A Question In Regards To Copyright

There are some images that are public domain, and some of the stock agencies may have releases, but for most of the artists the short answer is, no they're not getting permission, FAA covers themselves with their user agreement, and people are just taking the chance that they won't get caught.

***I have seen many images here of people digitally manipulating photos of bands and in some cases their logo/image. How is this done without infringing on their copyright? For instance a lot of Beatles, kiss, rolling stones, etc. Are these artist here, that are digitally re-mastering or manipulating other images, getting their permission to do so? ***

In some cases Sandra there have been obvious misuses and abuses of those artist named rights. Not only © but Trademark infringements.
David is very correct (above reply) FAA is not in the business of policing the offenders, unless you bring it forward to them. The individuals or businesses that upload these images to FAA or anywhere on the net take the risk

it isn't, its just done. many think that if they find it on google it's free. and if they modify it, then its ok. but in reality they could have a lawsuit on their hands should someone press charges. unless they got permission from the original photographer then its ok. it really depends on the image. its better to do your own things though.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Andy Warhol's famous Campbell Soup image. His legal battle with the manufacturer fizzled out. An artist in Germany copied Warhol's work and sold it. He was jailed. Fraud goes beyond just a civil action. If you don't care, go for it.

I see this...quite often... and understand that it must be money motivated but I always wonder...thinking the people who do this must be some sort of artist....where is the satisfaction in it. Whatever I create, no matter if it turns out badly or great, there is the satisfaction I get from creating it....from starting with a blank canvas or film or whatever and making it into something of my own choosing. That is why I do it...for the thrill of starting from scratch. I don't get it.

"That is why I do it...for the thrill of starting from scratch. I don't get it."

Starting from scratch isn't all it's cracked up to be. Artists needlessly handicap themselves when they try and reinvent the wheel every time they put stylus to tablet.

Naturally, exact copies are frowned upon. But if you can put a new twist in an existing idea without infringing anyone's rights, you'll be in the same company as George Lucas, Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, Andy Warhol and Led Zeppelin. Oh wait...ALL of those guys have been sued for infringement.

All great art is built on concepts, images, ideas, formats, approaches and emotions that are already there. Tap into it.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

How are people selling phone cases with pro sports logos on them?

Welcome to FAA.

Dan...Lol...I get what you are saying and I suppose on some level we are all taking a preexisting idea or concept and making it our own. This past week I've been doing stripes...that's it just stripes...no time to do much in this busy season ... not a novel idea at all but they are my stripes...I'm not taking someone else's and "improving" upon them....who knows...maybe I would sell more art if I did but for me it would not be half as much fun. For me, even the really ugly ones were fun to do.

Thank you for the responses.

Oh, no! Monsieur Danl - I do care, I think that is why I was having issues of it. For instance the rolling stone logo a couple weeks back, mouth and tongue, was displayed in recently sold.... just doesn't seem fair to get paid off of other peoples work. And then I got really curious. I did a search for the rolling stones. And you can find the exact photographs, just manipulated in various ways, by more then one artist. Of course I have not gone as far as to research if these images are of public domain now. Maybe they are. There are so many wonderful artists/photographers here that have yet to sell an image. And the copyright breakers turn out to be the cream in searches. Just sucks. Too bad nothing can be done.

Anyway, I guess that was my rant.

how are the selling the phone cases? they haven't been caught yet, that's how.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Yuuup

Yes I thought the royalties and penalties for sports trademarks were huge, six or seven figures.

"six or seven figures."

Starving artists and art hobbyists don't have six or seven figures. Plus there's the question of "is it art," and the question of non-willfull infringement and the question of doing the teams more good than harm.

A copyright suit is expensive. The defendant better have deep pockets and ironclad guilt or it simply isn't worth it.

"Getting caught" in this context means being asked to take it down. Not much of a risk.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Well now that be a first I agree with Dan some what... correct artists won't have the monies that is why they will skip them and go directly after FAA. Even with the so called now you know better wordage of their terms won't get them out as many other services have discovered.

Okay on a side note I shouldn't have ate all those Krystals.

What I don't get is all the people on FAA that think they are copyright and trademark lawyers and deciding what the law is. Yes there are infringements on here. But selling phone cases and selling art are worlds apart. Where is it written that art can't have trademarks?

Where is it written that you can't have art with bands?

Large corporate copyright holders are constantly pushing for stiffer penalties against infringers. All of us should be concerned with Friday night legislation that penalizes everyday citizens for not knowing the intricacies of copyright law.

The most insightful comment I've read on those tactics comes from Professor Eric Goldman of the Marquette University Law School, who said: “First, it is not acceptable to put average Americans at the peril of going to jail for doing everyday activities. Second, if the existing laws are not yielding the desired results, perhaps they were bad policy, in which case, making them tougher only compounds the initial policy failure.”


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Great arguments on both sides of the fence.

This site would be a lot better if it wasn't selling copied images.

I see a few of misconceptions in this thread.

Andy Warhol's legal battle didn't "fizzle out". Campbells dropped it after they came to the realization that they were only drawing bad publicity over it and that Warhol's work was actually promoting their product.

Changes and manipulations of original copyrighted work could be considered derivative work. Granted there is a thin line with this, usually ends up being determined by the courts.

When we see sales on the front page of copyrighted images, we automatically it's copyright infringement. Why is that? How do any of us know if the seller has written permission? We don't. Might be best to ask the seller directly.

Finally to Bradford's point, there is a big difference between image use for a fine art print and commercial use as an image on phone cases and pillows. More often than not, when a copyright or trademark is used in fine art prints courts uphold it's use as not being an infringement.

Chuck, You hit the nail on the head as to why Cambells dropped the suit. But in today's courts I doubt they would have won . So it both of those reasons. Some companies want the publicity. That is their right to allow as much as it is their right to not allow, if in fact they have even the right at all.

The Grateful Dead realized that it was far better to let fans use their IP then to stop them. That resulted in a strong and loyal following the lasted long after their music was no longer popular on the radio. That IP was recordings but also art.

Hollywood did that in earlier years when they intentionally left out the copyright notices (when they were required) and did not register publicity photos.

Justin said. "This site would be a lot better if it wasn't selling copied images."

FAA's obligation is to respond to DMCA orders not decide what is legal or not. If FAA decides to make their own rules as to art and be police, lawyer, judge and jury then this site will lose a lot of great art and artists.
That said I predict a lot more complaints from trademark holders with the introduction of more commercial products. As for copyrights I say don't assume that there is no permission or that the copyright holder is obvious.

Great points everyone.

"That said I predict a lot more complaints from trademark holders with the introduction of more commercial products."

All the more reason for there to be a CLEAR separation between FAA and Pixels, which presently doesn't exist.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

"Finally to Bradford's point, there is a big difference between image use for a fine art print and commercial use as an image on phone cases and pillows. More often than not, when a copyright or trademark is used in fine art prints courts uphold it's use as not being an infringement."

The prints being sold here don't meet the legal definition for fine art prints. In order for them to do so they must be numbered limited editions.

For the purposes of placing a value on a piece of art that is being donated for charity, the IRS has determined that there be no more than 200 in the edition.

Any more than that, or open editions as are being produced here, puts them into the realm of decorative merchandise which puts any of the protection that "art" might enjoy in jeopardy.

Oh my, another thread about copyright in which all kinds of opinions will be opined and none of them will be totally accurate or inaccurate because no one really knows the specifics of each and every case.

This has been proven time and again in dozens and dozens of threads.

Dan, there is a clear separation already between Pixlles and FAA, it is your AW. lol

"The prints being sold here don't meet the legal definition for fine art prints. In order for them to do so they must be numbered limited editions."

Not necessarily true David. What the IRS determines for tax purposes has nothing to do with copyright law, the use of an image, and how a court might determine if there was infringement.

That is correct, Chuck. Good post.

"Dan, there is a clear separation already between Pixlles and FAA, it is your AW. lol"

Floyd, Nope. Pillows and iPhone cases are mixed into the keywords. Pixels.com is prominately linked. There is currently no way to prevent the encroachment, cloning or confusion.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I am learning. Good input.

Ops, you got me on that one Dan! My bad! lol

Hard to sneak one by you even on one of my better days! lol

"The prints being sold here don't meet the legal definition for fine art prints."

To my knowledge, and I could be wrong, there is no legal definition of fine art print. Not one that I ever heard of anyway.

The term to me simple means it is a print of a piece of fine art.

Now, what is fine art has probably been argued for 600 or 800 years and will be for another 600 to 8000 years.

What I can tell you is that most people would not consider what we are selling here fine art but fine art prints, but certainly not in all cases.

fine art prints

Ah yes! Floyd has the correct term. Thanks!

^_^