Sign in to follow this  
tbenefi33

protecting artwork

Recommended Posts

    I understand that the blatant taking of an artist's work is illegal and that the law (generally) supports the artist. But, I am enough of a realist to determine that if someone wants to take it - they will. There are laws that prohibit burglary, robbery and murder as well - but criminals undertake those activities daily worldwide. Unlike criminal law enforcement, the average person does not have the means to protect their copyrighted material exclusively.

    Additionally, the US Copyright office has never fully addressed the doctrine of fair use. So it is a very shaky area to litigate. For example, I can legally copy your fish logo and place it on a website that either praises the design or makes derogatory statements about it. The current US Copyright laws would permit me to have your art on my site indefinately. The traffic generated to my site by having your artwork on it would be considered incidental and not subject to any compensation to you.

    The above is one example of fair use that is permitted that would generally irritate an artist. I understand that I cannot sell your artwork, but I could charge a "subscription fee" to my site that critiques your work. In this instance, you would not be entitled to compensation for the use of your work. (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf - page 19, Section 107).

     In summation, while copyright laws do protect an artist's work, there is no reasonable way to determine when one's copyright has been infringed upon other than through sheer luck of the draw. There is no way to know which visitors to your site have used your artwork illegally and who has not. If you elect to publish your artwork on the internet, every person who visits your site downloads the image. Once it has been downloaded, there is no way to control what is done with it until after the fact.

Charlie

I don't make any claims about stopping crime. Simply having laws doesn't (always) prevent crime, which is obvious, but once someone is charged, there are penalties once convicted. While people still murder, rape and steal and get by with it, those who don't get by with it often wish they had taken the law more seriously. Of course, these are serious crimes and carry a much higher penalty than copyright infringement, at least, with regard to prison time.

Copyright infringement could cost a person or company a *lot* of money....there are even individuals on this forum who have been caught accidentally on the wrong side of copyright law, simply thinking they were doing a favor for a paying customer...until they got a notice from the company or a lawyer demanding payment.

The nature of the Internet does make it more difficult, granted. There are gray areas, sure....and probably some fair use (magazine review, for instance). When I speak of blatant violators, I am talking about a company who takes my unmodified art and uses it as their logo. This would not be a difficult case to win, wouldn't you agree? I am talking about the guy trying to sell my original art on EBAY in some form to make money. This would be annoying to deal with, but fairly decisive as well in my favor and EBAY would take their own action, no doubt.

Simply because I make a picture available doesn't mean it's public domain any more than my music at MySpace gives MTV the right to use it for 'Big Brother 15'. If I catch them, I will win. Easy. I might even make some money doing it.

Let's not conflate the existence of crime itself with the laws which penalize those who break them. I am just saying that there are laws which protect artists and their work...be they musicians, visual artists, writers, etc. I don't think that I can stop theft, so much as there are consequences for it when caught (and convicted), depending on the specific nature of the violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    I suppose this discourse would be better suited to an academic site pertaining to legal issues. :thumbsup:

Charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     I suppose this discourse would be better suited to an acadenic site pertaining to legal issues. :thumbsup:

Charlie

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the best way to prove that you are the origional owner, is to put the creation date on the item and then mail it to yourself. this way when you have to goto court for the claim, you persent a postmarked envelope to the court with your image in it. this way you have a goverment dated envelope that shows the origional date of creation.

that is all you have to prove you were the first to create the image.

that wouldnt work... there is no way for you to prove when they created the image. they could say they created it years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the best way to prove that you are the origional owner, is to put the creation date on the item and then mail it to yourself. this way when you have to goto court for the claim, you persent a postmarked envelope to the court with your image in it. this way you have a goverment dated envelope that shows the origional date of creation.

that is all you have to prove you were the first to create the image.

that wouldnt work... there is no way for you to prove when they created the image. they could say they created it years ago.

saying it isn't the same as proving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    According to the US Copyright office, the burden of proof belongs to the person filing the suit. You'd have to prove you had it first.

Charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the best way to prove that you are the origional owner, is to put the creation date on the item and then mail it to yourself. this way when you have to goto court for the claim, you persent a postmarked envelope to the court with your image in it. this way you have a goverment dated envelope that shows the origional date of creation.

that is all you have to prove you were the first to create the image.

that wouldnt work... there is no way for you to prove when they created the image. they could say they created it years ago.

Well, if a copyright violator was blatant enough to also claim he owned *my* art, I would enjoy seeing him go down for perjury or fraud as well.

Sorry, I know this is hypothetical, but even I don't think people are THAT stupid. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    According to the US Copyright office, the burden of proof belongs to the person filing the suit. You'd have to prove you had it first.

Charlie

This is true for any plaintiff in the U.S. legal system. There is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You either need a preponderance of the evidence on your side (Civil Suit) or you need to prove your case beyond a *reasonable* doubt (criminal case) as far as I understand it.

I think it would be ridiculously easy for me to prove that my art was mine beyond a reasonable doubt, and it would be child's play to expose a fraud with the right series of questions, email exchanges, EBAY screen shots, job history, prior complaint history against the defendant (if any) and a litany of other admissable data. I could probably also bait the defendant into admitting guilt with a simple email, since someone dumb and blatant enough to steal art is probably going to have a 'screw you' mentality or some such, and naturally, this would be used against him in a court of law if it were admissable (which it should be). Someone dumb enough to continue stealing art *once caught* by the rightful owner is probably not that bright, and would probably be fun to watch incriminate himself in a courtroom (or commit perjury) especially if he was a defendent in pro per.  

Either way, my point is, the law is on the side of the copyright holder and people should not be intimidated by criminals or the legal system used to bring them to justice. Sure, it's annoying, time-consuming and it can cost money, but that's the nature of the legal system....for some people, it's a learning experience and the rewards for a successful result are worth it.

I just happen to enjoy the legal process, which is why I took to fighting my own traffic tickets several years back and have had great success. Most civilians think you can't really fight traffic tickets and it's shocking how few understand traffic laws and how they're enforced. Generally, most people dutifully pay their tickets and simply hope they don't get many tickets, probably due to ignorance and a little fear which generally works to the advantage of those collecting your traffic fines. This is not an opinion on the legitimacy of tickets but simply that it's your right to fight them in court.

Knowing your rights (and the legal system) simply gives you the power and the choice to harness your rights as a U.S. Citizen. Not knowing your rights breeds ignorance and fear, which limits your choice and ultimately carves away a bit of your freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you guys dredged up this old thread, heres a question for you:

I recently purchased a vector package that included 1. Copyrighted vectors and 2. Blatently auto-traced vectors, some of which had remnants of recognizable watermarks. 

The EULA states the following bits:

"The contents of this CD or download image/package are proprietary and copyrighted by <redacted>"

"All images contained in the disc/download package are owned by <redacted, vector selling company> and are protected by United States Copyright laws,

international treaty provisions, and other applicable laws."

So, by those words, if I didn't know better, I would have no reason to think that I didn't have the right to cut and sell all of the images contained in the package.

To be sure, ignorance is no excuse in the law, but to mire through the litigation necessary to assign guilt in a circumstance such as this is hardly worth the limited liability and compensatory damages that MIGHT be awarded.

Copyright/Trademark law is a joke, pretty much confined to C+D letters in all but the highest of profile cases.  Companies such as Harley and maybe a few others will actually be in a position to lose enough revenue to pursue CERTAIN cases, but on a small-time basis, it's a waste of time and money.

If a design of mine was stolen and was being sold, I would be furious, for sure.  But, that doesnt mean I would spend an inordinate amount of money to recover nothing but revenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you guys dredged up this old thread, heres a question for you:

I recently purchased a vector package that included 1. Copyrighted vectors and 2. Blatently auto-traced vectors, some of which had remnants of recognizable watermarks.  

The EULA states the following bits:

"The contents of this CD or download image/package are proprietary and copyrighted by <redacted>"

"All images contained in the disc/download package are owned by <redacted, vector selling company> and are protected by United States Copyright laws,

international treaty provisions, and other applicable laws."

So, by those words, if I didn't know better, I would have no reason to think that I didn't have the right to cut and sell all of the images contained in the package.

To be sure, ignorance is no excuse in the law, but to mire through the litigation necessary to assign guilt in a circumstance such as this is hardly worth the limited liability and compensatory damages that MIGHT be awarded.

Copyright/Trademark law is a joke, pretty much confined to C+D letters in all but the highest of profile cases.  Companies such as Harley and maybe a few others will actually be in a position to lose enough revenue to pursue CERTAIN cases, but on a small-time basis, it's a waste of time and money.

If a design of mine was stolen and was being sold, I would be furious, for sure.  But, that doesnt mean I would spend an inordinate amount of money to recover nothing but revenge.

Hey Mid,

Your instincts are correct here I think. If you were sold copyrighted art, especially if someone did a shoddy job trying to remove watermarks then I would err on the side of caution.

Pursuing any legal recourse takes time, effort and money. It just depends how motivated one is in pursuing such matters, and let's not forget...not every lawsuit which is threatened makes it to court. Sometimes all it takes is a cease and desist from a lawyer to stop copyright violations in their tracks. The copyright violator also has to understand he has no legal recourse and he should believe the copyright holder has every intent of pursuing legal action if the violation continues.

A lot of people seem to find it a waste of time to do anything other than pay traffic tickets (or attend traffic school) when they get tickets. I know, because I used to be that person until I ran into the most ridiculous speed-trap ever. Some just drive in fear and hope they won't get get caught doing whatever....but to me that method doesn't work and is fraught with uncertainty and disappointment.

Learning how to fight tickets cost me time, effort and a little money, but, it feels pretty good when I win and there's a feeling of empowerment as a citizen who successfully exercised his civil rights. It feels pretty good to beat a ticket on an affirmative defense, expose police misconduct, illegal speed-traps and get a check from the city (returned bail money) after a Not Guilty verdict. In addition, there's no point added to my record and no increased insurance rates for 3 years and most importantly, less fear of the arbitrary nature of tickets and the legal system itself.

I've read several anecdotal accounts of people *on this forum* being caught violating copyrights and forced to pay fees in the thousands of dollars, simply because they sold a 'Black and Decker' logo to the wrong person. To me that doesn't sound like a long, drawn-out process. It might be an innocent job for a paying customer (I understand this), but when a copyright violator is contacted by the copyright holder, there is really no defense, and most people are too scared of court to actually let a case where they're bound to lose go that far.

I think most regular non-lawyers underestimate the legal recourse they have, and over-estimate the hassle. This is exactly what I expect from most people who have little to no experience with the court system or who might be intimidated by it.

Attitudes are subjective though. Some may deem the legal recourse a 'waste of time' (tickets, copyrights, etc.) while some see it as a practical and empowering learning experience.

What we do know is that people are often intimidated by the unknown. I am guessing that if we were all lawyers, none of this would phase us. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    Many things are legal to buy .. take a gun for instance . Legal use is no problem , some other uses cause problems ( IF you get caught  :) ) .

    Lawyers have the luxery of getting paid to take chances that the client gains/pays for in money or jail time ( 1 favorite quote I heard from an attorney " We will fight them as long as your money holds out " ) . Most of these copyright cases are going to be civil , I doupt there are any criminal cases out there .. if they are they probally number the same as jay-walkng charges . A very good friend is a lawyer , but the constant stress bothers him at times . The case that gets referred to on this forum , was cemented by that person giving a receipt with the specific decal listed . I would bet that many who sell copyrighted stuff also "might " be employees of a company in order to be judgement immune . Many different ways to be judgement immune & without specific proof , the effort of prosecuting becomes less practical . I think that is what most on E-Bay etc are doing .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A civil case is even easier to win than a criminal case, since we're just talking liability. Note that O.J. (even though I think he's guilty) won his juried criminal case but lost the civil case.

If you have a civil jury trial, you only need 9 of 12 jurors (I believe) to agree with a preponderance of evidence that a copyright violation took place. Then it's a matter of how much you'll be awarded in damages, lost-income/business, etc.

If you act as your own lawyer (this type of case is probably not rocket science) then it wouldn't cost you much other than time and effort researching the pertinent laws as well as any admissable evidence. I don't know if I'd bother with a lawyer unless it was a very high profile case with a lot of money at stake or unless I could get them Pro Bono.

Simply making the defendant have to show up to court every day for trial would be a pretty good punishment for any copyright violator,  and by then he'd know the copyright holder meant business and would probably just plead guilty, take the fine and avoid the inevitable 'Guilty' verdict after wasting everyone's time.

By the way, even if you sell copyrighted stuff through a company, the individual might be personally indemnified but the company would likely be held civilly liable. This is probably why you could get EBAY to suspend a user's account if you found someone selling your personal art with demonstrable copyright violation.

Most music hosting companies are very touchy about copyrights, so art should be no different. I am sure EBAY does not want to get sued over something like this, and I'd imagine they'd take real copyright violation seriously if pressed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
case by lost the civil case

You spelled but wrong  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Mid,

Your instincts are correct here I think. If you were sold copyrighted art, especially if someone did a shoddy job trying to remove watermarks then I would err on the side of caution.

Pursuing any legal recourse takes time, effort and money. It just depends how motivated one is in pursuing such matters, and let's not forget...not every lawsuit which is threatened makes it to court. Sometimes all it takes is a cease and desist from a lawyer to stop copyright violations in their tracks. The copyright violator also has to understand he has no legal recourse and he should believe the copyright holder has every intent of pursuing legal action if the violation continues.

A lot of people seem to find it a waste of time to do anything other than pay traffic tickets (or attend traffic school) when they get tickets. I know, because I used to be that person until I ran into the most ridiculous speed-trap ever. Some just drive in fear and hope they won't get get caught doing whatever....but to me that method doesn't work and is fraught with uncertainty and disappointment.

Learning how to fight tickets cost me time, effort and a little money, but, it feels pretty good when I win and there's a feeling of empowerment as a citizen who successfully exercised his civil rights. It feels pretty good to beat a ticket on an affirmative defense, expose police misconduct, illegal speed-traps and get a check from the city (returned bail money) after a Not Guilty verdict. In addition, there's no point added to my record and no increased insurance rates for 3 years and most importantly, less fear of the arbitrary nature of tickets and the legal system itself.

I've read several anecdotal accounts of people *on this forum* being caught violating copyrights and forced to pay fees in the thousands of dollars, simply because they sold a 'Black and Decker' logo to the wrong person. To me that doesn't sound like a long, drawn-out process. It might be an innocent job for a paying customer (I understand this), but when a copyright violator is contacted by the copyright holder, there is really no defense, and most people are too scared of court to actually let a case where they're bound to lose go that far.

I think most regular non-lawyers underestimate the legal recourse they have, and over-estimate the hassle. This is exactly what I expect from most people who have little to no experience with the court system or who might be intimidated by it.

Attitudes are subjective though. Some may deem the legal recourse a 'waste of time' (tickets, copyrights, etc.) while some see it as a practical and empowering learning experience.

What we do know is that people are often intimidated by the unknown. I am guessing that if we were all lawyers, none of this would phase us. :)

My only issue with fighting a traffic ticket (which I do not waste my time with) is that I earn over $400 a day at my regular job. For me to miss work and, in effect pay out $400 in lost wages, just to prove a point is foolish in my opinion. I get a ticket probably once a year (I drive over 1500 miles a week), and the most expensive ticket I have ever paid was one for $395 for doing 98 in a 70. They caught me, I paid the fine. I basically broke even on that one. The others typically run around the $150 mark, and it wouldn't make sense for me to "pay" $400 to save $150.

Charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been driving for 39 years and I've never had a ticket. Not even a parking ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been driving for 39 years and I've never had a ticket. Not even a parking ticket.

I wish - my second car was  a red and black special edition mustang I purchased cash after starting to work full time at 16 . . . .That car got speeding tickets sitting at stop lights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
case by lost the civil case

You spelled but wrong  :)

Thanks Bill. :) Fixed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only issue with fighting a traffic ticket (which I do not waste my time with) is that I earn over $400 a day at my regular job. For me to miss work and, in effect pay out $400 in lost wages, just to prove a point is foolish in my opinion. I get a ticket probably once a year (I drive over 1500 miles a week), and the most expensive ticket I have ever paid was one for $395 for doing 98 in a 70. They caught me, I paid the fine. I basically broke even on that one. The others typically run around the $150 mark, and it wouldn't make sense for me to "pay" $400 to save $150.

Charlie

Some companies pay for sick days unless you work for yourself, and I've never had a morning court session last longer than 20-30 minutes once things are underway. Most of the time, I am out quick enough to make it to work after a courtesy call to explain my lateness. But, the business I am in is ok with a little flexibility....not everyone has this flexibility in their jobs, granted.

Of course, it's not just about the bail/fine (that's the least of my worries) but the point and the 3-years of higher insurance rates, assuming the insurance company doesn't drop you.

Winning a case and learning the legal system is a practical benefit too, and useful for as long as we're exercising our driving privilege.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been driving for 39 years and I've never had a ticket. Not even a parking ticket.

I wish - my second car was  a red and black special edition mustang I purchased cash after starting to work full time at 16 . . . .That car got speeding tickets sitting at stop lights

I suppose I have an unnaturally high regard for my own life,and the lives of others. 3 years with the rescue squad, I saw what bad driving can do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been driving for 39 years and I've never had a ticket. Not even a parking ticket.

This is an amazing statistic....most people driving that long have at least gotten some kind of ticket...but I am in L.A. County too....the cops here enforce certain areas *very* vigorously, and as a fundraising effort in some cases. I've gotten both legitimate tickets and utter B.S. tickets, but the B.S. speed-trap ticket is what created the monster who vowed never to simply pay a ticket again without a fight. Not only did I beat that first ticket, they raised the speed limit after I was done with them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been driving for 39 years and I've never had a ticket. Not even a parking ticket.

I wish - my second car was  a red and black special edition mustang I purchased cash after starting to work full time at 16 . . . .That car got speeding tickets sitting at stop lights

I suppose I have an unnaturally high regard for my own life,and the lives of others. 3 years with the rescue squad, I saw what bad driving can do

And of course, we all know that not getting tickets is no measure of your driving skill. My mom never gets tickets, and she's an awful driver with at least one failure-to-yield accident. I have zero at-fault car accidents in 26 years of driving cars.

Sure, I like to drive at a good clip...usually at the flow of traffic, with extreme prejudice toward those who lack situational awareness and serve as rolling roadblocks. The problem is, cops don't enforce lane-discipline like they might in Germany where they enjoy faster speeds and fewer accidents per mile. Cops seem to have an idea that speed is the number one culprit, completely ignoring those who have poor lane-discipline (like those who refuse to yield to faster traffic) or people who are completely distracted with their food, texting, cell phones, etc. (though they are starting to crack down on this cell-phone and texting while driving). When I drive, I don't text, eat, talk on the cell, study papers, read books, etc. I pay attention...which is more than I can say for a lot of people I know who never seem to get tickets.

Also, driving in L.A. traffic is not the same as Tennessee. :) It's dog-eat-dog out here sometimes. Growing up in this area you learn to drive in a way where you don't get eaten alive on the freeway. Sometimes though, you're in the wrong place at the wrong time and you get a ticket. I drive a smart car now....it's nice and slow and I probably won't get a ticket, even though I still drive assertively....but, with a 70 hp engine I have to drive somewhat aggressively sometimes just to keep up on the freeway....so it all works out (and it caps out at 90 mph anyway).      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured you would have some long winded reply...as always.

I have had no tickets (or accidents) because I am careful, I am observant, and I obey the laws. It's that simple.

Getting tickets means one thing..you broke the law. It has nothing to do with driving skills.

And, unless you have been to Tennessee,and driven here for a considerable time,don't make ASSumptions. People in L.A. do not have a monopoly on stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuk posts in reply to John's post of not ever getting a trafic ticket in 39 years of driving " And of course, we all know that not getting tickets is no measure of your driving skill. My mom never gets tickets, and she's an awful driver with at least one failure-to-yield accident. I have zero at-fault car accidents in 26 years of driving cars. "

That is a bit personal & that is against forum rules Nuk :) If you had not used " your " & instead used " a person's " it would have been general , but still having the same jab type purpose . You then compare John to your Mom who you say is a " aweful driver " :) The accepted concept is that if a driver  does not get traffic tickets , that driver is a safer driver with better driver skills than drivers who get tickets ! Even if the driver that gets tickets has the driving skill of Richard Petty , they did not obey the laws that are enforcing safety .. so a non-ticketed driver winds up being safer than a highly skilled assgressive driver . The insurance industry uses that to determiine rates & most people would think a driver with no tickets at all in 39 years has better skills than someone with 39 tickets in 1 year ( opposite of John's record ) or many tickets in 39 years . . Assgressive drivers usually have many accidents in their rear-view . I have had my comercial driver's license for 37 years ... poor lane discipline results in a traffic blockage ( slow moving traffic jamb ) .. assgressive drivers swerving thru is what causes the accidents.. I have seen it MANY times .

I am just a member as you are here , but consider this another friendly warning from a fellow forum member , You are not missing many if any chances to jab at John .. that has NOT done well for anybody in the past . I don't think you are striving for the truth about anything as much as looking for a chance to take personal jabs at a couple people . It would be better for you & the members here to stop the negative stuff & continue with positive stuff .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought claims of copyright violation was a matter for Federal Courts in the US.....I do not think it is as easy to pursue a claim in Federal Court as it is in other courts....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuk posts in reply to John's post of not ever getting a trafic ticket in 39 years of driving " And of course, we all know that not getting tickets is no measure of your driving skill. My mom never gets tickets, and she's an awful driver with at least one failure-to-yield accident. I have zero at-fault car accidents in 26 years of driving cars. "

That is a bit personal & that is against forum rules Nuk :) If you had not used " your " & instead used " a person's " it would have been general , but still having the same jab type purpose . You then compare John to your Mom who you say is a " aweful driver " :huh: The accepted concept is that if a driver  does not get traffic tickets , that driver is a safer driver with better driver skills than drivers who get tickets ! Even if the driver that gets tickets has the driving skill of Richard Petty , they did not obey the laws that are enforcing safety .. so a non-ticketed driver winds up being safer than a highly skilled assgressive driver . The insurance industry uses that to determiine rates & most people would think a driver with no tickets at all in 39 years has better skills than someone with 39 tickets in 1 year ( opposite of John's record ) or many tickets in 39 years . . Assgressive drivers usually have many accidents in their rear-view . I have had my comercial driver's license for 37 years ... poor lane discipline results in a traffic blockage ( slow moving traffic jamb ) .. assgressive drivers swerving thru is what causes the accidents.. I have seen it MANY times .

I am just a member as you are here , but consider this another friendly warning from a fellow forum member , You are not missing many if any chances to jab at John .. that has NOT done well for anybody in the past . I don't think you are striving for the truth about anything as much as looking for a chance to take personal jabs at a couple people . It would be better for you & the members here to stop the negative stuff & continue with positive stuff .

Thanks Rodger.

My question is..why dredge up a post that has been dead for almost a year,about protecting artwork....then turn it into a post about fighting traffic tickets? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this