Copyright Hmm.

**Daver1** · 03 April 2015, 01:58 PM

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.

**pauland** · 03 April 2015, 02:03 PM

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

**Albacore** · 03 April 2015, 02:21 PM

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.

**pauland** · 03 April 2015, 02:34 PM

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.

**Daver1** · 03 April 2015, 02:58 PM

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.. :-)

**pauland** · 03 April 2015, 03:00 PM

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

**Daver1** · 03 April 2015, 04:00 PM

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.