Loading
Copyright is tough, but it tries to be fair...
Here are some useful sources to understand what all can be protected by copyright laws, and what copyright is about:


People often take the copyright lightly, ignores it, or simply don't know it very well. We easily refer to fair use, which more or less covers only cases in United States, but should not be stretched to cover publications globally shared on Internet.

Here's one case. If I record a lecture, and decide to publish it, it is okay as long as I do not show someone else's art or design on that video. But if I for example show a book cover on the video, saying it is a book everyone should read, I then very likely breach the copyright by "accidentally" showing the copyright protected cover art. Therefore I should for example blur out the book cover before publishing the video. Unless, the lecture is about that cover art illustration and artist who made it.

So, we may think it is alright to share some wonderful art made by famous artists, reproduced for example with camera. However, that is still a copyright infringement. No matter how good and sincere our intents would be. No matter how detailed information we would give to explain who's work there becomes represented. We still should ask the permission for the publication, from the artist her/himself, or from the current living and legal copyright owner.

And I think also I have several questionable images here at Ipernity. For example some of my shots showing statues are probably copyright infringements against Finnish copyright law. It is not a problem if the statue is shown on the background, and the statue is not the clear main subject on the photograph. But if the main subject is more or less the statue itself, then the image very likely infringes copyright at least here in Finland.

Meaning, we all may have some "skeletons in the closet". And probably I need to go through my old published photos ...

However, I ask one thing from all of you. Please don't take the role of inquisitor to your hands, and furiously start to report each and every case you find. Try to see the big picture. And first clean your own closet. It is alright to report clear and so called blatant cases. And if you first decide to contact the person you suspect, please do it in very polite manner. The person you approach may not even know s/he has done something wrong. And the very best thing you can do is to share the knowledge and information on copyright.

39 comments

Stormlizard said:

Well written and worth the trouble Sami.

I do at times post photos from Wikipedia as references as recently to clarify that the Eurasian and Japanese Raccoon dogs are not American Raccoons nor are they related, The Common Raccoon is ain the Bear family almost, whereas the Raccoon Dog is a Canine distant relative to the Wolf., most are free to use provided they are not altered, for the sake of safety I always add © respected.
5 years ago

Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to Stormlizard:

Yes, as far as I know, most of the images available at Wikipedia are under Creative Commons. But do pay attention on how one should then refer to those images. Instead of putting Copyright sign on or below them, one should mention it is shared under Creative Commons license. And then of course mention the original artist, and provide a link to the source where it was found.

The general idea of Creative Commons is to keep the license same, not to claim it more strict or loose.

More about Creative Commons here:

creativecommons.org/use-remix/get-permission
5 years ago

Stormlizard replied to :

I have just finished looking at a few Wiki items that I have used photos from, they all have © on the Text but appear not to have on the photos.

Works of Art and Historical buildings are not among the things I ever use though some buildings such as Temples in Nikko Unesco World Heritage Centre that are © protected do not have the same humans wandering around them as the official photo so cannot in my mind be an infringement of © I believe that every historical building in Japan does have some sort of © on it in any official photo, but photos taken by tourists are not reproductions of the items under such © protection, if they were then all tourists are at risk of being law beakers.
5 years ago

Sami Serola (inactiv… said:

It turned out I have a lot to clean! =O

Images of board games... Images of famous cartoon characters... etc.

Internet makes us take things granted, like makes us think it is alright to share images of what we easily see as "everyday items".
5 years ago

Xata said:

It is so tricky...
I never use other people's photos but in comments quote wiki or other sources very often to provide information. I always put underneath “Source:.....link....”, hope that is enough.
For the case of showing a sculpture I didn’t know, as long as it was in a public outside space for me it was ok...
I see here few violations of the first kind, I think most of them photographers are not really aware of being outlaws...
Thanks for clarifying!
5 years ago

Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to Xata:

There are differences between countries, Isabel. So, no problem if you photograph statues on public places for example in Germany. But publishing pictures of statues on public park in Finland seem to require artist's permission.

More here: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama
5 years ago

Sami Serola (inactiv… said:

Notice, I changed the attribution of this blog article of mine ;-)

Meaning, you can share and use the text as such, as long as you mention me and link to this article on "derivatives".
5 years ago

Amelia said:

A serious article, Sami. It seems that the only things we can photograph and share freely without thinking are utility objects, food and some antiquities. It's a minefield.
5 years ago

Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to Amelia:

I was surprised to find out how much the copyright covers. I seriously thought that photographs of items like Mickey Mouse toy bought from Mc Donalds can be publicly represented on photographs freely, and the same thing with board games. But now I learned this is not the case. And it shows how easily we start to follow the public behavior. It is also easy to hide in the crowd, and most likely never become picked by copyright owners. However, the risk is there...
5 years ago

Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to :

Are you sure you don't mix it with this:

worldvectorlogo.com/logo/creative-commons

Two c-letters inside circle has a different meaning, and stands for Creative Commons.

One c-letter inside circle is for Copyright, and then always requires direct permission from the artist.

And if there is no marking what so ever, then automatic copyright is applied, which is the same as one c inside the circle.
5 years ago

Stormlizard said:

Photographs of people without clothes are forbidden here on Ipernity, therefore be carefull not to use photos of people wearing clothes by Dior,,Gucci, Hugo Boss etc. because you could be in danger.
5 years ago

Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to Stormlizard:

Ha ha ha! =D

Yes, next time I photograph people, I need to make sure they wear clothes, but not a fashion clothes ;-)
5 years ago

Janet Brien said:

Very informative and interesting article. I am aware of the restrictions, believe me. Still, if I should happen to take a picture of a sculpture that is there for all to see, I have no problem posting it, as whenever I do something like this, I do my very best to credit the artist and provide links if I can.

My husband and I once went to a pottery show and took our cameras. We asked each of the artists if it would be ok to take artistic pictures of their work. Most were ok with it but we also got the sense from some that we were violating them in some way. Mistrustful eyes would follow us around. One guy refused saying that his designs would instantly be copied in China and make his without any value...SERIOUSLY? Wow. Ok...

I did have a wonderful time with that photography but after we left, I felt like taking a shower from all of the bad vibes we got and the disdainful reception from some. I was disgusted that I was made to feel as if I was raping them somehow, I was a thief. I was taking something from them. When in the end, all I wanted to do was take creative pictures of lovely artwork, which I lavished with praise.

Steve and I have never gone to a craft show again. And we would never dare take pictures with kids inadvertently shown in the images. In fact, pictures of people whatsoever give me a sick feeling. It's not fair that the abuse from so many others has made it so the photographers who do not mean any harm and are wholly respectful, are made to feel like pedophiles and villains.

Copyright laws do need to be strict, but this needs to be taken in context. Sometimes a picture is just a picture and no torture devices need to be brought out for the innocent photographer! :D
5 years ago

LutzP said:

Thanks for posting this, Sami!
5 years ago

Frank J Casella said:

Some people feel that Copyrights were for the days before the internet. That today we should have an international Copyright that is the same for all over the world. Personally, it's not worth fighting over. If I find a blog post for example using one of my pictures, it is more simple to require they back link to my original image post / website, than to try and get any money out of them. Value has several meanings ....
5 years ago