Something like a couple-3 years ago, I looked into copyright/trademark issues and the internet. At the time, I was searching for and collecting free clip art and stock photos online, in my spare time. I was trying to learn how to make a website (which has turned into a long term endeavor for me, lol). And by free, I mean clip art which is not offered for sale, which is not licensed, copyrighted or trademarked, or otherwise someone else's property. I was surprised to learn that a lot of internet users either don't know about, or don't respect copyrights/TMs on the internet. Equally surprising is how much these issues fall into gray areas, where it's hard to figure out exactly what's ok and not ok, or where it's ok or not -- ESPECIALLY what is meant by "public domain". It seems some people think 'if it's on the internet, it's in the public domain', which I understand to be.....well, quite a stretch of the real definition. Although certainly, I'm still learning, and may not quite have a clear idea about it.

Anyway, I want to be sure how these forums view the various copyright/TM issues, so that I don't inadvertently say or do the wrong thing.

One issue I've never been clear about, is cartoon characters. Like for example, Winnie-the-Pooh. I know that after 70-something years, in general, copyrights of text documents can be considered....expired, for lack of a better word. And I should apologize because I know I'm probably not using exactly accurate or precise terminology. But anyway, I don't know if the 70-some year thing applies to graphics or graphic art documents or not. I'm thinking Winnie is old enough to be part of the public domain. And certainly MIckey Mouse and Donald Duck. But what about....let's use Sesame Street's Elmo for example -- not nearly 70 years old or PBS's Clifford the Big Red Dog. Superman and Spiderman, probably old enough, but what about Transformers, or the um, oh! the Ninja Turtles? Could Elmo images be posted in these forums, or Transformers or Ninja Turtles?

Is giving credit for copyrighted/TM'd graphics sufficient to allow for them to be posted here? Like as long as you said the Little Mermaid is a Disney character, could you post an image of the Little Mermaid. Under what circumstances would one require specific permission of an image's creator/artist to post the image?

And what about editing copyrighted/TM'd graphics? Under what circumstances could one use some portion of a cartoon....like the style of fish in the LIttle Mermaid. Under what circumstances can they be used separately from the whole, AND under what circumstances could they be edited, altered, changed? Of the latter, I'm thinking not at all, at least not until the copyright/TM "expires". Yes?

I'd appreciate any discussion of these issues. Even just a brief one.
Thanks for your help.

brynn wrote:And certainly MIckey Mouse and Donald Duck.

Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are not public domain. They were due to become public domain in 2003 but a few years prior the laws were changed. Which is rather ironic of Disney.

This forum doesn't 'host' any images, so copyright will be loosly enforced. Original creations of someone elses IP is ok by me - but credit them. If you use someone elses work, seek their permission and state that you have it. Don't claim someone elses work as your own, this includes copying. If you do copy someones work, credit them. It is also respectful to credit sources of inspiration and references.

These rules are all about respect, not law. What I think is ok does not mean it's legal. Since I don't host the images I'm hoping that is enough to keep me out of potential trouble.

This is an interesting post. I have to say that I tend to walk down the same path as microUgly regarding permission of use. Do I think it's bad if someone decides to take a crack at drawing the Hulk? Nope. I say go for it but if one intends to post it somewhere where others can view the work then I would hope that one would sign the drawing and let the viewers know that it was not drawn by Marvel and that the Hulk is the property of Marvel. I would like to think that if one gives credit where credit is due then most people will back off.

As far as one posting original work on the Internet...well...that's the risk one takes. The Internet is a big entity and it cannot be policed.

Take me for example. I have had several of my screencasts blatantly copied. Not the artwork in the screencast but the actual recording. At first I was like, WTF! Then I was a little flattered. After that I was like, “who gives a sh@t?” Still, it would have been nice to have been credited at least. Even a “Look, this loser heathenx couldn't draw anything useful to save his life so allow me to do a better job with it.” would have been a sufficient credit.

heathenx wrote:Take me for example. I have had several of my screencasts blatantly copied. Not the artwork in the screencast but the actual recording. At first I was like, WTF! Then I was a little flattered. After that I was like, “who gives a sh@t?” Still, it would have been nice to have been credited at least. Even a “Look, this loser heathenx couldn't draw anything useful to save his life so allow me to do a better job with it.” would have been a sufficient credit.

That's a great attitude.

I think crediting someone cost nothing, so why not. I don't get the appeal of fooling someone into thinking something is your work. When someone praises my work I make sure they know what part of the work is mine - in most cases I didn't draw them. If someone starts selling your work, then we have a problem. But how common is this? I see so many artists who splash ugly watermarks across their work because their stuff gets reposted on different sites. I think this is pointless. The watermark becomes a distraction and reduces the appeal of the image. Not to mention that most art thieves aren't selling your work, the work isn't high enough resolution to print (unless it's vector), so why spoil the work with a watermark out of spite of minority of abusers? If you keep your watermark subtle enough it may be left intact by the thieves which will work as advertising.

Well, in the strictest sense we're not allowed to even use and especially not to manipulate any work not licenced under a free licence or being PD. Of course, there's always the many shades of grey when it comes to satire, art and things like that.

That means: No transformers and no ninja turtles in my images. Strictly speaking. In reality, it depends strongly where an image comes from - japanese anime studios tolerate huge image boards with all kinds of manipulations of their character art work, just as an example. A german telecommunication company on the other hand reached a verdict not to use their color (!) (a specific shade of pink - it's mentioned as an own color in Wikipedia..) in any context other than the companies.

You're only on the save side legally if you really use only PD and free images.

"Crediting" is also from another point of view a good thing: In terms of transparency - stating the source of an image.

I usally put all my stuff under the creative commons licence, mostly allowing everything as long as I'm credited as author/artist and sometimes I don't allow commercial use. I simply don't care any longer for all this copyright stuff, especially as it's utterly useless on the Internet.

And way worse than any image user A takes from user B and makes a nice t-shirt print out of I'll find companies being too lazy to be creative on their own and steal from street artists or web artists and don't pay a cent - after not having asked permission at all.

Oh, and "Hi, I'm new.."

Oh, and this was my posting - I didn't realized I could post something without even being logged in, sorry.

Wow
Interesting discussion!
And all pretty much in line with my own understanding of these issues. So good to know I've at least got the right idea, in most situations.

I did read something, and unfortunately so long ago that I don't remember where, so I can't offer it up with a link. But under the strictest (most strict?) interpretation, even messages like this, posted in any forum, earn a copyright, although I can't remember if it's the member who posted it, or the website of the forum, who owns the copyright. So that anyone posting either image or text that they don't own, whether they give credit or not, just by the act of posting, is considered by some to be an attempt to claim it as their own. But again, I understand that to be a strict interpretation.

But for the most part, and certainly where this forum is concerned, it appears that a more relaxed interpretation rules, and most artists are tolerant, as expressed in this thread. I think if I found someone trying to profit from the use of something I had created, yes, I would want to pursue them and try to discuss and resolve the issue. But chances are I'll never produce anything anyone else might want, lol!

Anyway, thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts. It's really been very helpful.
All best.

brynn wrote:although I can't remember if it's the member who posted it, or the website of the forum, who owns the copyright.

I don't know about US (which is where this server is) but for conversational purposes, in Australia the host is considered the pubisher. Which is why at the place I work, there is a policy against hosting any public forums since we would get into trouble if someone said wrote something naughty.

brynn wrote:So that anyone posting either image or text that they don't own, whether they give credit or not, just by the act of posting, is considered by some to be an attempt to claim it as their own.

Yeah, in Australia this would be considered hotlinking - which is a copyright grey area. I don't know for sure about US but what you say sounds right.