Show Posts
1
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Sued by Cartoon Stock for One Image On Website - but variation of theirs
« on: April 01, 2015, 07:24:30 AM »
I do copyright advocacy protection for artists. I also work for syndicated cartoonist who has won many awards, in hundreds of newspapers and has books, greeting cards and calendars. You might think that he makes a lot of money from the above but most of the money that he makes is from selling the rights to use his work for other people's projects, newsletters, church flyers, presentations, facebook pages, etc.
Selling the reprint usage rights is how he earns income to support his family. When you use his image or any image found on the web, you are in many cases stealing the usage rights from the creator.
In 1976 copyright law was changed so that registration wasn't required but if registered, if used, the copyright owner can sue the person who used the cartoon without permission and recoup all legal fees and the infringer can be fined up to $150,000 per incident.
Unless you know for a fact that the image was created in the 1800's you may be using an image that is under copyright protection. (There is more to the various laws but I don't want to bog down this post.)
If the creator has attributed a Creative Commons license to the cartoon, you may more freely use the images as long as you provide the attribution that the creator requested but buyer beware - Often people will strip away identifying information and "pretend it was their creation".
Additionally, after 1978, creative works were no longer required to have the copyright notice on the image to be copyrighted. You really need to assume all images are under copyright. Google images has no claim to any of the images found during searches and in fact are indemnified from copyright infringement by the Digital Millennium Digital Act but this does not protect the actual user.
Using other people's creations is not a victimless crime. Every time someone uses an image without paying the artist's usage fees, it diminished the value of the image.
CartoonStock is a business and it represents artists who are trying to earn a living and support themselves. [
b]If you don't want to pay to use an image then don't use the image. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. [/b] You wouldn't expect a grocery store to give you free food so why do people think using other people's creations is ok?
As an artist, I was surprised that you were unaware of copyright law but there's a difference between selling original artwork vs the image of the artwork.
For the cartoonist I represent, I try to take a more gentle approach to copyright infringers that are of personal use vs corporate or non-profit organizations but I do send out notices. For corporate and non-profit organizations, I send out bills too.
And there is a great misunderstand of what is considered "fair use" of an image. Just because you are not a commercial entity doesn't mean you automatically fall under fair use. There are four factors and the majority of uses don't meet the criteria. If anyone is interested, I'll post a separate comment about fair use.
Respectfully a person who earns her living selling an artist's usage rights.
Selling the reprint usage rights is how he earns income to support his family. When you use his image or any image found on the web, you are in many cases stealing the usage rights from the creator.
In 1976 copyright law was changed so that registration wasn't required but if registered, if used, the copyright owner can sue the person who used the cartoon without permission and recoup all legal fees and the infringer can be fined up to $150,000 per incident.
Unless you know for a fact that the image was created in the 1800's you may be using an image that is under copyright protection. (There is more to the various laws but I don't want to bog down this post.)
If the creator has attributed a Creative Commons license to the cartoon, you may more freely use the images as long as you provide the attribution that the creator requested but buyer beware - Often people will strip away identifying information and "pretend it was their creation".
Additionally, after 1978, creative works were no longer required to have the copyright notice on the image to be copyrighted. You really need to assume all images are under copyright. Google images has no claim to any of the images found during searches and in fact are indemnified from copyright infringement by the Digital Millennium Digital Act but this does not protect the actual user.
Using other people's creations is not a victimless crime. Every time someone uses an image without paying the artist's usage fees, it diminished the value of the image.
CartoonStock is a business and it represents artists who are trying to earn a living and support themselves. [
b]If you don't want to pay to use an image then don't use the image. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. [/b] You wouldn't expect a grocery store to give you free food so why do people think using other people's creations is ok?
As an artist, I was surprised that you were unaware of copyright law but there's a difference between selling original artwork vs the image of the artwork.
For the cartoonist I represent, I try to take a more gentle approach to copyright infringers that are of personal use vs corporate or non-profit organizations but I do send out notices. For corporate and non-profit organizations, I send out bills too.
And there is a great misunderstand of what is considered "fair use" of an image. Just because you are not a commercial entity doesn't mean you automatically fall under fair use. There are four factors and the majority of uses don't meet the criteria. If anyone is interested, I'll post a separate comment about fair use.
Respectfully a person who earns her living selling an artist's usage rights.