it is point 8 which seems to me quite unbelievable, as it
permit you to copy ANY copyrighted material before 1923... Is it even
unfair to say so? This point also mention the idea of COPYRIGHT
EXPIRATION, which is not only a CLOUDY expression but even a moral
crime!!! I don't want to reach at this tragic point, provided that
most of the humanity important artworks done before 1923... No
computer graphics were used and no Photoshop was used in that
period... JUST completely hand-made artworks, that render them
VIRTUALLY ALL being original, with the exception of blind immitation.
I said we want to reach at a compromise.
Tacit
>permit you to copy ANY copyrighted material before 1923... Is it even
>unfair to say so? This point also mention the idea of COPYRIGHT
>EXPIRATION, which is not only a CLOUDY expression but even a moral
>crime!!!
Not at all.
The idea of copyright is that the person who creates an original artwork has
the right, for a limited time, to profit from that work and do with it as he
sees fit.
But this right is not indefinite. It makes no sense to protect the rights of
the original creator, say, 1,000 years later--as by then the original creator
will long since have been dead.
So the idea is pretty straightforward: You created it, you own all rights to it
exclusively for a period of time; after that, it becomes public domain.
Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Thanks God.........
Say: "NO" or "NOT AT ALL" once again!