- Copyright rules by subject matter explained at Wikimedia Commons. And the same in French.
- Intellectual property wiki
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:
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.
Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to Stormlizard:
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
Stormlizard replied to :
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.
Sami Serola (inactiv… said:
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".
Xata said:
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!
Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to Xata:
More here: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama
Sami Serola (inactiv… said:
Meaning, you can share and use the text as such, as long as you mention me and link to this article on "derivatives".
Amelia said:
Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to Amelia:
Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to :
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.
Stormlizard said:
Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to Stormlizard:
Yes, next time I photograph people, I need to make sure they wear clothes, but not a fashion clothes ;-)
Janet Brien said:
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
LutzP said:
Frank J Casella said: