copyrights

   These image below is just a few of the pictures that i have found in a public--domain site, it seemed to tag that it could even be used for commercial endevours once properly cited. however my question is not based on trying to use images from a public domain unless im absolutely positive of no copyrights infringements. i have researched tons of avenues on images and copyrights, fareuse, privacy & property laws but none are giving me a direct conclusive enough answer. NOW i do know my use of any image in my book is based first on commercial use $...

   So my question is how is it possible for a store owner to sale "lets say Dr Martin Luther King Jr." paraphenalia (shirts-books-pictures etc) to the public domain with out infringing upon him, (does his family get procedes) or once the purchaser has bought the MLK goods that makes him the new owner of that merchandice and now he can do or sale them in any way fashion or form. which brings me to my conclusion IF I NOW BUY MLK GOODS, (lets say a picture and place the image in my book) do i now become the new Owner to the Rights of that MLK merchandice and can relinquish it in any way form or fashion as long as i dont intent dishonor or harm. or is it still protected even though i payed for its property???

Comments

  •  


    khabeyallah777 wrote:

       These image below is just a few of the pictures that i have found in a public--domain site, it seemed to tag that it could even be used for commercial endevours once properly cited. however my question is not based on trying to use images from a public domain unless im absolutely positive of no copyrights infringements. i have researched tons of avenues on images and copyrights, fareuse, privacy & property laws but none are giving me a direct conclusive enough answer. NOW i do know my use of any image in my book is based first on commercial use $...

       So my question is how is it possible for a store owner to sale "lets say Dr Martin Luther King Jr." paraphenalia (shirts-books-pictures etc) to the public domain with out infringing upon him, (does his family get procedes) or once the purchaser has bought the MLK goods that makes him the new owner of that merchandice and now he can do or sale them in any way fashion or form. which brings me to my conclusion IF I NOW BUY MLK GOODS, (lets say a picture and place the image in my book) do i now become the new Owner to the Rights of that MLK merchandice and can relinquish it in any way form or fashion as long as i dont intent dishonor or harm. or is it still protected even though i payed for its property???


    Okay, where to start....

     

    I'm not a lawyer.This is not advice.

     

    This is my understanding of the law, as a layman. Consult a competent attorney if you need real advice.

     

    ...

     

    So, let's say that you find an image on the internet. Say it's a silhouette of MLK. You want to use it. It says "(c) 2015 by Somebody." That's a stop sign. You would have to reach Somebody and get permission to use that image.

     

    Okay, let's say that there's no (c) xxxx by yyyyyyy anywhere on the image. Nowhere on the website, nowhere at all. Well, you should make a good faith effort to find out. You should contact the website and say, "Does this image belong to you, and can I use it?"

     

    Suppose they say that it's a public domain image, or that they found it somewhere, or they don't know. Then it's reasonable to believe that the image is okay to use.

     

    Suppose that you use it. Then someone contacts you and says, "Hey, that's mine." Well, in that case, so long as it didn't have (c) copyright by xxxxx on it when you found it, you can say that it's an innocent infringement -- you didn't know, so you're not guilty of stealing it.

     

    But you have to stop using it once they claim it. And the more proof you can show that you acted in good faith -- that is, that you tried to find who owned the image -- the better it will be for you.

     

    Suppose it did have (c) 2015 by xxxxx on it, and you used it anyway. Well, then when they contact you and say, "Hey, that's mine," you have to pay royalties. How much depends on how much they want and a court will let them take. So, in addition to being immoral, this can also cost you big big money. So don't do that.

     

    Now, your other question: If someone has a licensed image on a product, and you buy that product, does that give you a license to use that image?

     

    NO. You have to go to the person who owns the image, not the licensee, and you have to buy the right to use the image, just like the licensee did.

     

    I hope that answers the question.

     

    Remember; I'm not a lawyer -- we're just two guys talking here.

  • You might want to look for some of your answers here

     

    http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

    __________________________________________
    Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
  • "IF I NOW BUY MLK GOODS, (lets say a picture and place the image in my book) do i now become the new Owner to the Rights of that MLK merchandice and can relinquish it in any way form or fashion as long as i dont intent dishonor or harm. or is it still protected even though i payed for its property???"

     

    No.

     

    Let's say you buy a painting from an artist. Do you own the rights to publish that painting?

     

    You do not. The rights are an entirely separate entity from the painting itself. The artist retains those rights unless they have specifically transferred them to you.

     

    Likewise, buying a product with MLK's image on it does not mean you have bought any rights to use that image. It absolutely does not matter what your motives might be, or whether you use the image commercially or not. Unless you have been specifically granted the right to use the material, you cannot use it. 

     

    When you purchase a product, you have purchased only the product itself. You have not purchased any rights to it. 

     

    Ask yourself this: If you buy a book by Stephen King, do you think you are now the owner of the rights to that book? Of course you are not.

    __________________________________________
    Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
  • Hey thanks Skoob_Ym, but as far as for the you// me// I could not find IT if it is copyrighted or owned by someone becomes A personal problem according to the law, because there's no excuse for the ignorance...so basically im staying clear from internet images well that is those photos or images posted after 1922.
    Although im still a little puzzled about how did the store owner get a license to sale lets say MLK (my big issue) because I was a store owner and I purchased similar items but I did not have to get permission from some MLK company to sale or use it. I don't know but after giving it much thought I think im attacking this at the wrong angle...thanks again you have been a great help. i have some other images with issue I will post a little later. please be ready with your comments that are resourceful...THANKS
  • WHY I AM ASKING THIS QUESTION IS BECAUSE IMFOMATION FROM A SITE STATED THAT U.S. CONSTITUTION, ATICLE 1, SECTION 8...ON COPYRIGHT "WHEN I BUY MUSIC, EITHER ON OR OFFLINE, DO I GET COPYRIGHT IN THE WORK? 

    THE ANS: IS NO! BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO SELL (THAT PART) OF THE ITEM (YOUR PART) OR MAKE FARE USE OF IT. THIS IS WHERE IT GETS STICKY...HOW MUCH OF THAT PART THAT I OWN CAN I USE FOR WHAT SO-BE-IT. COMMERCIAL OR NOT???

    THE LAW ON COPYRIGHT LIMITATIONS; FAIR USE ALLOWS THE PUBLIC TO USE PORTIONS OF COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER. TO DECIDE WHETHER  A USE IS A FAIR USE OR NOT, THE COURTS LOOK AT 4 FACTORS; (NOT LISTED HERE)

     

    FIRST SALE ALLOWS A CONSUMER TO RESELL A PRODUCT CONTAINING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL, SUCH AS A BOOK THAT THE CONSUMER BOUGHT OR WAS GIVEN, WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS PERMISSION.

     

    REASON FOR ME PUTTING A IMAGE FROM A BOOK (THAT PART OF THE BOOK I BOUGHT) INTO A BOOK IM PUBLISHING...THAT PART THAT I OWN DO I STILL NEED PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER???


  • khabeyallah777 wrote:

    WHY I AM ASKING THIS QUESTION IS BECAUSE IMFOMATION FROM A SITE STATED THAT U.S. CONSTITUTION, ATICLE 1, SECTION 8...ON COPYRIGHT "WHEN I BUY MUSIC, EITHER ON OR OFFLINE, DO I GET COPYRIGHT IN THE WORK? 

    THE ANS: IS NO! BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO SELL (THAT PART) OF THE ITEM (YOUR PART) OR MAKE FARE USE OF IT. THIS IS WHERE IT GETS STICKY...HOW MUCH OF THAT PART THAT I OWN CAN I USE FOR WHAT SO-BE-IT. COMMERCIAL OR NOT???

    THE LAW ON COPYRIGHT LIMITATIONS; FAIR USE ALLOWS THE PUBLIC TO USE PORTIONS OF COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER. TO DECIDE WHETHER  A USE IS A FAIR USE OR NOT, THE COURTS LOOK AT 4 FACTORS; (NOT LISTED HERE)

     

    FIRST SALE ALLOWS A CONSUMER TO RESELL A PRODUCT CONTAINING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL, SUCH AS A BOOK THAT THE CONSUMER BOUGHT OR WAS GIVEN, WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS PERMISSION.

     

    REASON FOR ME PUTTING A IMAGE FROM A BOOK (THAT PART OF THE BOOK I BOUGHT) INTO A BOOK IM PUBLISHING...THAT PART THAT I OWN DO I STILL NEED PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER???


    Notice: this does not constitute legal advice. If you seek legal counsel, consult with a qualified attorney.

     

    Short answer, yes you probably do need permission. Fair use is determined at a court by court basis. Unless you get permission or have a court rule in your favor, you risk infringement. Fair use also typically applies to reviews and news sources. Published books, not so much, especially because you're selling the content.


  • khabeyallah777 wrote:
    Hey thanks Skoob_Ym, but as far as for the you// me// I could not find IT if it is copyrighted or owned by someone becomes A personal problem according to the law, because there's no excuse for the ignorance...so basically im staying clear from internet images well that is those photos or images posted after 1922.
    Although im still a little puzzled about how did the store owner get a license to sale lets say MLK (my big issue) because I was a store owner and I purchased similar items but I did not have to get permission from some MLK company to sale or use it. I don't know but after giving it much thought I think im attacking this at the wrong angle...thanks again you have been a great help. i have some other images with issue I will post a little later. please be ready with your comments that are resourceful...THANKS

    As Ron said, purchasing the item and purchasing the right are two different things.

     

    Let's say it's a coffee cup with a photo of MLK on it. You can buy all the coffee cups you want, and you never have to even think about the royalty. Because the person who manufactured the cups and put the image on them -- that's the guy that has to get the permission. Not the people who buy and sell the cups. Just the guy who makes them.

     

    The store owner doesn't need a license.

     

    The guy who made the item needs a license.

     

    It would be the photographer or the King estate who would be the copyright holder, most likely, not a MLK company.

     

    Hope that helps...

  • I'm still not a lawyer, but:

     

    "Fair Use" means two things:

     

    1.) If you buy something, you have a reasonable right to use it for yourself. If you buy music, you can listen to that music. So you can put it onto your MP3 player and listen while you're working out, or you can connect the MP3 player to your car stereo and listen in the car, etc.

     

    2.) You can talk about something without having to get a license. For example, suppose I say, "In SomeBook, the author, SomeGuy, says that the moon is made out of green cheese. Listen to this: 'The moon as we know it is green cheese.' 

     

    That's total baloney! The moon's not made of cheese!"

     

    Okay, that's a "Fair Use" because it's criticism of a work. I'm explaining something about the story, not telling it myself. So that's a fair use.

     

    It doesn't mean that you can make something yourself, and put the thing you bought into it. You can't make your own CD and put in tracks from music you bought -- you don't have the license. Or you can't re-print somebody's book, even if you bought a copy to start with.

     

    Remember that Copyright means "Right to make Copies." If you're making a copy, you have to talk to the guy with the rights.

     

    A Copy-Right.

     

    Hope that helps.

  • A few years ago I found that someone was making refrigerator magnets from art they had taken from some of my books and were selling these on eBay. I contacted the seller and explained that he couldn't make a product from my art and sell it, not without my OK at least. But if he were to formally request my permission all would be well.

     

    His reply was that he had bought the book so obviously he owned the art that was in it.

     

    I explained the fundamental flaw in this reasoning and again said that all he had to do is say, "Please, may I?" and there would be no problem.

     

    His only answer was to send a rude remark and take the magnets off sale rather than ask permission to use the art.

     

    And so it goes...

     

    __________________________________________
    Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Copyright can be a bit strange.

     

    Although anything that is made tangible (and I include digital things as tangible) it is automatically copyrighted, but should be marked as such, or it made obvious that it is. But some people do not bother because they don't care if their stuff ends up in the Public Domain even if they don't bother to say that it is, or that they even know Public Domain exists. And don't forget that a lot of things existed before they ended up on line. The original creators may never have dreamed the Internet would exist.

     

    Sites are copyright though, but that does not mean they have the right to all of the content in the first place.

     

    On the other-hand there's copyright bullies. I had one example of that. Take a look at this >>

     

    http://www.kevinlomas.net/Playpussys-Page-One.html

     

    Remind you of anything? Originally they were called The Village Kittens. The owners of the Village People copyright believe that those original art works infringed their copyright and they complained to the site that prints and ships them, so they were taken down, 'Pending'. However, there's nothing whatsoever copyrightable about the original images (if that was true you would not be able to have so many photos on line of people dressed as them! or be able to buy VP fancy-dress.) I pointed this out to the VP enterprise, a few times, and they did not reply. Eventually Zazzle saw my point and put them back on their site. During that time I did change the name of the images though. Shall I change them back? No it's too much hassle.

     

    Another example is some art I once had on Lulu (when that was an option) some one reported it to the agent of the series of books the art was based on, and Lulu removed it. Basically the agent simply said the only way they breach any copyright is by using the series of books' title. Remove mention of that and they are then OK.


  • kevinlomas wrote:

    Copyright can be a bit strange.

     

    Although anything that is made tangible (and I include digital things as tangible) it is automatically copyrighted, but should be marked as such, or it made obvious that it is. But some people do not bother because they don't care if their stuff ends up in the Public Domain even if they don't bother to say that it is, or that they even know Public Domain exists. And don't forget that a lot of things existed before they ended up on line. The original creators may never have dreamed the Internet would exist.

     

    Sites are copyright though, but that does not mean they have the right to all of the content in the first place.

     

    On the other-hand there's copyright bullies. I had one example of that. Take a look at this >>

     

    http://www.kevinlomas.net/Playpussys-Page-One.html

     

    Remind you of anything? Originally they were called The Village Kittens. The owners of the Village People copyright believe that those original art works infringed their copyright and they complained to the site that prints and ships them, so they were taken down, 'Pending'. However, there's nothing whatsoever copyrightable about the original images (if that was true you would not be able to have so many photos on line of people dressed as them! or be able to buy VP fancy-dress.) I pointed this out to the VP enterprise, a few times, and they did not reply. Eventually Zazzle saw my point and put them back on their site. During that time I did change the name of the images though. Shall I change them back? No it's too much hassle.

     

    Another example is some art I once had on Lulu (when that was an option) some one reported it to the agent of the series of books the art was based on, and Lulu removed it. Basically the agent simply said the only way they breach any copyright is by using the series of books' title. Remove mention of that and they are then OK.


    I am no more a lawyer now than I was when I first posted, but:

     

    IMHO, the VP was more likely a registered trademark. An issue arose with this over Coca-cola and a small Alaskan soda company that used red cans with white polar bears on them. Coca-cola made an advertisement featuring an adult polar bear and a smaller polar bear watching Northern Lights while sharing a Coke.

     

    The smaller company sued for trademark infringement and won: A person seeing the ad could reasonably confuse the two products to the detriment of the smaller company. Coke had to cease and desist.

     

    Your cats-in-outfits posters address a similar issue: Could a person believe that these are official authorized products promoting the VP?

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    I am no more a lawyer now than I was when I first posted, but:

     

    IMHO, the VP was more likely a registered trademark.

     

    Nope. It's two common English words and they cannot be registered. If they designed some logo that said it, fair enough, one cannot use registered shapes without permission, but if you search for Village People you will get millions of hits that have nothing to do with the copyright holders, because the only real thing that can be copyrighted is the film and the songs. Their bluff was that I had copied their clothing, but that's like some one claiming they own the copyright to the bowler hat. And as I said, they never replied to me. They never even contacted me personally to object.

     

    An issue arose with this over Coca-cola and a small Alaskan soda company that used red cans with white polar bears on them. Coca-cola made an advertisement featuring an adult polar bear and a smaller polar bear watching Northern Lights while sharing a Coke.

     

    Harrods of the UK tried to make every other shop with the name Harrod's change their name. It was a bluff because you cannot insist on such things just because some people have the same name. One example was  a shop near to me, Harrod's Butchers. And that's what it said on the shop. No evidence of 'passing off' was found and it's still called that.

     

    The smaller company sued for trademark infringement and won: A person seeing the ad could reasonably confuse the two products to the detriment of the smaller company. Coke had to cease and desist.

     

    Yes I can understand that, but the problem often is that the bullies are often rich enough to ride over the little men.

     

    Your cats-in-outfits posters address a similar issue: Could a person believe that these are official authorized products promoting the VP?

     

    Nope. How? They are cats, not people. And as I said, it was nothing other than a bluff. In fact I often wonder if it's copyright holders that complain, or vindictive people pressing the report this buttons. Most sites will take things down while the problem is sorted out.

  • FANTASTIC GREAT !!!!!!!!!!
  • YOUR SO-RIGHT-A-COPY-RIGHT!!!!!!!!!THANKS
  • THANKS THATS A COOL WAY OF PUTTING IT...I UNDERSTAND FIRMLY, THERES JUST NO WAY OF GETTING AROUND THIS....SO I'LL SUBSITUTE CREATIVITY FOR C-O-P-E.

  • khabeyallah777 wrote:
    YOUR SO-RIGHT-A-COPY-RIGHT!!!!!!!!!THANKS

    you're welcome!

Sign In or Register to comment.