thanks for the explanation, akky !

i thought that was called a rendered picture....never heard the term tube before

It comes from Paint Shop Pro nomenclature. That is what they call such brushes (gimp calls them gih, or Gimp Image Hoses)

-Rob A>

Well, I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that according to U.S. law, (I'm a U.S. citizen and this site is U.S. based so that is the only law that concerns me) prior to 1989, any works that does not explicitly specify a copyright is considered public domain. In 1989, U.S. laws become very gray in that area, especially regarding information published on the internet, for which there are really are no U.S. laws, that I'm aware of, which explicitly govern the inherent complexity (caching, mirrors, backups) of copying digital information on/from the internet. If there are specific U.S. laws which govern that, I'd like to see a copy of the actual legislation, as I've never seen it and I have looked for it.

What it boils down to is that the creator of the intellectual property, or creative works, had better specify the license when they publish their original content online and they had better be able to prove in a court of law that they are the actual author of said works, assuming of course, they are actually interested in protecting that work. Otherwise, it will be up to the lawyers and the courts to hash out any disputes which may arise from misuse of intellectual property or creative works, and the claimed ownership thereof.

For all intensive purposes, if I create an image, write code or pen an op/ed and post that online, with no licensing or copyright designation, it does become public domain, because I don't care if someone copies, modifies or uses my work in anyway they see fit. I'd hazard to guess that is the case in most of the images, or derivations of images, that are posted here. If the original designers feel differently, they can send me a take down notice and provide some kind of evidence that they are indeed the original creator, and I'll be happy to take down any offending image.


That is not a problem for me. It is up to the poster to ensure what they post is free from restrictions. As I said earlier, if I'm sent a take down notice, I will comply and investigate the claim. If the claim is legitimate, the post will remain offline, if not, it will be re-posted.

In my mind, there is a distinction between a link and a copy but some people might say otherwise. Again, there is no law which governs this. How about an embed? I can embed copyrighted material, such as youtube videos, without any legal challenges or issues. It's a very common practice online. What about embedding other web pages that contain copyrighted material? Again, there are no laws which govern this kind of thing, so my policy still stands.

Clear and obvious violations of copyrights are covered in the site rules, item #10.

Nope. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

but..

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

-Rob A>

Do you have a link to the actual legislation?

So, can I legally make digital backups (copies) of the work? How about mirrored servers? What about embedding? What was the original intent of the author? All of these are very gray areas within the law when when it come to copying copyrighted material, complicated even further when the author doesn't specify a license.

Personally, I don't get too caught up in this whole mess. Some people blow it all up out of proportion, like it's some kind of a big deal, but as far as I'm concerned, it's not. The way I see it, people need to police their own work, if they are really concerned about its misuse. I'm certainly not the "image police" and have neither the time, not the desire, to worry too much about what license is used when someone posts a derivation of an image, or some cool rendered text using a GPL'd font.

Most people who post their renders or images on the net don't care what is done with them. If someone complains about a particular image that's not properly credited, I'll deal with it then. Having had several blogs and forums over the last 10+ years, I've never had one complaint or take down request.

Hear Hear!! GnuTux....its been an interesting debate tho and thanks everyone for the input.

After more research, I did find this..


So, up until 1989 and the Berne Convention, it did have to carry a copyright notice, otherwise, it was considered public domain.


I also found a full copy of all the current U.S. copyright legislation.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

I will maintain my policy of not being the "Image Police" and will leave to the policing to copyright holders who feel their rights have been infringed.

As mentioned, copyright is automatic in most places unless you explicitly give it up.

There is however one caveat discussed (legislated?) in the US, and that concerns "abandoned" art.
The reasoning is that if you cannot find the creator of an image no matter how hard you look (or "after all reasonable venues for contacting the author have been exhausted" or some such), then that image is considered free to use, also by commercial enterprises. This was one of the original reasons why I always clearly mark my work with the link to my deviantart gallery. Even so, I occationally find my artwork on wallpaper sites where they have crudely just cropped out my signature and contact info. Sigh.

Bizarrely, if strictly going by copyright law, very few images would be possible to put online at all. I once read a an article about how each and every one of us break copyright at least a dozen times every day without even thinking about it. Stuff like taking a picture of a place featuring a copyrighted logo somewhere in it is for example a breach of copyright (unlawful reproduction). The fault is of course that the copyright laws are obsolete and not up-to-date with the times.

As for policing, GimpTalk takes a similar "police yourslef" stance, but there are a few things which we do actively discourage, and one is tutorials and/or help with removing watermarks. A watermark is per definition put there exactly because the creator (or their publisher) does not want the artwork to be distributed and used freely. They (probably) sell (or at least require attribution of) that image - the watermarked image is intended as a "sample" only. It's hard to claim "fair use" or "I didn't know" if you had to remove a watermark in order to use an image.

... We never received any formal take down notices from a commercial entity, but we have received complaints about image theft and non-attribution a few times, all of which we have dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But it's indeed very rare.
.
Griatch

For the record, I feel confident that I am not breaking any laws with this since I belong to quite a few google and yahoo groups who send out daily images with a copyright cover on them, allowing the members to use them for personal use..or noncommercial use, and do not claim then as their own.

For personal use, I'd agree with the general consensus.

If you are creating a commercial product then you should have some care with your source images, brushes, fonts, clipart, etc.

-Rob A>

would be nice if was a simple way to embed all copyright info in the images, it is usually such a pain trace the authors
Deviantart make it easier at least for what you may download : at least the artist name is always included in the file name.

but on all other place is a pain...even with the best will is not easy , often impossible found the author of something called "1346278.jpg" ... there is a "reversal search image engine " tineye but very seldom give positive results

@Photocomix

I find that Google's reverse image search often give many more matches (at least on my artwork) than TinEye does.
.
Griatch

I recently had a discussion regarding Copyright and Trademark validity.
please do not quote this as a legal definition, but if you do your homework (each country has its own take on laws) you will find buried very deeply that copyright has very little impact.

Trademark is assigned to a singular entity, such as Mattel and McDonalds. If you use a Trademarked logo, product or character (including burgers) you may be liable to heavy penalties at the discretion of the Trademark holder. One such case was a man who made a christmas float in the form of SPONGE BOB SQUARE PANTS. There have also been many Disney related cases.

Copyright on the other hand only requires a certain number of changes to the physical or conceptual form of the copyrighted subject in order to allow anybody, including major corporations, to re-copyright the subject and invalidate the original copyright.

The conundrum of both, individuals using Trademark or Copyright items without the express written permission of the holder may find themselves in court at great expense to themselves, for a very,very long time. Even if they held the original trademark or copyright in the first place.

AKROS said "let's invent something stupid"

I'm not sure we can add much to any aspect of life.

OMG I'm turning into a blogger.

But it should serve as something of a caution in regard to using images and off-site plugins etc.

PS: The comment of off-site downloads refers to the inadvertent download of copyright or trademark that has not been released. Piracy indeed GnuTux.
The use of images holding copyright that are used and modified by other persons and then modified by yourself does not exemplify the use of the copyrighted image. (again subject to individual laws.)
I think I will continue to do my own pics.

Topics merged and bumped.

By all means GnuTux. It,s dangerous grounds really.

Links to plug-ins and other content, even commercial content, are free advertising and no one is going to complain about that. Links to pirated apps, movies, porn, spam and other inappropriate content is another matter and that will be policed here.

Hi to all
I use each Time when i search a Image or Background Music this Search Maschine for Copyright free Images and Music

search.creativecommons

greetings
groni

Great service, thank you for posting this useful link groni g.

No problem
All Times the Motto"not despair ask groni"(little joke)