Copyright Hmm.

[pauland]

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.

[gwpriester]

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.

[pauland]

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.

[Daver1]

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..

[gwpriester]

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.

[steve.ledger]

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' ..

Pandora's box discussion imho.

[mwenz]

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?

[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.

[gwpriester]

You really would need to ask a copyrights lawyer.

I repeat.

[mwenz]

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.