Who Owns Internet Images?
 

Yesterday someone posted about an eBay sale of a photo that was obviously 'recreated' from a Pelican users original. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/419635-someone-selling-my-photo-his-art-you-judge.html

Today this thread cropped up: http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/419752-valve-adjustment-decal-masses.html and created some questions which I'm curious about.

It appears that snbush67 downloaded an image that nyne11 produced to look somewhat like a factory Porsche symbol.

So if nyne11 used the 'likeness' of a Porsche sticker, but not the Porsche script or anything else, if he simply used a similar font and made a sticker that looked like a real sticker, is this legal, i.e. can Porche claim that he is infringing on some 'general appearance copyright'.

And if nyne11 posts that 'image' online, (maybe without any disclaimers as to ownership or copyright), is it legal to download it use it as the basis of a new sticker?

It appears (I could be wrong, because he gives conflicting messages) that nyne11 feels the image belongs to him, and that subsequent users should request his permission (which would be granted) before making a new sticker. Is this reasonable?

I am NOT trying to make ayone out to be the bad guy, (although nyne11 doesn't appear to agree) and it may be a question of being polite versus law, i.e. if in doubt ask, but I am curious about this. And it's obviously going to happen more and more.

What is fair in this case? What about people who copy images from this forum, then re-use them for instructive purposes on another thread? Technically it's the same thing, isn't it?

Whoever took the image. Granted, they may license it for use Freely (and even freely) under something like the Creative Commons (or CC w/ no commercial use clause), etc. but the person that create the image originally owns the copyright on it.

I was going to post sample images, but that might be theft....

It depends. Actually, copying a trademark can be infringement, but it is up to the holder to prosecute. Porsche is actually pretty protective...they've gone after people who use the font and other marks.

"Ownership" is tricky in the digital world. And "derivative works" is a big gray area. That's what the courts are for.

As for taking an image and posting it here in a tech thread, that would likely fall under "fair use", although someone could argue that Wayne is getting financial gain from the use of the image. Educational institutions use fair-use arguments all the time. The acid tests come down to:

does someone make a profit using someone else's intellectual property
will the public be confused by the mark/image/etc

I'm just guessing but once something is placed on the internet, unless it's trademarked, it most likely becomes public domain.

I'm certain I'll be corrected by many, let's see what happens.

Widgeon13, why would you say that? Copyright ownership is copyright ownership, regardless of the media.

Nope. Putting something on the web does not de facto relinquish copyright. And it doesn't need to be marked either.

Trademark isn't the same as copyright.

Sherwood

True. Photographs are usually covered under copyright.

http://www.legalzoom.com/trademarks-faq/trademark-versus-copyright-protection.html

The choice between registering a trademark and a copyright is not always a clear one. Trademark and copyright registration are both means of protecting the intangible rights of intellectual property. There are, however, important differences between trademark and copyright protection.
Copyrights are a form of protection for the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.

Copyright does not cover intellectual property such as titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; or mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring. This type of intangible property is often more appropriately protected by a trademark. Think of memorable advertising slogans you have heard. Chances are these slogans are protected by a trademark of some sort. They are unlikely to qualify for copyright protection.

A trademark protects a word, phrase, symbol or design or a combination of these, that identifies and distinguishes the goods or services of one person or company from those of others.

Some things, such as ornate logos, may qualify for both trademark and copyright protection. This is because the amount of original authorship in a logo can vary greatly. Most highly recognizable logos are extremely simple objects, such as the Nike “swoosh.” However, a more ornate logo with a great deal of original authorship might qualify for both trademark and copyright protection.

To protect the name of your company, your newly designed logo or a catchphrase, a trademark is probably what you need. To protect your latest gallery worthy painting, the next great American novel or even a brilliantly choreographed dance sequence, a copyright is probably the best route for you.

OK, I agree. However, if someone posts a picture on the web and that picture is reproduced (not for profit), does the owner have any recourse?

What about all the pictures that have been posted on PPOT, I imagine a very high percentage are pirated from other sites. Not trying to be a pita here, the entire question is a good one and probably has a pretty complex answer.

"So if nyne11 used the 'likeness' of a Porsche sticker, but not the Porsche script or anything else, if he simply used a similar font and made a sticker that looked like a real sticker, is this legal, i.e. can Porche claim that he is infringing on some 'general appearance copyright'."

The Porsche logo is a trademarked symbol. The word "Porsche" in that distinctive type face is probably also trademarked. However, type is type. the trademarked symbol, "IBM" uses the most common typeface for graphics in the world, Helvetica (Arial is a near knockoff but no clone). I can use Helvetica to spell out anything I want (except for passing off aftermarket accessories as those made by/endorsed by IBM).

"And if nyne11 posts that 'image' online, (maybe without any disclaimers as to ownership or copyright), is it legal to download it use it as the basis of a new sticker?"

It appears (I could be wrong, because he gives conflicting messages) that nyne11 feels the image belongs to him, and that subsequent users should request his permission (which would be granted) before making a new sticker. Is this reasonable?"

Reproducing his original image would infringe upon his design and defacto copyright, even w/o the © or the word copyright. However, that doesn't preclude you from redrawing it, your own version, then it's yours on your own label. Same as he did with the factory sticker. It was his design derived from the factory's image, much as can attempt to photograph a Porsche from the same exact angle, time, day and a myriad of other elements. It still won't/can't be a clone.

"I am NOT trying to make ayone out to be the bad guy, (although nyne11 doesn't appear to agree) and it may be a question of being polite versus law, i.e. if in doubt ask, but I am curious about this. And it's obviously going to happen more and more.

What is fair in this case? What about people who copy images from this forum, then re-use them for instructive purposes on another thread? Technically it's the same thing, isn't it?"

Is commerce part of the equation? If yes, then there are ownership issues. If for instructive purposes, there are fair use allowances. However, I wouldn't presume or claim to be the creator of an image if I wasn't. Neither should anyone else.

And to add some confusion, see my follow up post.

Sherwood

Great! now Byron is going to watermark all of his pictures - geeze!

Copyright infringement has its nuances.

-------------
From: http://www.netartreview.net/logs/2004_03_14_backlog.html#107934566080035392

Probably the best known example is the case Rogers vs Jef Koons, in which Rogers sued Koons for using his copyrighted image "Puppies" for the work "String of Puppies". Jeff Koons lost the case and it's interesting to know why. Here I quote from the article "COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND APPROPRIATION ART"

by William M. Landes:

"... is appropriation of mass media images by the artist Jeff Koons who was the defendant in three similar copyright cases in the 2nd Circuit. In the best-known case, Rogers v. Koons, the defendant purchased a note card displaying a photograph of a group of puppies with their owners, tore off the copyright notice from the card, ...........
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1216148565.gif

.......and hired an Italian foundry to make four sculptures based on the photograph. Since Koons admitted copying, the only issue on appeal was if his copying was a fair use.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1216148589.jpg

Counting against fair use is that Koons added little to the original image except for changing the medium and adding color. Indeed, altering the image would have defeated his purpose of changing the meaning of the image by putting it in a different context. On the other hand, Koon's sculpture is not likely to damage the market for the copyrighted photograph. The products are in different markets and won't compete for sales. Yet the plaintiff's business was licensing photographs so upholding Koon's fair use defense could potentially eliminate an important source of revenue to photographers and result in adverse incentive effects.

Koons' principle argument for fair use was that his work should be privileged as a satirical comment or parody. By appropriating an everyday image, he claimed that his work commented critically on a political and economic system that places too much value on mass produced commodities and media images. Not surprisingly, the court rejected his defense because his work did not comment directly on the appropriated image. As noted earlier, fair use requires that the parody be directed at least in part at the original work. When the parody comments on society at large, the defendant should be able to license the copyrighted work."

Full context here if you like to read: http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf1999/landes.html

Sherwood

Al Gore owns everything on the internet. Sheesh, I though everyone knew that.

Sheesh, you beat me to it!

I was going to say the creator of the internet owns its content. :D

So snbush67's sticker, which was a parody of nyne11's work, is fine?

If it isn't a clear cut case, do it and see what happens. I think there are many issues involved.

IT does not take much to have a work with a Copyright -- phone books & maps have them. The little trick is to put some inaccurate entries in, and it then becomes an "original" work, as nostatic noted above.

Also - you have a Copyright when the work is created (even as draft). You do NOT have to register to have a Copyright -- Registration allows you to get presumed damages tho -- i.e. easier to sue somebody and win.

Copyrights are violated all the time on the internet, but there is some peril associated with 'getting away with it' - some day you might get called on by a guy's lawyers....

Also, IIRC and I'm not sure I do - no rpift or even a profit motive has to be shown re Copyright violations.