SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    SitePoint Zealot izaak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    131
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    About Photo, Clipart, and Animation copyrights

    What is the actual rules and regulations with photo's, cliparts, and animations? For instance let's say I see a cool clipart on another web site and I want to place the same clipart on my web site, but the clipart is copyrighted, what would happen in that case if I were caught? Keep in mind I would not be selling the clipart I would just use it on my web site. I am sure if I contacted the webmaster and asked if I could place their clipart on my site that would be much better then just taking it, but I just want to find out what is right and wrong in this situation.

    Izaak,

  2. #2
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    60
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Taking copyright material and using it on your site is a unethical, not to mention illegal. Although my knowledge is limited in this area, I would say penalty would depend which state you are located in.

    But hey, if you don't steal copyrighted material, then you wont have to worry about it. Simply ask to use the material. I am sure you would want the same done to you in return.
    Leah | Idologic.com
    Reseller, Dedicated, and Co-Lo Solutions

  3. #3
    SitePoint Zealot izaak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    131
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I know it is unethical to steal someones copyrighted meterials, it's a no brainer what I wanted to find out were the rules and regulations on the subject. I was just using examples to help people understand what I mean. For instance WebShots.com could anyone go in there and grab some photo's and paste them on their web site without permission? I just want some feedback as to how people do to get the rights to such photo's, cliparts, and animations...

    Izaak,

  4. #4
    FreeBSD The Power to Serve silver trophy pippo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    4,514
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    About webshots you should read the Terms of Use at their site.

    I remember this article:
    http://www.wdvl.com/Authoring/Graphi...ft/copyrt.html
    Mr Andrea
    Former Hosting Team Advisor
    Former Advisor of '03

  5. #5
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The copyright laws in different countries vary but essentially if you use a copyrighted image and get found out then it will cost you.

    Photographers, etc normally charge for a licence to use their images (unless stated otherwise) - this is often on an annual basis for web use.

    Therefore first off, if you use an image and the photographer discovers the breach you are liable for "past usage" and could you prove that you hadn't used the image for 6 years and therefore liable to pay for 6 years usage?

    Secondly, in the US photographers can charge a "standard triple usage fee" for unauthorised use - that is 3 times what they would normally charge for using the image. There is also $10,000 fine/charge that can be applied under US copyright law.

    Under UK copyright law the photographer can charge their normal usage fee only, but there are still court costs and administration fees that can be recovered.

    Also because of theft many photographers build penalties into their terms to cover unauthorised usage.

    Also, bear in mind in most countries copyright breach is a civil offence - there has been pressure to make it a criminal offence, it is effectively the same as theft, and it may actually be a criminal offence in some countries.

    Which law you would be subject to would depend on where the photographer resides/has their office, etc.

    Another thing worth mentioning is "ignorance is no defence" - therefore you should not use an image unless you are certain you have the rights to.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Zealot nikul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    India
    Posts
    132
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    What if...?

    Hi there,

    I read all comments, I would like to know, what if someone uses images and change it, crop it or size, or merge it with someother images (masking)?

    Please let me know on this

    thanks n regards

    nikul

  7. #7
    SitePoint Zealot Tiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    131
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Exclamation

    nikul, derivitive works are covered by the original copyrights if your creative contains a recognisable "feature" of the original work(s).

    So if you intend to use any copyrighted material, it is always a good idea to get permission from the copyright owner before you start; and don't forget to let them know your real intention. I would also recommend you let the copyright holders look at the derivative work before you make it publicly available to show them how it is being used.

  8. #8
    SitePoint Zealot nikul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    India
    Posts
    132
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tiggy,

    What u say is abolutely correct and to the point, I agree with you.

    Thanks n regards

    nikul

  9. #9
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ah, copyrights.

    The ownership of an Art always rests with the artist, the artist's estate, or the person/company who owns the right to the image.

    Having said that, I don't believe it is unethical to use works of famous art for small additions to one's site as long as the real artist is identified.

    Artistic Licence:

    A photographer only holds the copyright to his photograph of the Art. The photographer is permitted to take a photograph of the Art, but doesn't own the right to the actual work. To resolve the legal problem, the photographer clearly identifies exactly what the subject of the picture is.

    If I appropriate Painterly Art and change it to Functional Art (such as an avatar), I cannot be held liable. Like the photographer, I am appropriating one form of artistic media to incorporate it into another form. Again, I have to clearly identify who the artist is.

    Anyway, it worked for Andy Warhol, so why shouldn't it work for another artist?

    Edit:



    In my case, I don't mind if someone uses my artwork for a non-profit purpose as long as they identify me as the artist.



Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •