Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> I have a question about both IRTC procedure and perhaps a bit
> of copyright law.  I don't expect definitive answers, but I also
> don't want to get anyone in trouble with my entry.  So...
> 
> One of the principles of photorealistic rendering, according
> to Bill Fleming (www.serious3d.com) is to use familiar objects.
> In his example scene he uses some Energizer batteries, a
> Fujifilm disposable camera, and a book that looks like it
> was scanned from life.  My question is, what is the legality
> of this?  Is it legal, for example, to take the label off a
> can of soup, scan it, and use the scanned image as an imagemap
> on a modeled can of soup?
> 
> This is actually two separate questions:
> 
> 1) Is it legal to do this at all, regardless of what I
>    plan to do with the image, without getting explicit
>    releases from the companies whose artwork I'm using?
>    (The question wouldn't bear considering except that
>    we're talking about art.  Did Andy Warhol have to get
>    Campbell's to sign something?  Do artists who work
>    in collage have to be careful what they use lest they
>    trip over intellectual property laws?)
> 
> 2) Assuming it is legal to do this in the art world,
>    is it legal in IRTC?
> 
> As I said, I don't expect definitive answers, and I'll pose
> the first question to Mr. Fleming myself, but I'm interested
> in any opinions the readers of this group might have.

Maybe this will help -


		10 Big Myths about copyright explained
			By Brad Templeton


	1)  If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not
	copyrighted.

	This was true in the past, but today almost all major
	nations follow the Berne copyright convention.  For example,
	after April 1, 1989, almost everything created privately in the
	USA is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
	The default you should assume for other people's works is that
	they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you *know*
	otherwise.  There are some old works that lost protection
	without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless
	you know for sure.

	It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by
	warning people, and by allowing one to get more and
	different damages, but it is not necessary.  If it looks
	copyrighted, you should assume it is.   This applies to pictures,
	too.  You can't scan pictures from magazines and post them
	to the net, and if you come upon something unknown,
	you shouldn't post that either.

	The correct form for a notice is:
		"Copyright <dates> by <author/owner>"
	You can use C in a circle instead of "Copyright" but "(C)"
	has never been given legal force.  The phrase "All Rights
	Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now
	not needed.


	2) If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation.

	False.  Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in
	court, but that's essentially the only difference.  It's still a
	violation if you give it away -- and there can still be
	heavy damages if you hurt the commercial value of the
	property.

	3) If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain.

	False.  Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the
	owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).  Explicitly,
	as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant
	this to the public domain."  Those exact words or words very
	much like them.

	Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants
	permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly
	wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and
	forward network where all the thousands of copies made are
	done at the command (rather than the consent) of the
	poster.  This is a matter of some debate, but even if the
	former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray
	it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly
	granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect
	when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement
	of material into the public domain.  Furthermore it is very
	difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly
	stated licence that the copier was aware of.

	Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post
	the item in the first place.  If the poster didn't, then all
	the copies are pirate, and no implied licence or theoretical
	reduction of the copyright can take place.

	(*) It's also usually in the public domain if the creator has
	been dead for 50 years.  If anybody dead for 50 years is posting
	to the net, let me know.  There are some other fine points
	to this issue -- check more detailed documents for info.

	4) My posting was just fair use!

	See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear
	the following in mind:

	The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow
	things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and
	education about copyrighted works without the permission of the
	author.  Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the
	work are important considerations.  Are you reproducing an
	article from the New York Times because you needed to in order
	to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you
	couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your
	readers to have to pay to log onto the online services with the
	story or buy a copy of the paper?  The former is probably fair
	use, the latter probably isn't.

	Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always
	attributed.  (One should not use more of the work than is
	necessary to make the commentary.) It should not harm the
	commercial value of the work (which is another reason why
	reproduction of the entire work is generally forbidden.)

	Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for
	commentary and reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial
	value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it
	is fair use.  Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, either.  The
	court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright
	on an indidvidual basis in each case.  There have been cases
	that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general
	they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.
	It's a risky defence to attempt.

	5) If you don't defend your copyright you lose it.

	False.  Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless
	explicitly given away.  You may be thinking of trade marks, which
	can be weakened or lost if not defended.

	6) Somebody has that name copyrighted!

	You can't "copyright a name," or anything short like that.
	Titles usually don't qualify, but I doubt you could write a
	song entitled "Everybody's got something to hide except for
	me and my monkey."

	You can't copyright words, but you can trademark them,
	generally by using them to refer to your brand of a
	generic type of product or service.  Like an "Apple"
	computer.  Apple Computer "owns" that word applied to
	computers, even though it is also an ordinary word.  Apple
	Records owns it when applied to music.  Neither owns the
	word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't
	mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on
	this law for details.

	You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would
	unfairly hurt the value of the mark, or in a way that might
	make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or
	which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name.
	For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I
	would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name
	like "mtv."  :-)

	7) They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!

	Copyright law is mostly civil law.  If you violate copyright
	you would usually get sued, not charged with a crime.
	"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal
	law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."  Sorry, but in
	copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all.
	It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or
	jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based
	on the type of infringement.  In civil cases you can even
	be made to self-incriminate.

	8) Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?

	Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright
	violation involving more than 10 copies and value over
	$2500 was made a felony.  So watch out.  (At least you get
	the protections of criminal law.)  On the other hand, don't
	think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting
	your E-mail.  The courts have much better things to do than
	that.  This is a fairly new, untested statute.

	9) It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising.

	It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or
	not.  If they want them, they will be sure to contact you.
	Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, *ask*
	them.  Usually that's not too hard to do.  Time past,
	ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a
	large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some
	person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got
	caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry
	pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who
	enjoyed it.  Even if you can't think of how the author or
	owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net
	hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new
	technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.

	10) They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it.

	To have a copy is not to have the copyright.  All the E-mail
	you write is copyrighted.  However, E-mail is not, unless
	previously agreed, secret.  So you can certainly *report* on
	what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says.  You can
	even quote parts of it to demonstrate.  Frankly, somebody
	who sues over an ordinary message might well get no damages,
	because the message has no commercial value, but if you want
	to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first.  On the
	other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts your E-mail. If
	it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal
	commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all
	E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them.


	-----------------    In Summary   ---------------------------
	
	These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they
	are written, and no copyright notice is required.

	Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not,
	only damages are affected by that.

	Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and
	don't grant you any permission to do further copying except
	*perhaps* the sort of copying the poster might have expected
	in the ordinary flow of the net.

	Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable
	social purposes.  Ask yourself why you are republishing what
	you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it
	in your own words.

	Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's
	a concept from trademark law.  The ownership of names is
	also from trademark law, so don't say somebody has a name
	copyrighted.

	Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights
	of criminal defendants you hear so much about don't apply.
	Watch out, however, as new laws are moving copyright
	violation into the criminal realm.

	Don't rationalize that you are helping the copyright holder;
	often it's not that hard to ask permission.

	Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing
	facts from E-mail isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail,
	nobody could wring any damages from you for posting it.

	-----------------------------------------------------------

		Permission is granted to freely copy this
		document in electronic form, or to print for
		personal use.  If you had not seen a notice
		like this on the document, you would have to
		assume you did not have permission to copy it.
		This document is still protected by you-know-
		what even though it has no copyright notice.




-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message