Is anyone here familiar with copyright laws when it comes to graphics...for instance, I like to do graphic collages using picture tubes I have received from various tuber groups, which they send out to members, with instructions which vary from one to another. Generally the instructions will tell you that the owner of the original photo has the original copyright and that they are only the tuber...they then go on to say that the tube is for personal or non commercial use only, or something to that affect. What I would like to know is;

1. Is there a world law governing this sort of thing.
2. Is it necessary to post on the finished article the tubers name as being owner of the tube.
3. Should we not be conforming to our own local laws with things like this.
4. What are the possible consequences involved for non conforming.

And I guess I will come up with more questions some time. There are so many differing slants on this that I dont think any of them hold any water at all really but would be good to have a clue.

To the best of my knowledge each individual can license their own work however they like. I believe that with copyright it will be up to the copyright owner to catch you out. There are universal internet laws and some of these may apply. It might be worth doing a bit of research before taking risks but I don't think the consequences of copyright infringement are going to be horrendous. At the end of the day though, it's only fair to respect the author of the work so that it doesn't look like you are taking credit for it.

I think that Erisian's explanation says it all. I agree that it is up to the person to govern his/her own copyrights.

I believe nobody could reasonably expect to get credits each time one of his brushes or pattern are used, because is something impossible even with the best will

The point is to credit the tube author when his tube had a relevant impact in the composition

The 2 extremes:
1)i may just grab a cool planet brush, give 1 stroke with it on a solid color BG and say "this is my work"
In this case for sure the tube author should be credited

2) i am painting on my Graphic tablet, obviously using brushes...a lot of them now nobody may expect that i may kept the list of the brush used for each stroke, list that must include all the referral links for original and author webside

Between those many gray area

Now what i say may be not coincide with the local laws , but maybe laws that can't be applied (as in 2) are a bit less relevant

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

Suppose that now somebody start a cause against Leonardo Da Vinci because when painting the Gioconda he used also a brush created by his grand-grand-father ( a special brush with very soft but still neat effect ) without giving the propers credits...and pretend or the Gioconda removed by public view or 50% of his value as refund

It's not illegal until you have lost a lawsuit. Dont sell micky mouse photos outside of Disneyland! Try to change the design 30% to 50%.

Just my thoughts, Alan

i love making collages too and i'm never afraid of using other people's pictures, tubes or brushes or whatever. as long as i make my own thing with it the result will be my own artwork - i don't know about the rest of the world but i know it would hold in court here in sweden. i never steal or copy outright though and i avoid using pictures from people who put too many restrictions on the usage of their work. i think you have to use your own common sense and judge every case on its own - photo comix example with the brushes is very good and most of the cases will be somewhere in the gray area he talks bout, so i don't think laws or explicit etiquette codes are much of a help.

I can give a little insight into the legal side of the question and how it relates to GIMP Chat.

If an image, photo or work of art is published without a copyright notice or a specific license, the image becomes public domain. This holds true for computer code (i.e. scripts) as well. In that case, the image can be copied freely, modified and used for private and commercial purposes. Changed in 1989.

Many images (and scripts) are released under some form of copyright or license, such as Creative Commons (CC) or General Public License (GPL)

It is the poster's responsibility to know if the image or script is protected/licensed or if it's considered "public domain". If Gimp Chat is sent a take down notice from a legit copyright holder, we will remove the item in dispute until the issue is resolved. On a side note, I've been running various forums and blogs for 10 years and I can't say that I've ever received a take down notice. That could change tomorrow, I suppose.

There is also "fair use" law, which states..


Under these conditions, pretty much all copyrighted material can be republished.

Am I going to court to fight a "fair use" case? Probably not, unless the EFF steps in and pays the costs.

The U.S. is a sovereign nation and doesn't recognize international law, except in the case of a treaty. Under our constitution, said treaty must be ratified by our legislature and signed by our president for it to be considered law.

For me,, part of the point is...I created something using 2 very different tubes...both received from different tuber from tube groups...the tube in question came from a group with these words...
"copyrights © belong to the original artist. I'm just the tuber.
The tubes are for personal and non-commercial use only. Do not claim them as your own or upload them on any website.
Do not change filename or watermark and do not change them into misted tubes
If you are a tutorial writer and interested in using the tubes for your tutorials ask for my permission first."

....now I am not a tutorial writer...I just created something with it...a collage picture...used GIMP and some filters to do this....and I have been attacked verbally by other tubers and accused of ...SHARING TUBES...which I didnt do...they were given to me and many others, by the tuber....and I think there are a million people out there who think they know all the rules regarding this stuff and in fact cause people like me a lot of grief over it...I've been told I must add a link to the tuber on there...scuse me..there was no link to add...just a message from the tuber. I'm now searching to see if I am in the wrong or not.

pardon the question, but what is a tube/tuber ???

Well, if you use an image (or images) released under a specific license, you need to follow the requirements of that license. If they are licensed for non-commercial use, you CAN upload them to a website, as long as you are not directly profiting from that image. Non-commercial use means they can be used for anything that doesn't involve commerce. For example, if you packaged the images and sold them on a CD or if you charged for downloading the images, or even if you used the images on your eCommerce web site, that would be considered a commercial use.

If you have a collage of several images, you might want to post a list of the original artists who created the images so you can give them credit, which might be the only thing required under the license.

I find it very annoying when people put stuff online with all sorts of restrictions...hello, if you do not want people to use it do NOT put it on the internet. I suppose you can make a general disclaimer that goes with all your work...something to the effect that components of your work are made by you as well as found on the internet. IMO, putting something on the internets with all those restrictions is a bit like showing off...look what I can do but you cannot have it. >_<

A tube in graphic imaging terms is a transparent image of something which can be used to create another image...
It could be a car, flowers, people, buildings, animals etc etc...and they are put together much the same way as making a collage on a blackboard, to make a complete picture...I have a thread here somewhere with some of my collages on it but I cant access search feature for some reason to link you through...a tuber is the person who has made the tube...so they have gone to the bother of taking a picture and focused on one part of it, be it a tree or whatever....and taken all of the other bits out and made it a single entity on its own...can be quite tedious at times...I'll add a dog tube here so you can understand what I mean..usually they are in a specific format...ie: .psd or .psp or .png as they need to be transparent images in order to use them correctly.

I think it's the same thing as what many gfxers call a render, an object on a transparent background.

I think akky is right with this thing about the copyright laws. But the good thing is that there are always free alternatives where you can get totally free images without breaking any law. I would like to share with you guys a place where anyone can get free images. I visit this website every time I need an image for my designs. http://www.morguefile.com/ . If you have any doubt, you can read their license, they let you use their images for either commercial or personal purposes without having to give attributes to people. But please just read the simple license they have. If you know any other good site please post it.

Xgeous...my whole point ion this is that I get mine for free anyway from the original person who made the image a transparent image and placed them in their mail outs to people like me...other people however decide to take it into their own hands and cause havoc...and I had reason to ask about these laws really...by nature, I'm not a law breaker and a campaigner for ethical morals...sometimes I think we need to know where we stand.

Are you sure about that? As far as I was concerned the image creator owns the copyright unless they explicitly say otherwise. But the bigger problem you have is forum members posting images here that they don't create and therefore don't own the copyright of (and is there a distinction between attached images and links to images?)



This is where it all gets very uncertain as "fair use" is an American law, which doesn't apply here in the UK. In fact recently the copyright laws managed to convict someone recently for copying a photograph set-up:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/ph ... ock-ruling

And for how bad copyright infringement fines can be, how about $22500 per MP3 track shared: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/24 ... a_verdict/

As for akky's situation, I think common sense should prevail - give credit where it's due.

And note to 2-ton, these are the kind of situations that occur when licensing is ignored:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/ju ... ertisement
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10887866/

And this one, although it hasn't been resolved
http://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?ac ... ght=slippy

Kevin

Some of it is pretty scary isnt it...who can afford fines like that for goodness sake....and GT, maybe you should remove that dog...but it does have an id in the title..(sorry about the size btw)...and in my case, the person making the transparent images is sending them out to its group members in a mass email....so as owners of the tubed version they can give them to whoever they wish..and they do acknowledge the original photos owner as holding copyright.

Really nice, thanks !

That, too is my understanding, and while I have looked at the laws in a few countries, IANAL. The following applies to Canada and the US in particular.

When anyone creates an original, creative work, it is instantly protected under copyright. A creator must explicitly release work into the public domain for it to be public domain, or the copyright period must expire (which varies from country to country).

Even if some licencing is stated (for personal use only,not for commercial use, with attribution, or any of the Creative Commons licences) the original work (be it a picture, a story, a piece of music, a logo, or a brush or tube/hose ) is protected, and derivatives may or may not be allowed depending on the specific licences.

For commercial work, you can not (for example) use a brush or a font or clip-art where the original creator has not explicitly allowed such use, and if nothing was stated then no such use (commercial or not) is technically allowed.

Regarding collage, it has been interperated as derivative work in various courts, and as a derivative work, you must have the copyright holder of the original work's permission to use it. Here is a good article on collage and copyright.

-Rob A>

My understanding is the copyright is only owned by the copyright holder! "other tubers" don't have any standing in the situation, especialy if the copyright holder is not complaining.