Copyright and Images

[wildsweetone]

As much as I've been trying to avoid understanding the copyright laws, I now need to know what is allowable for using images with stories that I, and others, write.

Is there anyone here who knows and can explain the copyright law in basic plain English to me?



I would like to know, if I were to submit an original story to the Illustrated Category, what sources may I take images from to illustrate it?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You would want to use images, drawings, etc that are in the public domain. The works of the great masters are public domain by now. One source of images in the public domain is the usenet news groups, but take that with a cravat, some of the images displayed there are still copyrighted.

Copyright on a story is usually 75 years now I think. For an image I believe it is less, something in the order of 26, but I could be mistaken. I wish I had more certain numbers for you.

Sowwry,

-Colly

 

[Svenskaflicka]

But are public domain artwork allowed to be used for ALL events? Even as illustrations for erotic fiction?
Isn't there restrictions..?

 

[Weird Harold]

I would like to know, if I were to submit an original story to the Illustrated Category, what sources may I take images from to illustrate it?

1: Images you create

2: Images you can get permission to use

3: Images in the public domain.

The last is where the difficulty lies -- determining which images are in the public domain and which are stolen copies with the copyright info discarded.

An image is NOT in the "Public Domain" just because you can't determine who created it or it has been attached to ten-million e-mails to people who didn't really want it.


Svenskaflicka, "In The Public Domain" means there is nobody who can legally object to any use on copyright grounds.

 

[wildsweetone]

images in the public domain

This is interesting. Thanks for helping.

Okay, a scenario. If I were to find a picture on the net (I'm assuming the net is a public domain as I can access it), and I copied that image onto my computer, then:

a) If I use that image exactly as it is to put with a story I have written, is that an infringement of copyright?

b) If I change one dot of colour on it, does that mean it is no longer a copyrighted image but an image I have 'created'? Is there a percentage of what I can do to an image to make it my own?

c) Is the public domain, TV, internet, movies? (What exactly is the public domain?)

I just would like to make it clear, I am not intending to use other people's images for my own personal work, however I am seeking accurate information on behalf of the Snippettsville Group before using images created by other people.

 

[Madame Manga]

The Net is not public domain. Publishing something, which is what you are doing when you put something on the Net, does not mean that you give up its copyright any more than if you printed it in a book or broadcast it on television. Just because many people treat everything they find online as somehow theirs does not mean that they have a legal right to do so. They don't.

However, you may or may not have the right to use an image you download. It depends on the particular image. A lot of what you find online has no copyright information attached or had it removed somewhere along the way. That doesn't mean it has no copyright, because just about anything created in the last half century with a camera, paintbrush or computer is likely to have an owner somewhere. If you can't verify who holds the copyright and get permission, the only strictly legal thing to do is leave that image alone. And stand there with your finger in the hole while everyone around you attacks the dike with backhoes and dynamite, but whatever.

Changing the image either a little or a lot makes no difference whatsoever. It's an old wives's tale that changing ten percent or twenty percent makes it "yours". The only way you avoid the law in this case is to change it so much that no reasonable person looking at the images side by side would say that one was derived from the other. *Anything* recognizable, and you're liable.

The point of copyright law is to benefit society by encouraging the creation and publication of all kinds of works. This is done by reserving the rights and profits to the creators and their heirs for a reasonable period of time. However, the point of public domain is to avoid locking up creative work in perpetuity. Public domain (in the USA) therefore roughly consists of works whose creators are A. dead and B. have been dead for quite a while and C. are not a corporation, which cannot die, at least not in the same way that writers and artists do. Mickey Mouse, who would otherwise have fallen into public domain because of his age, has recently been granted an extension by a court decision. (Can of worms, but outside the scope of this discussion.)

If you want to be chaste and guilt-free, stick to: artists who worked previous to the 1930s, photographs of similar vintage, your own art and photos, art and photos created by your friends if they have given you permission to use them, images from copyright-free CD-ROMs and archives, and images created by the US government. I kid you not. Since NASA, the armed forces, the Park Service and so on are funded by tax money, US citizens may use art and photos created by government employees and servicemembers without paying royalties. However, you are supposed to give credit to the source. I am not guaranteeing that use related to adult entertainment wouldn't get someone's back up regardless of the literal rules--you know how that goes.

MM

 

[sweetnpetite]

Copyright law does not apply

Coppywrite law does not apply here because illistrated stories on lit are only allowed to be illustrated with 1. pictures you draw or take yourself or 2. pictures where you are the model.

The only way that copywrite law would be in effect would be if you were a professional model or artist and somebody else had the copywrite to a picture that fit one of the above categories.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Re: Copyright law does not apply

Coppywrite law does not apply here because illistrated stories on lit are only allowed to be illustrated with 1. pictures you draw or take yourself or 2. pictures where you are the model.

The only way that copywrite law would be in effect would be if you were a professional model or artist and somebody else had the copywrite to a picture that fit one of the above categories.

That's Survivor rules, not Lit.

or at least didn't use to be...

 

[Weird Harold]

Okay, a scenario. If I were to find a picture on the net (I'm assuming the net is a public domain as I can access it), and I copied that image onto my computer, then:

a) If I use that image exactly as it is to put with a story I have written, is that an infringement of copyright?

As Madame says, it depends on the picture. The internet is not "public domain," else the threads about stolen stories would be just so much "hot air" and Laurel would not defend the copyrights of our stories.

b) If I change one dot of colour on it, does that mean it is no longer a copyrighted image but an image I have 'created'? Is there a percentage of what I can do to an image to make it my own?

The percentage required to "make it yours" by re-coloring or cropping or whatever is pretty close to 100%. If it is recognisably the same image, the copyright holds.

c) Is the public domain, TV, internet, movies? (What exactly is the public domain?)

The "Public Domain" is equivalent to "owned by everyone" -- there is no single person who can claim ownership, or that the person who could claim copyright protection has surrendered any claim.

Do a search for "Berne Convention" -- it is the treaty that protects international copyrights. It explains what IS copyright protected. Almost anything NOT protected by the Berne Convention is in the public domain as far as the Internet is concerned, IMHO (which is NOT a legal opinion, BTW.)

***
This post is hereby released into the public domain. Signed Weird Harold.
***

There, now anyone can legally copy this post and use it for wahtever purpose they can find for it. (I suppose if you printed it out, you could use it to start a fire.)

 

[wildsweetone]

Thank you for your help.

I have one more question.

If I were to watch a movie, and take a still shot from a scene within the movie, then change things about i.e. colour, maybe add or delete some features, is that an infringement of copyright?

I'm guessing that it is, but am not 100% sure.


sweetnpetite, can you please direct me to where I can find that information on copyright and illustrated stories you mentioned on Lit?

I've managed to find this much:

By submitting a story to Literotica, you certify the following stipulations to be true:

You are the sole creator of the submission;

but note it only pertains to 'stories'.

 

[Madame Manga]

Thank you for your help.

I have one more question.

If I were to watch a movie, and take a still shot from a scene within the movie, then change things about i.e. colour, maybe add or delete some features, is that an infringement of copyright?

I'm guessing that it is, but am not 100% sure.

You got it. As I say, the test is a side-by-side comparison, and in this case it sounds like it would be obvious that one was derived from the other. Even minor elements of a work (single sentences, background figures) are protected. Of course, if you really chewed up your screenshot in Photoshop so that no one could tell what your source was, you'd be fine.

MM

 

[Uther_Pendragon]

There are complexities dealing with the copyright of
images, just as there are dealing with the coyright of
words. The simple, basic, idea is the same.
If you create it, it's yours. If you don't create it, it's
not yours.
So, you can use any picture you draw yourself. (Caution;
if you copy somebody else's idea in drawing it, this might
not be true.) You can't use something which somebody else
drew unless he tells you that you can.
He doesn't have to tell you PERSONALLY. He might say
"Anybody can use this drawing." But, just because others
have used it, doesn't mean that you have permission.
Some art is so old that it is in the public domain. I
don't know how old that must be, but I would assume that
anything under one century doesn't qualify. Also the right
to copy famous works of art seems to belong to the museum
which houses that work, rather unlike the rules for print
work.
Sorry, but it doesn't look like much is legally available.

 

[Gary Chambers]

The rules are different for photos with models than for line art or paintings. The copyright on a photo with a model is often owned jointly by the photographer and model, so even if one releases it for free use the other may not have, and you can get sued if you change the photo but either the model or snapper still recognise their work and can convince a third person it's their image. With a photo you have change about 100 % of the image to get around this.

With line art or a painting you can change less. The rule is that if you change the picture more than 50% you create yourself a new copyright. A 50% change can be less than you might think.

If I can figure out how to upload it, I'm going to include a piece of art I made to go with my story Shayden's Tower. This started out as an ordinary porn photo, but after a lot of work I managed to keep the basic idea of the image and remove any chance of a model or photographer being able to say it was their image. I basically turned it into painting, thereby changing it 100%.

 

[Couture]

A lot has to do with who owns the copyright and how hard they work to keep it. For instance, a lot of Disney's old cartoons should have moved to public domain years ago. However, they keep petitioning congress and getting the copyright extended whenever it is supposed to run out.

Sometimes its almost comical to watch as the multi-billion dollar companies spend so much time and money to go after the little guy.

VANCOUVER -- Like any good fledgling businessperson, Mike Rowe knew he needed a catchy name for his website design company. Being possessed of a sense of humour and the cheekiness of a typical 17 year old and given his name, what better than to register his Internet domain name as mikerowesoft.com?

As in, but not quite, Microsoft Corp.

"Since my name is Mike Rowe, I thought it would be funny to add 'soft' to the end of it," the Victoria Grade 12 student said.

But the folks at the world's biggest software company aren't smiling. They've demanded he give up his domain name.

Mike, a self-described computer geek, registered the name in August. In November, he received a letter from Microsoft's Canadian lawyers, Smart & Biggar, informing him he was committing copyright infringement.

He was advised to transfer the name to the corporation.

"I didn't think they would get all their high-priced lawyers to come after me," Rowe said.

He wrote back, saying he'd put a lot of time and effort into his business and asked to be compensated if he was to give up his name.

Microsoft's lawyers wrote back offering him $10 US.

Rowe asked for $1,000.

Then, last Wednesday, he received an ominous, 2.5-centimetre-thick package with a 25-page letter accusing him of trying to force Microsoft into giving him a large settlement for his name.

"I never even thought of getting anything out of them," he said, adding he only asked for the $1,000 because he was "sort of mad at them for only offering 10 bucks."

Now he's going to sit back and see if the organization that registers domain names will take his name away from him.

No one from the law firm or Microsoft would comment.

 

[wildsweetone]

Basically, if I wish to illustrate my work, then I need to use either my own artwork or find an illustrator that will cough up illustrations for me. Thank you MM, and Uther for your input.

Couture, I'm backing Mike Rowe, even knowing that he's not going to get anywhere. The 'journey' itself is interesting.

Gary said: ...The copyright on a photo with a model is often owned jointly by the photographer and model, so even if one releases it for free use the other may not have, and you can get sued if you change the photo but either the model or snapper still recognise their work and can convince a third person it's their image.

With line art or a painting you can change less. The rule is that if you change the picture more than 50% you create yourself a new copyright. A 50% change can be less than you might think....

So, you are saying it is possible for me to get a photo from somewhere and alter it until it is unrecognisable, then use it myself, so long as the people concerned with the making of the photo don't recognise it.

That comment about line art and paintings and 50% changes is interesting. Is that any line art and painting? Does it have to be a certain age?

 

[Madame Manga]

http://www.copyright.gov/

Here's the source. Use it wisely.

No, 50% or 15% or 75% does not get you off the hook in any way, shape or form. This "percentage change" idea is very common, but it has no basis in fact. As a visual artist, I used to think it did, and I found out otherwise. Check the FAQ on the site I've linked above.

MM

 

[wildsweetone]

MM Thank you for finding this for me. It's easy to understand.

How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works.

Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained.

I personally think the phrase 'fair use' comes under too many different interpretations for me to want to push the boundaries.

I also found this pertinent to the thread:

How long does a copyright last?
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after Jan. 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.

Thanks MM for your help

 

[Gary Chambers]

http://www.copyright.gov/

Here's the source. Use it wisely.

No, 50% or 15% or 75% does not get you off the hook in any way, shape or form. This "percentage change" idea is very common, but it has no basis in fact. As a visual artist, I used to think it did, and I found out otherwise. Check the FAQ on the site I've linked above.

MM

You can't copyright an idea, in words or in a visual. You may be right about the percentages not being a bullet proof defence, but I've seen lawyers back down when minor changes to copyrighted (not old) line art were pointed out to them. In any case, what I advocate is using a photo or other picture just to identify some shapes, then cerating your own art out of those shapes. The picture I linked above is so far removed from the original photo, the original doesn't exist anywhere in the new artwork. All that exists is the basic idea of a shape indicating two people seen from overhead as they make love in an upright position. That's just an idea and it can't be copyrighted. That's why the recognisability of the original is relevant. Even the exact position of the lovers was altered, and certainly there is no way the orignal photographer or models could still claim this as their work. I figure that's safe, not because I've used some trick to evade the wrath of the original photogrphers and models, but because I've created a totally new piece of art that is my copyright, not their's. If you do that, I can't see how you could be open to a law suit. Instead of explaining it in terms of percentages, I should probably have said to make sure that whatever you produce and publish qualifies as a new and unique piece of art.

Personaly, I've more or less decided to write a few vignettes and then illustrate them with my own photos. That's probably the best way to go, and sounds like fun too. The only trouble is, I like to do most of my photography outdoors and I'm in the middle of a Canadian winter. We'll see what happens after the annual ice age. Meanwhile, it might be a good way to go for Wilds who lives in a country that actually gets warm sometimes.