Recycled patriotic tutorial....

[Crow Haven]

I think RAMWolff has an interesting idea about the original file however---no one else has the .xar file of any of my designs...if I was so motivated to pursue an issue of copyright violation, the original file with it's date, etc... surely would be proof of who created the design and where the .jpg would have come from. It seems the images are under copyright even without the symbol attached, according to part of what Jack said.
I just don't want people to worry about using the "fur tut" (I can't be the originator of the idea!) and produce a cat or wolf and then think I'd be mad at them or something.....gees! Is Ross going into the "Wolf Brand Dog Biscuit" business????? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] Maybe we can work a deal [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] !!!
Right now it sounds like maybe an easier task than understanding copyrights. Hey Ross! About those $$$$biscuits????!! I'm a pretty good baker---you design the box! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

---As The Crow Caws---
Maya

[RAMWolff44]

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] You funny girl, Maya!!

Missed my workout, but I got a signature done, complete with date and ©. Looks fabu, I wanted to post it but that really is asking for trouble, eh?? I guess I can get used to that *@$%^!! key punch thingy. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Tsk, tsk, better watch that mouth of mine. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

RAMWolff [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Old Dog]

It just goes to show how confusing this copyright stuff is.

Risto, I realized after I used the term "copyrighted derivative work" that there probably was no such thing, I just didn't know what else to call it. We do know, that with the permission of the original artist that a derivative work can exist and be used in a commercial way. My question is this. There has to be some way to copyright that second work, or else once it's published a third artist could come along an rip it off and not be in violation of a copyright and in essence, now be legally stealing from the original artist. So, the way I see it, a derivative work has to also be copyrighted in some way.

Make sense?

Ross, the one difference between my flag painting and Gary's © on my "Four" painting is this. My flag painting is completely my work done by my own hand using Gary's tutorial as a guide for that work. Gary did not do a new painting based on my "Four", he mechanically copied my work and then made a change to it. There is a difference. However, as we have discovered in this thread, they are both violations of copyright. It's just that one is more flagrant than the other.

Also, mine was totally done out of not understanding that it was a violation and Gary's was meant entirely in fun. Everyone should understand that. We are using these two examples to debate, and hopefully gain a better understanding of copyright laws.

Once Gary pointed it out to me that I shouldn't have put my © on my painting I immediately removed it and after a little more thought I decided that I should remove the entire painting as well. Only after all this discussion and requests for me to re-post it, did I.

I think in the interest of this thread re-posting the painting is ok, and I think Gary's ok with it too, as he posted his original right along with it so we all could see what we were talking about.

I think in order for everyone to learn and share on this site it is important to be able to post a painting done from one of Gary's tutorials so you can show how you are doing, and also to get opinions of where you might still need help. I think we are all friends here and know that no one is wanting to steal from the other. That, I believe is why no one gets upset if you post something you've done as a continuation of someone else's posted piece. I think what is clear from this thread is that if your work is a copy of someone else's or an original work of you own derived from one of Gary's tutorials, that should be made clear and no © should be place on that work.

We have to all work together here, and so far I think we all do very well.

I can make things even more confusing and complicated here. My very first post to this site was along with my first painting that was done from Gary's tutorial of a Californial license plate. I now know that this is a derivative work, I didn't know the difference then. Anyway, my painting was done from Gary's tutorial, only I made my license plate a Missouri plate, use different colors and placed it on my own background, and truly, at the time I felt it was my own original painting and again placed my © and signature on it. Now I'm not sure.

Gary viewed it, as well as many others and I recieved both compliments and criticisms as to things I should do to improve it. No one at that time made the distiction that I should not have placed my © on it. I now assume, because it was considered to be different enough from Gary's to allow it. You can find this post on page three of Xara X Gallery and the topic is "New Tricks".

Based on everything posted in this thread, isn't that painting as well, a derivative work and in turn should not have my ©.

I don't know! It is all very confusing to me.

I will say this much at this time. Anything that I have done in the way of copyright infringement on this site was done purly unintentionally and there has never been any monies involved. If, for any reason, anyone is concerned with either the flag painting or the license plate painting I will gladly remove one or both, or go back and make any changes needed.

Does any of what I've said make sense? I've really gotten myself confused over what is an infingement and what isn't.

Well, I've got a busy day today, so I'll check in tonight to see what has developed.

Jack

[gwpriester]

I have seen many images recreated from my tutorials on individuals web sites accompanied by text to the effect that the image was created from a tutorial by me with a link to the site.

This is fine with me.

Jack, this thread has turned into a tome, eh? One of the most participated in threads in some time.

Gary

Gary Priester

Moderator Person

<a href="http://www.gwpriester.com">
www.gwpriester.com </a>


XaraXone

[RAMWolff44]

Jack posted it, Gary brought it up, and I asked the fatefull question. But it really is a lesson. We are learning from it and Gary, your wifes going to make some more $$ from this discussion [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Jack, as I stated before. I think with a derivative of someone elses work, your signature is probably fine. But for an original from you a signature, date and © is proper. Simple enough. I hope so for all of our sakes. Course I could be wrong, but I think that would be fine. Who knows. I'm confused too, but that makes the most sence to me. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

RAMWolff [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[RAMWolff44]

Jack posted it, Gary brought it up, and I asked the fatefull question. But it really is a lesson. We are learning from it and Gary, your wifes going to make some more $$ from this discussion [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Jack, as I stated before. I think with a derivative of someone elses work, your signature is probably fine. But for an original from you a signature, date and © is proper. Simple enough. I hope so for all of our sakes. Course I could be wrong, but I think that would be fine. Who knows. I'm confused too, but that makes the most sence to me. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

RAMWolff [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Crow Haven]

Do I need to go back and put the copyright symbol on my posted images????? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img] ORRRRRR, should I get busy baking doggy biscuits???????? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

---As The Crow Turns---
Maya [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[roman]

;-))

[Crow Haven]

Well, since Jack says they are already under copyright, I just posted the © on all those images anyway! Guess that's how it'll have to be around here [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] ....sorry, folks [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] !

---As The Crow Flies!---
Maya

[cyberdao]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary W. Priester:
Now we are talking serious copyright infringement, except for one thing. So many people have copied that look, and on commercial web sites as well, that Apple would have their hands full sueing everyone who used the look of their GEL buttons.

However, were I to offer that look as original and my image, the fur might tend to fly.

Gary

_Gary Priester_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to pick this up, but I really would like to know this. (The fact that Apple cant't sue everybody does not change right or wrong from a legal point of view.) What I would like to know is the following:

There are many homepages and books offering instructions on how to create the gel buttons (or anything else).

These homepages make money by placing banner ads on their pages and taking part in partnership programs (for example amazon). The books make money, too.

Does this constitute a violation of copyright law?