Understanding Copyright For Artists
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 02. 2022
- In Today’s Live Broadcast at 12:05 pm I will be explaining copyright law as it pertains to artists.
If you are a visual artist it is essential that you have a basic understanding of copyright law.
Copyright legislation protects your rights for the work that you create but it also creates a huge liability if you infringe on another creator’s copyright.
I am amazed at the amount of work I see by aspiring artists that includes obvious copyright infringements. The only thing that keeps these artists from being sued is their lack of success and the lack of exposure of their work.
Should such an artist and their work become very well known then a lawsuit is likely to occur with huge potential penalties.
A fairly well known example if this ... is the lawsuit brought by the Associated Press against Artist Shephard Fairey.
Fairey used an image of Obama from a photograph taken by an AP photographer to create the iconic “Hope” image used in posters, buttons and other pro Obama paraphernalia during the presidential election.
Fairey did not have permission to use the image and was sued by the AP for copyright infringement.
In todays live broadcast I will be explaining the basics of copyright law as it pertains to artists.
I will cover what your rights are and things to beware of to prevent you from becoming the object of a copyright infringement lawsuit.
Every Wednesday at 12:05 pm I will be going live with my “Becoming A Successful Artist” show on Facebook, CZcams and Twitch.
You can watch me live or the recorded version at:
/ timpackerfinearts
To get my FREE PDF 10 Most Common Compositional Weaknesses go to
www.timpackerartacademy.com
For my FREE WEBINAR 10 Keys To Selling Your Art go to
www.aspiringartist.ca - Zábava
20:04 Tim Packer is right on point: *“In terms of artistic integrity, when you move into the realm of a professional, then you should be responsible for 100 percent of your work product …and that's also the safest way to because you're never ever gonna find yourself on the wrong side of a legal suit, and you're also never gonna find yourself being criticized ethically.”*
Thank you for this video. Have had so many people, including art instructors, give differing views on copyright and insist it wasn’t a problem so long as something was changed from the original image. You have given a very clear answer to this dilemma.
Thank you for taking in this topic. I was really uncertain and now feel better about copyright!
😊👍
52:30 *Photographing Architecture/Buildings:* Per US copyright law, architectural structures (including buildings) built on or after December 1, 1990 can be protected by copyright. The building’s copyright may be owned by the architect, property owner, and/or others.
However, you can typically photograph and sell images of US buildings and include them in art and other media if they are visible from public places, like downtown skyline scenes. You just cannot trespass on to private property to photograph or paint the building without permission.
Per 17 USC § 120(a) : “The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does NOT [emphasis] include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.”
So, if a US building can be seen from a public space, a release is generally not required.
If, however, you’re photographing a specific and iconic building, like the San Francisco’s Transamerica Pyramid, then you’ll need a release, as that building is protected with a US registered trademark. If you’re including it in a wide angle cityscape painting or photograph, then a release may not be necessary.
Thank you for discussing this problem. Yours has been the most concise answer and you clearly understand it better than other artists who have chatted about it on CZcams. I suspect your past life as a policeman has helped you fully digest the ins and outs of copyright infringement. I look forward to your next lesson 😊
😊👍🙏
54:50 *Similar-Looking and/or Simultaneously Created Artworks & Photographs:* Per US copyright law, copyright is NOT about creating “unique” works or being the first to create, post, or publish/sell on a platform, or first to register a work with the US Copyright Office. Rather, US copyright is simply about creating works of authorship that are *“independently created & include some creativity.”* It’s very possible for other people’s creative works to look similar to yours.
Consider the following scenario: My Grand Canyon vacation photographs will look very similar to those who were on my bus tour and photographing next to me. As long as my Grand Canyon photographs were *“independently”* created (I did NOT appropriate/steal them from another tourist - I’m using my own creativity to author the photographs by setting camera composition, lens selection, lighting, etc.), I’m granted an immediate & automatic US copyright. And if I choose to register those photographs with the US Copyright Office, it will issued me a copyright Certificate of Registration, EVEN if my photographs may look similar, substantially similar, or even near-identical to other photographers on my bus tour or to those registered Grand Canyon photographs in the US Copyright Office’s Public Catalog database.
The way Americans (and international creatives) help PROVE their copyright creations to a US federal judge, publishers, copyright infringers, and others, is by *“timely”* register them as an unpublished work or register them within five-years of first-publication, as that STATUTORILY grants them *“prime-facie” evidence (aka, presumptive legal proof)* of their copyright creation & ownership claims. See 17 USC § 410(c). If you’re able to register MORE quickly, either BEFORE the infringement begins OR register within three-months of FIRST-publication of the work, you can pursue statutory damages (from $750 to $30,000 and up to $150,000 for willful copyright infringement) and your attorney fees & legal costs against American infringers (at the court’s discretion). *As a general rule, infringed US works not timely registered are typically NOT enforceable for money damages.*
In the US, if you created a work independently and it looked remarkably similar to another person’s work (who also created the work independently), you BOTH would have your OWN copyright claims. See the following “photo coincidence” story: petapixel.com/2015/02/03/contest-copyright-controversy-crazy-coincidence/
Great info!!!! Thank you so very much.
I really appreciate this session's very practical information and your first hand experience in this subject really lends impact. Thx
My pleasure 😊👍
21:01 Tim Packer states (and you cannot say this any better), *“When you've made the decision that you want to become a professional, you need to act like a professional: Professionals don't copy or steal creative products from other artists.”*
18:50 *Copyright Criminal Offense:* Per US copyright law, a copyright infringer must have *WILLFULLY* infringed the creative work “for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain” that has a total retail value of more than US$1,000 (or the work was commercially distributed, like a Hollywood movie, computer software, or music). See 17 USC § 506(a)(1). Without the “willfulness” element, the copyright infringement is a US civil tort.
What about tattoos are the designs all the tattoo artists or do they use other peoples design like superhero's and disney
Dawn from New Zealand
*Copyright Registration for Canadians, EU/UK, Australians, New Zealanders, and other International Creatives:*
Just about all countries belong to the international Berne Convention (copyright treaty): www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html Berne member country artists do NOT have to register their artworks with the US Copyright Office to pursue American copyright infringers in a US federal court. HOWEVER, they can ONLY pursue *“actual damages”* (normally the missed licensing fee the US infringer should have paid the copyright owner) + the *disgorgement of profits* the infringer made (if any!) from exploiting those artwork/s, and those recovered money damages are typically *LOW* dollar amounts.
As a general rule, infringed works not *“timely”* registered with the US Copyright Office (either registered BEFORE the start of the infringement or registered WITHIN three-months of its first publication date) are NOT enforceable for money damages, as any out-of-court settlement or trial verdict will NOT cover your attorney fees - making it *un-economical* to pursue US-based copyright infringers.
If, however, your “actual damages” (money lost from the infringement) are SUBSTANTIAL and provable, like an American infringer exploited your painting prominently in its advertising campaign, on a (Campbell) soup can, on apparel/merchandise, and in other commercial media, then you may not have to have a timely copyright registration in-hand.
According to an American Intellectual Property Law Association report (2019 Report of the Economic Survey, at I-208, 2019, www.aipla.org/.../2019-report-of-the-economic-survey), *the average cost to litigate a copyright infringement action is US$397,000* (I believe that’s from trial to appeal). *So, unless your wealthy, you’d better have timely registered your copyright claims to have a chance to pursue money damages against US-based infringers.*
This short law article explains why international Berne creatives, and *especially those who are licensing, selling, distributing, or sharing their works in the US,* should timely register their copyrights with the US Copyright Office (just replace the word “companies” with “artists, painters, writers, illustrators, photographers, etc.”: donahue.com/resources/publications/copyrights-registered-u-s/
If you’re located outside the US and you don’t want to pursue money damages against a US copyright infringer - you just want the infringer to remove your artwork from its web and/or social media sites - you can file a free *DMCA “Take-Down Notice”* against the US infringer’s ISP: copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-is-dmca-takedown-notice-process/ If, however, the American infringer challenges your infringement and files a “Counter-Notice,” you’ll likely have to sue the American infringer in a United States federal court (or in the pending small-claims copyright court, aka, the *“Copyright Claims Board” (CCB)* that’s scheduled to be operational in summer 2022; see ccb.gov/).
*At the end of the day, international creatives MUST timely register their works with the US Copyright Office to have any real chance to obtain money damages against American-based infringers.*
I understand that emails are admissible in court as evidence so would an email granting permission be the same as a signature by both parties?
You would meet to check the relevant legislation and case law for whatever country(s) are involved.
21:34: Per US copyright law: An infringed work MUST be *“timely’* registered (i.e., registered BEFORE the infringement begins or registered WITHIN three-months of its first-date of publication) with the US Copyright Office for the copyright owner to be able to pursue statutory money damages (from US$750 to US$30,000 and up to US$150,000) and attorney fees and legal costs against the US-based copyright infringer. *The award of attorney fees to the copyright owner is NOT automatic, but rather, it’s at the court’s discretion (the court will tend to issue attorney fees against WILLFUL copyright infringers).*
He is NOT in the US. He said at the beginning of the video, that he is living in Toronto, Canada! So, go research your own laws. We are near because we’re CANADIAN! We have our own laws. We are not some appendage of your nightmarish country, dear!
So there's a film that is in the public domain. I wanted to do art based on one of the movie stills of one of the characters in this movie and sell some prints. Is that legal or will I need to find the actors estate to ask permission?
You should get permission from all stakeholders... actor, production company etc
Missed it again! But at least I can watch it now.
Hello and thank you for this information, just curious about animals, can we freely paint the animals we see in a zoo or do we need permission? What about images we see on google maps.
If you take a photo or paint from real life at the zoo, obviously you can do it. Google maps photos are not taken by you, so you have no right to ise ot in any way. You can also paint buildings you didn’t build, but took a picture of or painted it on location.
What's the deal with bits of magazine used for collage?
depends how much is used and how it is used. If it is a major part. of the import of the piece it could be a breach... also if the copyright holder takes exception to how it is used it could be a breach. In. that case if suit is launched it is ultimately up to a judge or a jury to decide.
One exception to reference photos would be historical photos. I feel it's acceptable to use photos from government archives or ones which have passed the 70 year limit. Drawing Abraham Lincoln from life is impossible. Simply drawing an exact copy of an old photo is legal, but adding your own twist is artistically preferable.
I forgot photo copyright began in 1976.
😊👍
@@lisah336 If you're addressing USA copyright: The 1976 Copyright Act went into effect on January 1, 1978. If a work was officially and first-published before 1927, it’s in the US Public Domain. NASA and other US government-created photographs are not eligible for copyright protection (see 17 USC § 105).
Better get into a habit of taking your own photos. Not need to steal! Plus, some historical artworks are protected! You need to verify, if in fact the art is copyright free in each case. Why try to steal??? Why?! Not enough photography skills, or you just WANT to commit crime? Seriously, do not steal!
Great discussion! Can you take the form of a thing, boats sailing generic representative class put it on a different location with switched places relative to others? I also wanted a view from behind a lighthouse. Found pictures showing the back but aimed to the sides. Didn't have the far ground landscape at all. Used satellite images to orient everything and cad 3D model to create a outline perspective drawing. Are these mine?
It all depends on how much of someone else’s copyrighted material you used.. and whether a reasonable person could recognize that person’s ip in your work.
The only way to know for sure if you are ok... Is if you are sued... and then a judge or jury will decide.
That’s why Best practice is not to use copyrighted material for reference.
Don’t steal other people’s pictures for your painting ideas, go find a lighthouse and take your own photo. If art is your HOBBY, you can use any materials. If you sell, can’t steal!
Hi from Wyoming
I have a poster of Emmit Kelly that he gave my wife when visiting the hospital. Can I do an oil painting of that?
You can do it for your own enjoyment or for learning purposes but nothing else without the permission of his estate until the rights to his likeness expire... also the photographer or artist who created the image of him on the poster.
Lesley living expat life in Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦
Too dry there for watercolours I bet.
Is it copyright infringement if you photograph and paint someone’s random house?
Not very likely😊
No, house is erect in public and has zero expectations of privacy. Yes, you can use your own photo as a reference.
How do the paparazzi get away with photos of famous people?
"Reporting" or journalism is an exception to the copyright rules. You can sell an image of a celebrity to a publication for zillions of bucks if they are "reporting" on the celebrities behaviour. But you can't sell prints to the public of that same image.👍
I enjoyed this video. But technically speaking, wouldn't this mean absolutely all and any form of digital or film work is copyright infringement? Vehicles, buildings, clothing, furniture and etc are all copyright protected. Thus technically wouldn't you need permission in all situations, possibly from an infinite amount of sources, to record an image or film? Agreed that the intended use for most photos isn't putting anyone at risk of copyright infringement, but recent trends has shown an increasing amount of people moving to social media and earning income as a social influencer.
A lot of things you mentioned are not covered by copyright... but by trademark and patent law... different laws with different rules👍
@@timpackerfinearts makes sense