February 26, 2010
Our own sad story. A few months ago, the Dear Rich Staff modified (perhaps 'transformed' would be a better verb) a clip art image and used it at our blog. A few weeks later, we got a letter from a lawyer representing the clip art owner demanding a bunch of money (at least enough to buy a couple of kayaks) or face a lawsuit. Fortunately, we made enough noise about fair use to keep the lawyers away (although of course, the statute of limitations hasn't run on that one). But the message is clear -- don't assume that clip art is free to use or modify.
Understanding the Terminology. The terms clip art, public domain art, royalty-free art, and copyright-free art are often used interchangeably (and confusingly). So here's a primer:
Clip art is a general term used to refer to any artwork that is available in a collection, either in a book or on a computer disk. Clip art may be in the public domain or royalty-free.
Public domain art is not protected by copyright. Many publishers, such as Dover Books, specialize in offering collections of public domain art. You are free to copy and use the individual artwork in a public domain collection without permission. However, you are not free to copy and sell the collection.
Royalty-free art is protected under copyright law and cannot be used for free. However, once you buy the CD-ROM or pay for access to a website that contains royalty-free artwork, your license to use the images is largely unlimited, so you can usually use the works numerous times for a broad range of uses. Use for merchandising -- putting the image on a t-shirt -- or some commercial endorsements -- using the image in a magazine ad -- may not be allowed -- a major exception to the rule that you can use royalty-free images any way you like.
Copyright-free art is the most confusing terminology. Some people use it to refer to public domain artwork; others use it to refer to royalty-free artwork. Often, it's used to describe artwork that websites offer for free to the public -- whether the works are public domain works or royalty-free works. We think it's a meaningless term.
Creative Commons artwork.To be on the safe side, clip art users might want to consider filtering their image search by using the Creative Commons image search filter (that's how we found "Sad Cat" by Peter M., above). And check the license to see if it fits your purposes.
Long story short. The other day we were at Cafe Trieste on their very long line and the guy in front of us was telling an acquaintance a very long story and at least three times, he said, 'Long story short,' and had we had less frontal lobe control, we might have said, "Dude, how can it be 'long story short,' you've already gone on for, like, ten minutes?" Ennyway, if an advertiser is providing you with artwork, you might want to get a warranty or indemnity in your agreement and if necessary, have them furnish you with evidence (terms of use, license, etc.) that they have permission to use the art.
February 24, 2010
Anyway, aside from our problems with over-sized four-legged animals, you had a question (or questions). Okay, here goes: (1) Generally, if you own the copyright (or trademark) on the merchandise, you control who can reproduce it. So, the woman who works for you wouldn't have any rights to reproduce the horse art. If you're still concerned, you can prevent the worker from competing against you by having her sign a written agreement that states she can't sell your designs. If your designs are not protectable under either copyright or trademark law (see below), that agreement may be hard to enforce. (2) We're not sure that #2, above, is a question so we can't help you with the company or explain how they do business. You should ask them about their terms and then compare them with competitors. We assume you're aware of online merchandising sources like Zazzle and Cafe Press. (3) A license is a form of permission -- in which you allow somebody to exploit property you own in return for a payment, usually in the form of a royalty. It can be a great way to do business because the company doing the licensing (the "licensee") will often police and protect your work as well. You can read more about it in this handy Nolo form kit on the subject.
Short phrase thing. You will have a hard time stopping others from using your short phrases (by themselves) since they're not protected under copyright law. We've talked about this a few times in the past and we're paranoid about boring our readers with more on the subject. You can always protect those phrases when used in association with a graphic -- that is you can stop others from copying the combination. You may be able to register each phrase as a trademark for use with T-shirts and similar merchandise. However, that's a little bit of a financial investment as each phrase will require a separate registration for each class of goods. Tally ho!
December 3, 2009
For more information on copyright-free content, check out Stephen Fishman's book The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
November 5, 2009
Dear Rich: I am creating a computer program that requires a lot of line art. I found a series of books ('Scan This Book', 'Scan This Book Two', and, of course, 'Scan This Book Three') that display excellent public domain line art. The legalese at the beginning of the book states that all of the art is copyright free, but that the selection and layout is copyrighted. My program has nothing to do with distributing clip art, and I do not need to use the layouts used in the books. If I were to use most of the art from these books, would I be infringing on the author's/publisher's copyright? Would it matter if I slightly altered the images by coloring them? Would it matter if I combined their selection of images with other public domain images? The short answer is that you're fine copying the material in the book. Like all-you-can-eat restaurants, owners of public domain collections don't mind how much you digest, they just don't want you taking all their stuff and selling it somewhere else. Assuming your software product is not created to sell public domain art, there's no reason to bother with any of your other questions.
Copyright Rules. As you know, you can do whatever you want with public domain artwork. However, under copyright law, the owners of the book may have a compilation copyright. We say "may" because compiling public domain works doesn't automatically amount to a compilation copyright. There must be sufficient creativity in the judgment, selection and arrangement of the public domain material -- for example, "The Best American Stories from the 19th Century" or "Sketches of Victorian Kitchens" are probably protectable because they require decision-making and selections. Even if the book constitutes a copyrightable collection, that copyright is still regarded as being "thin" -- meaning that you would need to lift nearly all of the thing "as is" to infringe it. Public domain compilers such as Dover are primarily concerned with someone taking their material and competing with them. In summary, if you are using the public domain material for aesthetic or decorative purposes and not redistributing the artwork for re-use or re-sale, you're free to do whatever you want.
BTW. The Dear Rich Staff believes that the Scan This Book series is out of print (we couldn't find new copies available online and we couldn't locate the publisher Art Direction Book Company). That doesn't mean nobody will assert copyright; but it does indicate that it's not at the forefront of a publisher's radar.
To learn more about public domain, see Stephen Fishman's book The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
October 23, 2009
Dear Rich: I am an artist studying the use of corporate mascots such as the Trix rabbit. One of the main points in my thesis is the lack of freedom in discussing the mascots used to sell products to children (and the danger that poses). As part of my exploration of the topic I am creating artworks made out of these mascots, cutting up toys and making sculpture from the pieces. I am doing this for my Masters degree and may continue onto a Ph.D. I have some questions. Am I infringing copyright if I: (1) show the work at my degree show? (2) show the work in a commercial gallery? (3) publish images of the work in a commercial book (4) make drawings or paintings of the works and publish these commercially? or (5) were to claim they were produced in art therapy sessions would they count as informational?
I understand that I would be allowed to reproduce these animal mascots for informational purposes, for example in a textbook or news article. (6) Does the exception only apply to reproductions of the mascots as they are? I noticed, for example, that someone had been prosecuted for putting Barbie and Ken dolls in lewd positions and photographing them. (7) Is there any way around this problem such as publishing in a country with no laws on copyright or publishing anonymously? I feel very passionately about this topic and would be willing to consider creating the artworks as anonymous graffiti if necessary.
NIMBY Please. The Dear Rich Staff feels your passion but prefaces this response with one request - if you are going to take the graffiti route, could you please avoid tagging our street. (We live in the outer Richmond District in San Francisco, a few blocks from the Walgreens). We've got this law in the city that requires the residents to remove graffiti within 30 days and frankly we're tired of using toxic cleaning products and paint.
You Have Quesitons. Your letter included seven questions and to avoid exceeding the short attention span of our loyal readership, we're going to try and keep our answers brief. As for questions 1 and 2, yes you are infringing, but you have a powerful fair use argument and are not likely to be discovered by anyone who might care. Re: question 3 and 4, yes, you are infringing and commercial uses make the fair use arguments a tougher sell. Still, the trend is to permit this type of use and we think you will likely qualify under a fair use defense (which by the way means you may have to defend yourself in court).
You're in Art Therapy. As for question 5, you got us with this one. We understand art therapy and its implications and we're fascinated by the argument that copying someone's work is a transformative use (as required for a fair use defense). Alas, we believe that while you are being transformed by the therapy, the underlying work is not. On that basis (and with no caselaw to support our position), we don't think the art-therapy-as-fair-use argument will fly.
Informational Uses and Trademarks. In question 6, you ask about informational uses. Here you're confusing copyrights and trademarks, a common error since mascots function as both. The "informational" issue relates to use as a trademark. All of your potential uses appear to be informational since you are using these images to make editorial statements. As for making Barbi and Ken do lewd things, that's a whole other issue we'll address in another blog. In any case, we understand that everyone can go through an I-hate-my-Barbie phase.
The Land of No Copyright. As for question 7, we think you're imagining an off-shore world where you can infringe to your heart's content. The reality is that if your work is sold or distributed in the U.S., you can be sued for infringement here, as can any retailer offering your work. If you're a U.S. citizen that makes it even easier to go after you. So unless you're planning to move somewhere where the residents have set up servers with infringing or illegal content (often a country that ends with the suffix, "stan"), then you will be a target for lawsuits.
Some Random Thoughts. In a surprising cross-species mascot switcheroo, we were surprised to learn that Trix was once promoted by stick figures and Mickey Mouse.
To learn more about trademark and copyright law, take a look at my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark Law: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
October 16, 2009
For information about all types of copyright law, see my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
October 8, 2009
Dear Rich: I am a television producer who would love to use the work of the Danish painter Carl Bloch within a project of mine. Bloch was born on May 23, 1834 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
I'm sure his work is in public domain and out of copyright but would I have to pay any kind of royalties or fees to anyone to broadcast his paintings on television.You are correct. Bloch's work is in the public domain. Danish copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years and Bloch died in 1890. You should not have to pay a fee for the right to broadcast the paintings on a television program, however you may have to pay a fee to acquire access to the paintings -- for example, some museums require photographic access fees or fees for the right to use photographic reproductions prepared especially for the museum. Note, as we have indicated in previous posts, there is no copyright in a slavish photo reproduction of a public domain painting.
If the work is in the public domain, why is there a copyright notice on Bloch's painting (above)? Establishments such as the Hope Gallery earn revenue by selling reproductions of public domain works and probably include the copyright notice with the intention of discouraging competitors and tracking copying on the Internet (such as performed here by the Dear Rich Staff). We suppose we could remove the notice (since copyright law prohibits the placement of false copyright notices (See 506(c)) but we're too busy packing up personal belongings to mess with Photoshop right now. (By the way copyright law prohibits the fraudulent removal of notices as well (see 506(d).)
To learn more about the public domain of works, check out Stephen Fishman's The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
October 5, 2009
Still Lifes. As for your "still life" concept, the safest course is to get permission for the book cover art. At the same time, if someone says no, or you can't locate the owner, you can probably get by without permission. You have a strong argument that your work is transformative and constitutes fair use. BTW, the Dear Rich Staff isn't sure what you mean when you write of using "artwork by artists who illustrated the book(s)." If you have their permission for the additional art, great. Otherwise, you might be pushing the fair use boundaries by reproducing non-cover illustrations.
Trademark and titles. Single book titles are rarely protected -- that's why your brown bag approach is okay. However, Harry Potter, because it's a series, is federally registered and Warner Brothers owns the rights for calendars (Reg. No.3419797). For that reason, you might not want to use Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix on your cover, packaging or advertising. That also puts you in a better position to argue that your internal use of Harry Potter is editorial and non-infringing ... should the issue arise.
To find out more about permissions of all types, check out my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
September 21, 2009
Want to know how to determine what's in the public domain? Take a look at Stephen Fishman's The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
September 2, 2009
August 24, 2009
The Kinko's Kondondrum
The Dear Rich Staff refers to your situation as the Kinko's Konondrum -- so named because we once faced this exact situation at a Kinko's (before they were FedExKinko's ... er, FedExOffice) and we tried to explain to the clerk behind the counter that we were the author of a book on copyright and that yes, our use was permissible even though we did not have permission. The clerk wasn't interested in our claims and we couldn't blame him. (This was a few years after Kinko's had lost a fair use case over coursepack copying). In the end, we lied to get the job done. We do not advise you to lie and wish you the best in dealing with your moral dilemma. BTW, we hope you like our artistic take on Mary's hat throw -- we call it 'Love is All Around.'
Learn about licensing with my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
August 19, 2009
Why We Get Depressed
Nothing personal, but the idea of someone hijacking public domain material and limiting its use depresses the Dear Rich staff -- whether it is a book publisher claiming copyright over Moby Dick or a museum trying to claim copyright over its photos of the Mona Lisa (a practice known as 'copyfraud'). And of course, whoever created that painting would really be depressed to learn -- should they return from the dead -- that someone is claiming all rights to the work. You don't want to be haunted by that possibility.
To find out more about the public domain, see Stephen Fishman's The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
August 13, 2009
July 28, 2009
What's the First Sale Doctrine?
The first sale doctrine guarantees you the right "to sell or otherwise dispose" of your books, movies and music, etc. But in two California cases, (Mirage and Greenwich Workshop) federal courts ruled that ripping out images from a book and reselling them in frames is not permitted under the first sale doctrine because the seller has created derivative works. A New York court seemed to agree with the California rulings, although that case involved a company that bought posters and then resold them after making them appear like oil paintings on canvas.
The Trouble with the California Cases
The trouble with the California cases is their theory about derivative works. Copyright scholar Melville Nimmer disagreed with it and some courts do not seem to follow it. One court said that sticking something in a frame is a "mundane" act (don't tell that to these people) and doesn't demonstrate the minimum level of creativity required to create a derivative work. An Illinois case (Deck the Walls) held that the practice of cracking open a box of notecards and mounting them on tiles was permissible under the first sale doctrine (a ruling supported by a Texas case, C.M. Paula Co. v. Logan, cited by the Supreme Court).
What Should You Do?
In summary, you are likely to be headed for a problem if sued in California (or the 9th Circuit). In other parts of the country, it's murkier. Copyright owners may threaten a lawsuit but not file, concerned they could set a bad precedent. One thing seems certain, you will always be more of a target if you are selling a lot of works by a particular artist -- for example, the collected works of Patrick Nagel vs. a collection of cubist art. And of course many works are in the public domain and you are free to reproduce those without any concerns about the pesky first sale doctrine.
July 17, 2009
Dear Rich: I am an artist and was recently approached by a woman who wants to use one of my images on t-shirts. She has proposed a simple arrangement doing 24 shirts at a time. As she sells out of one batch, she will make another 24. This is not a million dollar transaction but I have no idea how to respond to it. How do I know what the going rate is? The short answer is that artists get anywhere between 5 to 20% (or more) of the revenue generated by the shirt. It depends on the demand, the size of the print run and your bargaining power. Sometimes the royalty is paid only after costs are deducted; sometimes it is straight off the top. Some online T-shirt merchants even let the artist set the royalty.
Beyond the Royalty
You should also ask yourself a few questions. Is the amount of money coming in worth your time and energy? What if you're not satisfied with the quality of the reproduction? Will the arrangement preclude you from other more lucrative deals? Do you have any reason to believe the t-shirt maker is not a trustworthy business person? If you have any doubts, it's probably a good idea to make the initial term of the agreement short, perhaps six months to a year (you can always renew). And it's best to keep it nonexclusive as well (you can always amend it later). And as they say in the music business, don't do a handshake deal, get some paper. Below is a sample short form t-shirt license taken from Getting Permission (written by the Dear Rich staff). Explanations for the agreement and a much more detailed long- form merchandise agreement can be found in the book, as well. And of course, make sure your artwork doesn't cross over into personality rights,trademarks, or otherwise illegal content. (click to download: T-Shirt License Agreement (Short Form))
