Copyright Hmm.

I like robots. My kids bought me a tinplate one for Christmas and I also had a book : The greatest SF Movies never made. I've attached the book-cover as an image.

Today I had an email from ebay about a fault in their systems. I've attached the image.

Now the robot the kids bought me for Christmas is the same robot that graces the book cover and the ebay email. He gets around!

It made me wonder about copyright. I could go and take some fun images of the robot and maybe sell them as a poster perhaps (I have no real intention to do this). Do I need copyright permission from the maker?

Similarly, lets say I created some images using some wooden toy trains made by a famous manufacturer. I could remove the logo (or not). Could I sell those without needing copyright clearance?

Where does copyright start and end for images made from real-world objects? Any general ideas?

I'm not talking about copying specific images.

You really would need to ask a copyrights lawyer. I asked Mary who wrote a book on copyrights for artists and she says you cannot use an image without permission.

Thanks Gary.

I'm not reproducing an image, I'm creating a new one.

I'm curious where this boundary lies. Not curious enough to engage a lawyer.

I don't think you need any permissions people use things all the time for book covers.. Just make sure it is not easily identifiable.. brands, maybe distort it a little as well.. I am not a lawyer but it's not likely a problem would occur if nothing is easily identifiable then someone would need to be able to prove it is theirs.. That could be expensive.. You could invert the image or wireframe it to be on the safe side to keep it unidentifiable..

Daver1 this is terrible advice. There have been cases where a derivative artist has applied so many filters to an image that it is barely identifiable from the original. But if there is a shred of the image that is recognizable you can lose in court if you are sued. It is not a good idea to make this assumption.

Paul isn't talking about using an existing image or someone's copyrighted photo, guys.
The clue is in his post "I'm not talking about copying specific images."
He's talking about him taking a photo of a common real world object, such as a plastic toy robot (as an example) and using that for something.

I think it's a non-issue, crikey - imagine if a precedent like that was set?? We'd have to clear the room, street, scene of any other objects when we take group photos and holidays snaps in case we got something in the picture that was 'photo protected' .. :D

Pandora's box discussion imho.

Unless the design patent has expired, it would still technically be copyright infringement taking a manufactured item and drawing it.

Not that I care...I do it for practice all the time.

Photography copyright--that is, who holds the copyright--has run amok in the past few years. If you set up a trip (physical, motion sensor, etc) and a photo is taken of that wonderful frog you shot, Steve, the courts have recently ruled the copyright would belong to the frog. Cure, huh?

No, the Macaque doesn't own copyright as the USCO ruled that only works created by a human can be copyrighted under US law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention and the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) stated that the author of a work is the person who creates it. As a monkey is not a person under UK law, it cannot be an author, and therefore cannot be the owner of the disputed images..
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) also indicated that under UK law animals cannot own copyright.

But yes, it's all rather silly and the sort of silliness which can at times take all the fun, spontaneity and love out of life.

Quote:

---

You really would need to ask a copyrights lawyer.

---

I repeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve.ledger

No, the Macaque doesn't own copyright as the USCO ruled that only works created by a human can be copyrighted under US law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention and the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) stated that the author of a work is the person who creates it. As a monkey is not a person under UK law, it cannot be an author, and therefore cannot be the owner of the disputed images..
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) also indicated that under UK law animals cannot own copyright.

But yes, it's all rather silly and the sort of silliness which can at times take all the fun, spontaneity and love out of life.

---

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...egulators-say/

It's all rather stupid. Copyright law in the US is fairly fluid in that the rules get more "defined" (worse) over time.

Which just brings us back to Gary P's statement...consult a lawyer.

Gary, what about dvd covers? Do not people use cars in their imagery? various buildings? bridges? whether drawings or photo manipulations etc.. Are they not man made objects? I think people get ridiculous when it comes to this.. I had people try to monopolize a historical building for the selling their own photos, when they did not own the building.. they claimed I did not have authorization to sell photos of a building when I had just as much right as they did. I went through the copyright office to get answers, I found out my rights, I found if it is public I can sell it. As much as anyone else can. Of course branding and trademarks we have to avoid but public imagery cannot be controlled. A law suit does not mean they have a legit claim. I say if he wants to use a robot go ahead just do some modifications to make it indistingishable do some cloning change it up.. Who would really waste time and money on a suit really.. When it after modification has resemblance of the original.. A judge would laugh at a suit.

Use reason that's all I am saying.. As far as terrible advice I don't think so Gary.

It's a pretty sad world in many ways that for such a basic question I would need a lawyer.

How many of us who worked for a living doing drawings hasn't taken an image of something and copied its shape then published it without asking permission to do so. I have worked in 3 offices where this has gone on and no one has bothered copyright. It's like the movie and music business where this goes on all the time and it's got to be blatant before anyone does anything about it. I saw this great picture, online, of a view in Scotland and I thought that it was great and I took virtually the same picture at a different time of the year and put it online for sale. In the online image brochure/Page both are placed side by side which I thought slightly funny with no ramification from other photographer and in fact he made a very complimentary remark underneath. What's right or wrong.

Daver1, in terms of modifications, the robots in the images (one from eBay, one from a book cover) are completely faithful reproductions of the robot - unmodified (as far as the robot goes) images. I have the robot toy and the original box it came in - it's from an unknown chinese manufacturer.

So, I'm not sure how modification figures in this.

If I wanted to use the robot I doubt I could even trace the manufacturer (if I had to).

I know the robot represents a genre rather than a specific toy or manufacturer.

I suspect that it's about the prominence of a specific identity. So, if I take a picture of someone sat at a table with a coke bottle to the fore, it might look as though I was specifically using the coke bottle to be a fundamental part of the composition and sell my image or product by association. If that coke bottle was less prominent and set amongst other bottles and brands I'd hope that association wouldn't be possible.

Albacore, that is essentially my thought.. we can get so petty in our worries where we no longer allow ourselves to do anything.. I say modify things be creative.. Then let them prove it's theirs they essentially can't.. That's why no one pursues copyright.. because it is no longer that it is creativity.. Creativity is not copyrighted unless you use someone elses actual complete creative work. That is why musicians can use anothers melody then alter it slightly and make a new song.. This is done very often.. Is it wrong? Not really, no one owns notes.. If someone choose a similar sound then that is not a crime.. Reasonableness has to come in play.. Of course no one should steal another's idea but that is not what we are talking about here.. If the robot was actually being copied and resold as a robot it's a totally different matter.. The safe way is modification so no one says hey its the same exact robot.. The beauty of photoshop.. :-)

That is why musicians can use anothers melody then alter it slightly and make a new song..

Err.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/31965820

Well the reality is if everyone wants to claim that they have an original idea, it is not likely.. It's a big world many ideas have already been done. Claiming exclusivity to an idea a melody, art, is a rediculous notion because somewhere someone else has probably did it before you. Maybe not exactly but enough to claim they did it before you. I read it somewhere where Amazon wanted to patent the photographing of people with a white background.. As though they invented it.. The reality it has been done for as long as the camera existed. Ridiculous attempts to control things for their own profit.. Lame.. In the end their will always be people who want to control things for their own profit thus trying to stifle others ability to profit as well.. Frankly its a childish notion where they try to pull in the law to support them.. To control phrases of speech, art, design, it is this type of thing that stifles expression.. Therefore I disagree with any "artist" who tries to control things for their own profit.. They are one of billions of people who are intelligent as well and creative.. If exclusivity is allowed then this would kill ideas all together, eventually there would be very little room left for ideas everything would already be owned by someone.

Daver1, unfortunately the courts don't really share the view.

It's one thing not to agree with the system, another to be penalised by it.

That's because it is not always rational, bureaucracy and money often dictates judgement..