"anyhow...i never referred to anything regarding claiming copyright of a work. in fact, most of the individuals submitting to deviantart, who use copyrighted images in photo manipulations, are not creating for the purpose of copyrighting their work. they are merely creating derivative works. therefore, people are authorized to use images according to this document.
"

Then why does Devart slap a copyright statment under them?



Damn, Jark, can you not read?

United States Copyright Office's FAQ, states that:

"
Q:How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?

A:Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14.
"

You cannot, cannot, cannot! make a work based on other people's without permission, regardless of how much you change it.

The fact was, someone asked a serious, sincere question about whether or not he should take an image of Aaliyah to make a DestopX object. I told him the truth, that he is not allowed to. You butted-in, quickly made a couple of quotes about 'fair-use' and 'derivative works', and wandered off. I'm offended, and frankly dismayed that you are responsible for a site the size of Devart with as little understanding as you showed in that situation, both of copyright law and how to deal with people.

Had you read the next Q&A in the FAQ you would have seen that what you quoted was referring secondary copyrights on one's own work. Had you read the linked circular, you would have seen that your reference to 'fair use' isn't valid, because 'skins' fall well outside any existing definition of it. They are not scholarly work, or journalism, or incidental inclusion, or even parody.

You can say that I have only have 'half a clue', but you are wrong, and it was utterly irresponsible to wing-it when someone was sincerely trying to decide whether or not to break the law. I called you an ass because you were being an ass. It is no wonder you take such a soft stance on what you think are 'derivative works' at Devart.

aaaaaaaah it's about copyright again....are these international rules or US copywrite rules? It's a pity it all comes down to this issue. About money...We should enjoy all that is made, whether it is a home, car, airplane, painting, skin, humans....

bakerstreet: deviantART places a copyright statement underneath each deviation simply because that is a small form of protection. granted, people that do not care will not bother with it and still rip regardless of the "(c) 2002 blah" being there or not. the fact is that we did that in an attempt to help thwart ripping. merely because we add that there does not mean that the image is in fact, legally speaking, copyright to that individual. copyright law obviously takes precedence over our simple brandishing.

and damn you, yes i can read. is that not obvious yet? heh. stop with the petty insignificants please!

"You cannot, cannot, cannot! make a work based on other people's without permission, regardless of how much you change it."

yes you can can can! the quote that you have merely states that you are not authorized to claim copyright of the derivative work unless the original author(s) have granted permission.

i read it all otherwise i would not have commented. heh. do you not understand that much?

i was not being an ass. i was merely debating with you. do not attempt to lable me as having a soft stance on derivative works when that is far from the case. realizing that we have had a lawyer well versed in copyright law guide us on our policies i think it is fair to say that we are well covered.

...and for god sakes, stop taking punk ass pot shots and keep to the discussion at hand with at least an ounce of decency please.

If I understand Jark correctly, he is saying that if someone else's work is modified heavily enough, and if you don't claim a copyright on it yourself, you can distribute it as "derivative" to your heart's content.

That doesn't explain this quote from the US Copyright circular 14:

"WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-
pare,or to authorize someone else to create,a new version
of that work."

I mentioned it earlier in the thread in response to his argument, but he is ignoring it. I dunno why. What he is referring to as "photo manipulations" are simply people stealing other people's work.

Anyhoo, it doesn't matter how much you change something, or whether or not you claim it is yours, you simply cannot give other people's stuff away. No matter how hard you try and believe it, you can't make laws up off the top of your head.

Fine, I apologize for being personal about it, but you broke in on a conversation and told someone basically that I was wrong, and they could take images they didn't own and make DX objects out of them. You were wrong, are wrong, and sadly, unrepentantly wrong.

Anyhoo, If I hit below the belt, I take it back, I certainly didn't need to.

I thought that copyright was only given if the maker has presented it as an item for copyright? So whatever you will put underneath, C or no C, if you can't present the the copyright granted paper you have no copyright. Or is that wrong?

it's not about money lecrayon. copyright is about someone else taking credit for my work. or your work. or davinci's work. it's been around a long time. copying art used to be called forgery. it was illegal then, hundreds of years ago, and it's illegal now.

people have forged picassos and rembrandts and been put in jail for it. jim morrison took parts of a kinks song and made another hit - and ray davies sued him and won.

man, even in high school art classes copying something gets no respect. taking something of someone else's and modifying it a bit here and there is only slightly more respectable. i just can't believe this. have things changed so much? we didn't even get to concerns like 'is it legal' because everybody just thought it was lame.

i remember so many times when somebody would offer up something 'based on an album cover' or on some poster. it got laughed out. celebrity images? sure, i remember one guy who did a full size head sculpture of gene simmons in full makeup - it was awesome. he did it from 'scratch.' if anybody thought he'd copied it from somewhere, it would have been ridiculed and discounted.

it just boggles my mind why this is so tough. if you copied it, it's lame. period. the only thing i can think of is that people are so desperate to be 'talented' that they want to try to defend a little skill with copy/paste and image retouching as artistic talent. give me a break. if you can create, awesome, go for it. if you don't think you're any good, practice. if you can't get anywhere with art, then just enjoy it. simple.

lecrayon - you don't have to present it to anybody. if you made it, it's yours, and no one can legally mess with it. it's a lot different than a patent

Is that so? So if I put a "C" underneath my work it is copyrighted?

To sum up the last few hours:

bakerstreet's point:

"You cannot, cannot, cannot! make a work based on other people's without permission, regardless of how much you change it. United States Copyright Office's FAQ, states that:

"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14."
"

jark's point:
"yes you can can can! the quote that you have merely states that you are not authorized to claim copyright of the derivative work unless the original author(s) have granted permission."

bakerstreet's rebuttal:

"US Copyright circular 14:

"WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-
pare,or to authorize someone else to create,a new version
of that work."

If I don't get some sleep my eyeballs are going to roll out of my head... bbl if i can summon up the self-loathing...

Hey I am trying to understand this. You must have a license as far as I know to show your work is copyrighted. It has to be declared and put in writing, eg writers sell sometimes their copyright for a book and get royalties in return. Everything is neatly done in writing and signing. I wonder if you put a "C" under your work, your work is legally "C". Can someone make this clear if it isn't so.

seems to me a Jafo question..Jafo? can you help?

Lecrayon, you don't even have to put a (C). You own everything that you create, and it's by default copyrighted to you. Theoretically, even the emails you send are. ANYTHING that you create is.
If you want to make it public domain, and allow everybody to use, modify and distribute it, then you can write a notice defining it so.

Most web sites place a copyright notice because most people imagine that if the (C) isn't there, then there are no right. But legally, the (C) doesn't have to be there.

Now, that is strange...can you show me where that is legally said? Default copyright? Is it Us law, or international law?

i never once mentioned distribution of derivative work. do not attempt to mangle my words in to something that they are not, in an attempt to further your cause.

think about it bakerstreet. ANYONE can create derivative works of something. you could do it to ANYTHING without permission at all. do you realize how absurd it would be if one had to obtain permission each and every time they wanted to merely create a derivative work of something?

Q: How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?

A: Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14.

the first sentence is a little misleading due to its wording. it is meant in the context for the claim of copyright not in the context of creating a derivative work. anyone is free to create derivative works for personal use without every worrying about contacting the owner for permission.

so when you say, "You cannot, cannot, cannot! make a work based on other people's without permission, regardless of how much you change it," that is completely untrue. You can can can so long as it is for personal use and/or not distributed.

to answer lecrayon: anything you create is copyrighted. you dont need the (c) for it to be copyrighted and do not need to register with the copyright office either. all registration with the copyright office does is afford one the ability to utilize legal tactics in order to reclaim any "damage" done by a copyright violator.

...time for sleep for me.

reading the dutch law 2000 now

It's somewhat international, under the Berne Convention. It's only applicable to the countries that signed the convention. The convention states that any creation is copyrighted. The convention does not mention anything about writting a copyright notice for it to be protected:
Article 2, paragraph 1:
"The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science."

If you want, you can read the convention yourself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

BTW, members of the Union that signed the Berne convention are (may be incomplete, new countries sign the treaty regularely):
Albania
Algeria
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Holy See
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Namibia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Republic of Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Senegal
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Thailand
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United Republic of Tanzania
United States of America
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yugoslavia
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Much appreciated, thanks Paxx Comparing this with our law from 1912 which is renewed in 2000 and still find old dutch writing

No need to compare. They're right. One of the few things I learned in school. The only reason to have your copyright registered is so that you have some ind of proof that you made it. But an alternative method is to send it to yourself via mail (or more specifically, in Dutch it's called 'aangetekende post').

yes, thats what I was talking about. I always thought you had to proof it's your work. Whether you register it or otherwise. Never thought it was by default. Gosh...Thanks crae, the eyes and mind got boggled after chapter 3

proof as in prove..

Sorry, Lecrayon....'real life'[tm] got in the way....but paxx answered you...

The word 'copyright', often mis-quoted as 'copywrite' encompasses a quite simple concept.....

The 'right' of 'copy'...that is, who has or retains the right to 'copy' something.

Now, fortunately for us all, and for the rest of the world, 'fair use' allows for our personal enjoyment of a copyrighted object [something created by another person], so yes, jark, we are all free to manipulate, plagiarise, modify, alter, filter-puke, whatever in the privacy of our own home, where there is no public redistribution of this 'altered' object under another's name, with, or without permission.

The proverbial hits the fan when this private 'modification' goes public via being published or broadcast via sites such as ours/yours.

What frustrates me the most is that I spent a heck of a lot of time and energy specifically at DA in a 'news item' about copyright theft and ripping....but so many people obviously took no heed at all, preferring to follow the 'interpretation' of the Law that most suited their site's existence.
I even uploaded a 'manipulation' to exemplify the whole issue...it was a clear graphic done by another...it was clearly altered...it was uploaded in 'educational 'fair-use'...AND it was reasonably 'obscured' to prevent unintentional/unlawful download [distribution] of another's property.
But to many the point was lost...

Put me in a position of responsibility for upload/content, and I see a 'Britney' wall and it's gone...no questions asked. If [and it's a BIG 'IF'] the 'artist' comes back complaining that he's Britney's brother so that's how he got the pic, whatever, then maybe it 'might' be accepted.
I see no harm in this tactic....it's exactly what every skin/wall artist here at Wincustomize would expect from his/her site admins.....dilligent protection of THEIR property rights.


I have a WinAMP skin I'd love to upload...but cannot....why?...because I am yet to receive permission for the few bitmaps that were 'extracted' from another's wall, even though I do have permission from that same artist, same wall, different 'skin'.
This is just me, protecting an artist's rights....because I am one, too, and expect/demand the same from my peers.

I think a few people would do well to read that old news item...it's the one that 'started' the whole copyright-issue-thing at DA....and lose that Lawyer...they are always preoccupied with what's 'between' the lines to actually heed what's said IN them...

thanks Jafo for your time

Just for the record, 'copyright' is often confused with 'licensing'(or izzat licencing?).
Copyright protects an individual's work.
Both seem to benefit the so-called 'legal profession' in the long run.

a lot of people say a lot of bad things about lawyers, and i'm sure they're right. however, if it wasn't for our lawyer, we would have been stuck in the crackhouse apartment we were in. and we would have been sued into oblivion when we moved out.

sorry, off-topic...