Copying Graphics - What is Fair Use? 74
it0 asks: "I'm writing a web application and since I can't create good graphics, I'll be ripping them from other places on the web. The decent thing to do would be to ask permission, and at least specify where you got the graphic, however I don't see this happening much on other websites. Here's an example: I copied a trashcan icon that seems to be used by everyone and nobody seems to specify its original source. What about wallpapers? I've see a lot of models without references? I've also seen a lot of images that imitate the Windows GUI, and I've yet to notice anyone getting sued! For those interested, here is more information on the subject."
You know the answer, right? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, yeah. Obviously, as you note, ripping some other site's rainbow horizontal line gif or animated pen-writing-on-paper-turns-into-an-envelope is routine, and hardly the same thing as setting up a porn site of copyrighted images served off somone else's server.
But it would be decent to ask, and you may want to really be a good guy and stick to downloading stock images off sites that explicitly give permission. (It's not like there's a shortage of rainbow horizontal line gifs.)
Re:You know the answer, right? (Score:1)
- Chris
Re:You know the answer, right? (Score:1)
You're one hell of a rough fish. I think I'll throw you back.
Re:You know the answer, right? (Score:1)
- Chris
Re:You know the answer, right? (Score:1, Troll)
Which is why there are so many porn sites. A few develop the content and the rest just rip them off with no legal repercussion,
Re:You know the answer, right? (Score:2, Informative)
Show me where in the berne convention [cornell.edu] pornography is excepted. I've even linked you to the appropriate section. HTH.
+1 Good Answer [!TextBelow] (Score:1)
Trash Can is Patented (Score:2, Funny)
Yet another "throw away" patent, if you ask me.
Re:Trash Can is Patented (trash icon info) (Score:1)
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:1)
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
You are wrong.
Fair use is the doctrine allowing the use of copyrighted works, particularly excerpts, for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".
I turn your attention to USC Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 [cornell.edu].
-- iCEBaLM
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Informative)
However, you are an interesting opposite. You seem to think that there is NO fair use. What you describe is "copyright law", without fair use.
But even though you put the word "Period." in boldface, that actually is wrong.
Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement. (I hope you don't mind if I just use the punctuation instead writing out the word "period"
For instance, a copyright holder might be a terrible speller. And you want to write a critical article, showing what a terrible speller he is. So you quote from the book he wrote in your article. He then sues you for copyright infringement. You can claim "fair use" as a defense.
There are several things that a judge would consider before accepting a fair use defense, you can do a web search and learn about them.
No, the person asking the question is not going to be able to use a "fair use" defense if he copies somebody else's artwork for his web site. But there is such a thing, and it is possible to sometimes copy parts of a work without permission and without infringing copyright.
And he doesn't have the right to create derivative images either, so your parenthetical comment doesn't add anything.
Thank you, have a nice day.
No, wrong! (Score:5, Informative)
Man, this post is so totally wrong, and convinced that it is so totally right, that you ended up in my enemies bin immediately. That doesn't happen much, but, for god's sake don't sound so completely sure of yourself if you've never actually read the copyright title or even (apparently) a FAQ about it.
Fair use is real, and in fact, it has its own Section in the US Code [cornell.edu] . Sometimes it is legal to copy a work without permission. It's possible that some uses of copied web graphics could be fair use, but unlikely--most wholesale copying fails one of the four factors (see 17 usc 107).
On the other hand, it's possible that some copying could be ok, since not everything qualifies for copyright. If the work is not sufficiently expressive (like a scrollbar widget, perhaps) then you could very well be in the clear. However, the "look and feel" of a program or OS can be protected by copyright (sadly), meaning that if you copy enough of those uncopyrightable widgets, you could also be in trouble.
Anyway, the best thing to do, as you say, is get permission. I'll bet the GNOME and KDE icons are Free (as in software), so you could probably use those safely, assuming you're doing the right thing and making your app free!
Re:No, wrong! (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that's harsh.
A lot of replies have immediately cited US law on the subject, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the world does not subscribe to such laws, or indeed have anything like the same "fair use" provisions within their intellectual property laws. In the UK, for example, there is very little provision for so-called "fair use", notably including the absence of any automatic legal right to mak
use a bibliography of sorts (Score:4, Informative)
I took a couple of web publishing classes in highschool, where we were required to make all our own graphics or prove that the image we used was in the public domain.
Although I normally make all my own graphics, in the rara occassion that I do use one from someone elses site, I first try to email them and check if it's ok. I then compile a list of any sites I don't get responses from and make sure to list them in a section of a links page with a little thanks and a note saying what graphic I used.
Also make sure that you don't link to the graphic on the persons page, not only is this stealing their bandwidth, but if something happens and the page is gone then you are without your graphic.
--"If I put in my two cents, and it's a penny for my thoughts, do I get change back?" --unknown
Inlining images from another site. (Score:2)
Not only that, but they may put in a pic of the goatse.cx guy in place of the one you linked to.
Re:Inlining images from another site. (Score:1)
Re:use a bibliography of sorts (Score:2)
Steven Wright [stevenwright.com] said something along that line: "Why is it a penny for your thought, but you have to put your 2 cents in? Somebody's makin' a penny."
Re:use a bibliography of sorts (Score:2)
Oh by the why stealing != fair-use, fair use might be something like a reveiw using a screen grab of the application, not taking it for your own use.
Re:use a bibliography of sorts (Score:2)
No, you do not get change back, rather, you owe me a penny. Please send penny via paypal: mike@2bit.net
Thank you for your business.
Sued (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of curiosity...how did you expect to notice? Cease and desist letters are sent out on a daily basis in any country's legal system. Lawsuits about copyright infringement happen regularly.
Re:Sued (Score:2, Interesting)
In the same spirit you cannot have a fan site with pictures? I know fan sites have been sued in the past, on the other hand many other fan sites still exist.
Since so many sites seem to get away with it, I thought that perhaps there was a special excemption.
Re:Sued (Score:2)
Why anyone would choose to use such a template I don't know... I was most surprised to find the Richard Feynman [scs-intl.com] official website using this design. If I were him, I'd be spinning in my grave.
take what you can get away with (Score:2, Funny)
If you think nobody does this, you're nuts.
The trashcan icon (Score:5, Insightful)
Ripping off icons from major OS' is a bad idea. Pleading ignorance to an obvious source doesn't help in the slightest.
Ten Percent (Score:4, Insightful)
In Australia, it's normally not a copyright violation if you take some 'artwork' and modify it by at least 10%. HOWEVER, that does not ever apply to trademarked images.
</IANAL>
Quite frankly, though, most artists will still consider that it's still theft of a kind. If you're making money from your application, then you should invest some of it and employ some talented kid who needs money for rent or food or something. You don't really need that new P4 rig yet anyway, do you?
So, for now:
1) If you're building the application, build it so that the artwork can be EASILY slotted in later. (seems obvious, but really design to support a complete facelift. You know about MVC, right?)
2) Maybe browse the web for portfolios, and resumes of people with cool websites and no jobs. Exploit them for low wages and the ability to but real work on their resumes.
3) Or, release the app with crappy graphics and a HOWTO and wait for your users to build you a nice pretty interface.
My experience (Score:5, Funny)
Actually I used to be worse than that, I used to link to the actual image I wanted to use rather than do the considerably more decent thing which would be to download it and host it on my own server.
I got my comeuppance one day when someone pointed out that a prominent image on my home page had been replaced with an image of somebody's middle finger which superimposed text reading:
Suffice to say I host all my own images now.Re:My experience (Score:1)
Re:My experience (Score:1)
Re:My experience (Score:3, Interesting)
(On a side note, things like frames and shockwave are evil for similar reasons... navigation and bookmarking difficulties. what ever happened to
Re:My experience (Score:1)
i.e. it checks for specific sites to be in the referer.
If what you were saying were correct, if I opened a up a new blank window in IE or Opera none of my images would work? Well, that simply isn't true. Not only that but when I refresh my page the image still apears.
I'm now quite confused - I clearly don't understand and that's quite worrying. Just to check:
http://www.eagl
Re:My experience (Score:2)
Browser loads html, parses html, html references images, browser loads images. Therefore the referer is set correctly.
Re:My experience (Score:1)
If you rip off my graphics... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not hook up with an art student who would design the graphics in exchange for a screen credit? or contact schools, as a teacher could use your app as a class project.
Icons (Score:1, Insightful)
Not fair use, originality (Score:3, Insightful)
I browse /usr/share/icons... (Score:4, Informative)
Many Open Source apps have large image libraries that you can freely use. Just use Kuickshow to find the relevant directory.
cLive
ps - apologies if you're not using Linux - I'm not sorry that you can't access these, I'm just sorry you don't use Linux (to paraphrase Bill Hicks
--
Trinity in high heels carrying a whip:
The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Touchy Ground (Score:1)
People break the law all the time... (Score:2)
Take for instance speeding. People break the speed limit all the time, because they're not likely to get caught, and the penalties are low if they do get caught.
Likewise with most copyright infringement. Your chances of getting caught are very small. Even if you do get caught, you have fair use defenses, and even if you lose, you don't lose all that much. If you can show the judge that you were not aware that you were committing copyright infringement, the court can lower damages to only $200.
Now once
AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS (Score:1, Funny)
By William Henry Gates III
February 3, 1976
An Open Letter to Hobbyists
To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?
Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the
Re:AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS (Score:1)
Get your images from someone giving them away (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Get your images from someone giving them away (Score:1)
Re:Get your images from someone giving them away (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a pain, and involves a lot of weeding-out of the popup ads and not-really-free clipart services.
It is WAY more work than searching google images, then right-click-save-image-as.
And it's legal, ethical, and all that boring stuff too.
--
Re:Get your images from someone giving them away (Score:2)
They also let you browse their library prior to purchase if I recall.
Free sites (Score:2)
Also, as others have said, some GPL software has images (KDE/Gnome) which you could use freely by virtue of the license.
Call Lawrence Lessig (Score:1)
Check out his blog and you'll probably learn something interesting:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig / blog/
My Advice:
In theory fair use does not apply to works which are a public performance which are not for satire or review. Your website certainly counts as a public performance, and thus it would a civil copyright viloation for you to use other people's wo
What i do when i see... (Score:3, Interesting)
I aslo have gotten hate mail back from the people who really did steal other people's work, and have seen cases where they simply forgot to cite the source once they had permission- easily fixed, that last one. The hate mail generally consists of, "who made it your business?" or extremely juvenile insults etc. Someone once threatened to sue me for harassment- that would be the one who stole the MIT paper. It's discouraged me from putting my own work on the web, to be honest, both my artwork AND my own research. I suppose i'll get over that. But in the meantime, i think that the appropriate thing for me to do is to always point out where i feel that there's serious copyright issues, as when what's obviously someone's signed artwork has been cropped to delete the sig and posted as a website element on another site.
Incidentally, i started doing this because an artist friend had exactly that happen to her artwork- the images of oil and acrylic paintings up for SALE on her site were copied and used. Cease and desist letters work, especially if you have evidence of copyright and cc the ISP, etc.
Increased number of available photo galleries... (Score:2)
Re:Increased number of available photo galleries.. (Score:1)
Don't post the highest resolution version of an image to your website. Then, if someone rips you off, you can produce a higher resolution version, but they won't be able to, that should pretty much prove you took the original (IANAL though).
There generally isn't a
Re:Increased number of available photo galleries.. (Score:2)
Another way is to use Photoshop to ad
Do yourself a favor. (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't like having an illegally obtained MP3 on your hard drive. Your web site will be out there for everyone to see! Take it from somebody who knows what it's like to be ridiculed for being lazy with his web site. Make your own stuff. You will be happier in the long run that your site is 100% yours. You can show it off with pride.
Wish I could, all I got is my stupid golf blog [bladesdesign.com]. I just used a standard template. You think I'm proud of it? No. I am not. But once I get my art made and my site totally re-done, then it'll be something I can use to pick up chicks!
Royalty Free/PD (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead of using images.google.com, why do you not go to websites specialized on this topic?
Go to dmoz.org [dmoz.org] and browse through the categories a little bit, you will come up with following categories:
All you have to do now is to browse through the sites and have a peek at the license. Mostly you will have to give them some credit somewhere. If it is not clear from the license if you can use th
legality of changing and/or incorporating an image (Score:1)
I see it ALL over the web were someone has changed another site's image -- or altered it and incorporated it into another image -- where does one stand in this regard? Is this legal? (Or, as Ali G would ask, "What is legal?")
Looking at this strictly from a legal standpoint, is permission still required here regardless of what is done to said image(s)?