The greatest artwork ever

[Downfall]

So you obviously are addicted to those little furballs...

Yes he is, and I'm too, but you knew that already...

 

[Rei Toei]

from the deepest abysses of boredom, here's my two cents on copyright

@windom pearl:
the first thing to do whenever you want/need an authorization to use copyrighted material for commercial purposes is finding out who own the rights. that is, more precisely, the person/organization/whatever that actually has the authority to grant permission to use that material.
when asking permission (ie. a license), you should describe clearly what the final destination of that material would be, how long you'd intend to use it, etc.
usually, big companies ask for many warranties and set very strict conditions of use, so that i warmly suggest you to consult a lawyer specialized in licensing/copyright matters, if you really want to use such a popular image as cd cover, because license agreements are contracts and they must be studied carefully to avoid any possible conflicts between the parties.
oh, and be prepared to waste a lot of money, of course

@shade:
generally speaking, the same rules apply when using copyrighted material on the net, because the simple fact that the copyright owner ignores the existence of not authorized reproductions of his works doesn't eliminate liability for copyright infringement. copyright laws protect materials whether the owner cares about protection or not, keep this in mind.
however, some distinctions can be made when using material for non-commercial/fair use (on personal web pages, for example), and it rarely happens to see an ordinary user punished for copyright infringment. anyway, to avoid misunderstandings, at least you might want to put a copyright disclaimer on your site and give proper credit to the author of the material whenever you know who they are.

useless note: i hate liquorice

 

[rahvin]

copyright laws protect materials whether the owner cares about protection or not, keep this in mind.

actually, not at all.
copyright infringement is a civil action in both europe and the states. and since russia, singapore, china and the likes have next to no copyright regulations, it's extremely unlikely that, say, lex talionis is appliable for the case in point.
a civil action means the breach of law cannot be verified and prosecuted automatically by the public authority: the legitimate owner needs to file a lawsuit and offer proof of economical loss - of any kind - in order for the bothersome activity to cease and, in case, for him to be refunded.
this is why freeware material has technically no chance to be awarded protection over the net, as long as its qualities of "being free" and the identity of the author are preserved intact.

to cut a long and boring story short, i think it is safe to say that you can put that pic anywhere you like on the internet, as long as (i) you don't claim you did it; (ii) you specify that "all material is the copyright of the respective owners"; (iii) you do not evidently alter the characteristics of the pic and still claim it's the original.
specifically:

i. is a remote chance anyway, plus you say that's a popular drawing so you don't need to write "I DID NOT DO THIS!" all in capitals.

ii. is a simple disclaimer, and you in no way need to find out the name, marital status and home address of the actual owner. that is really ludicrous as it would be so impractical that people had to do a long research for every single thing, and somehow figuring out by themselves which among a bazillion manufacturers is the real owner of the rights of each brand name.

iii. just stick to the safe concept of not claiming anything false and it's gonna be alright. never care about using copyrighted material in a hyper-critical, potentially offensive context. you can do it. it's called freedom of expression and the corporative idea of signing a 400-furlongs long license agreement for every piece of crap a supposedly "creative" author has made still hasn't taken that away.

anyway, no one is going to sue you, no matter what you do. if you really really make a mistake and someone notices they're gonna tell you to take the material offline. unless you're sure they're wrong, you then take it offline (or change server) and everything is fine again.
the reason why companies do not take it out against "ordinary users" is not that they can't find you (they can) or they don't care (they do): it's that even if they were to take you to court you wouldn't be able to provide an amount of money that has any relevance whatsoever to them.

rahvin.

 

[DotNoir]

Ummm... Basically that is the way it works, but everybody who's done something has the rights to the material they've done. They can release art/music/anything as a free to all, but they still have the rights to that thing.

Even thought people don't care about the copyrights, they do still excist. Period.

 

[rahvin]

Ummm... Basically that is the way it works, but everybody who's done something has the rights to the material they've done. They can release art/music/anything as a free to all, but they still have the rights to that thing.

Even thought people don't care about the copyrights, they do still excist. Period.

of course. but the point here is seeing what you can and cannot do in regards to that pic. clearly putting it on the cover of something you sell is out of the question unless you have a permission - btw, contacting the publishing company should be enough - but the rest is pretty much ok as copyright is not a relevant issue. pandas do exist too, yet they do not have any effect on your having that drawing on your webpage either, at least not to my knowledge.

rahvin.

 

[DotNoir]

I don't know what the heck do pandas have to do with this, but I assume you are referring to moomins being panda. So... Pandas have nothing to do with the specific drawing, but the author, who draw that has full rights to it (well, not anymore, since she's dead). And maybe nobody's gonna file a lawsuit if somebody is using some copyrighted material in personal web page, but there is a slight possibility. Depending on the material that is spread. And of course if there is lot's of copyrighted material the more possible it is to get sued.

And what comes to shades question... She didn't ask about this specific picture, but in general.

By the way, does anyone know about the right´s in Internet? Can you just scan anything and put it to your pages? Or do you have to have a permission?

And the answer to this question is no. You can not scan anything and put it on pages. Because of copyrights. Copyright is always a relevant issue. This is pretty much the same as driving over speed limits. You can do it, but when you get caught you must pay. Distributing others copyrighted material, being it in the net or in the paper, is not allowed. Maybe nobody will notice it, but still...

 

[rahvin]

I don't know what the heck do pandas have to do with this, but I assume you are referring to moomins being panda.

i mentioned pandas because they seemed to have no connection at all with anything that was being discussed (it was an example), but i see i cannot step lightly on matters such as these and hope to get away with a mention of pandas, can i?

So... Pandas have nothing to do with the specific drawing, but the author, who draw that has full rights to it (well, not anymore, since she's dead).

copyrights last for 70 years after the death of the author. if she did not sell the rights before dying, her sons/daughters still have them.

And maybe nobody's gonna file a lawsuit if somebody is using some copyrighted material in personal web page, but there is a slight possibility.

again, no. not if you're using pics that were available for free on the net and you make them available for free on your pages without saying they're anybody else's but the author's work and property.

And the answer to this question is no. You can not scan anything and put it on pages. Because of copyrights. Copyright is always a relevant issue. This is pretty much the same as driving over speed limits.

sorry dot, but it's not. (gee, that rhymes! )
driving over speed limits is a matter of criminal law, copyrights are not. for a violation to occur they need to be activated by the owner, i.e., they're not automatically protected. which was my point to begin with anyway.

You can do it, but when you get caught you must pay. Distributing others copyrighted material, being it in the net or in the paper, is not allowed. Maybe nobody will notice it, but still...

well, ok. i still disagree, but since the general consensus here is we live in draconian times, i gladly withdraw and leave the issue to the very knowledgeable.

rahvin.

 

[Rei Toei]

@rahvin: i see this discussion started because of your misinterpretation of the term "protection". let's see if i can explain it better... with "protection" i was referring to the possibility, for the legitimate right owner, to ask the unauthorized user for royalties, moral or commercial damages, etc. i said that copyright protects every work even if the authors don't care because if they don't want their material to be protected by copyright they should state it clearly in written form.
"the practical ease of infringing on a copyright doesn't reduce the legal validity of the copyright" better now?
of course there's no copyright police or something, otherwise there weren't so many illegal sites on internet and of course it's very difficult to be caught and sued (by the right owners, yes) but this remote possibility still exists and everyone should be aware of it when planning to use copyrighted material for whatever purposes, even if they're non-commercial.

as for freeware, unless i'm very much mistaken, you used that term to point out the method of distribution, whose rules apply to every "free" material you can find on the net, of course. however, strictly speaking (and to avoid further discussions with the many programmers who browse this online community), freeware is software that can be downloaded and used by anyone, free of charge, but although the software is made freely available it is not public domain, and the copyright remains with the original author unless otherwise stated by the author themselves. that is you're not allowed to modify/use it (in whole or in part) neither for distribution nor for commercial purposes plus you should always give proper credit to the author (usually they put some instructions in the readme files that should always come together with the software itself).

hope i've been clearer, this time
anyway, for your copyright needs, here are some general info on this very tangled issue:
http://www.americanbusinessmedia.com/media_services/whitepapers/elect_legalissues.htm (a bit old but very exhaustive)
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/webcopyr.html (basics and links)

and this is for finland only:
http://www.minedu.fi/opm/tekijanoikeus/index.html
http://www.minedu.fi/minedu/copyright/index.html (english version)

 

[rahvin]

@rahvin: i see this discussion started because of your misinterpretation of the term "protection". let's see if i can explain it better... with "protection" i was referring to the possibility, for the legitimate right owner, to ask the unauthorized user for royalties, moral or commercial damages, etc. i said that copyright protects every work even if the authors don't care because if they don't want their material to be protected by copyright they should state it clearly in written form.
"the practical ease of infringing on a copyright doesn't reduce the legal validity of the copyright" better now?

it's not that important, plus i only wish to be a thousand miles away from any discussion debating laws and their interpretation, but i don't really see a compliance between saying that the action can only be activated by the owner and saying - like you did - the protection works even if the owner doesn't know or care. if he doesn't care he's not going to activate his right and that's the end of it.
as for how easy it is to actually violate a copyright, it goes without saying that it doesn't decrease protection.

of course there's no copyright police or something, otherwise there weren't so many illegal sites on internet and of course it's very difficult to be caught and sued (by the right owners, yes) but this remote possibility still exists and everyone should be aware of it when planning to use copyrighted material for whatever purposes, even if they're non-commercial.

this was never argued. in fact, i even stated that it's not that hard to get caught. i also think there is a copyright police or something. they're probably dressed as pandas, or something.

as for freeware, unless i'm very much mistaken, you used that term to point out the method of distribution, whose rules apply to every "free" material you can find on the net, of course. however, strictly speaking (and to avoid further discussions with the many programmers who browse this online community), freeware is software that can be downloaded and used by anyone, free of charge, but although the software is made freely available it is not public domain, and the copyright remains with the original author unless otherwise stated by the author themselves. that is you're not allowed to modify/use it (in whole or in part) neither for distribution nor for commercial purposes plus you should always give proper credit to the author (usually they put some instructions in the readme files that should always come together with the software itself).

of course the copyright is still property of the author/owner. but you're allowed to modify it or distribute it for free, provided you do not make false claims about it (i.e., "i created this", or "ten thousand huns helped me sort through the code overnight"). this is why so many sites let you download small freeware software such as winuae and the likes by hosting the file themselves (i agree on the presence of "credit" information in the very files, btw).
as for "use it", i'm not sure what you mean... surely if it's distributed for free i can put it to its specific use...

hope i've been clearer, this time
anyway, for your copyright needs, here are some general info on this very tangled issue:
http://www.americanbusinessmedia.com/media_services/whitepapers/elect_legalissues.htm (a bit old but very exhaustive)
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/webcopyr.html (basics and links)

and this is for finland only:
http://www.minedu.fi/opm/tekijanoikeus/index.html
http://www.minedu.fi/minedu/copyright/index.html (english version)

plus you might want to check this website for all your panda needs. it contains some general info on this very tangled issue.

http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/pandas/pandas.html

rahvin.

 

[DotNoir]

all freeware programs are not open source...
And about modifying program and then redistributing it in the name of the author is more bad than distributing in the name of yourself (the modifier)... I can give you and example of a freeware program that the author strictly states that it may not be modified. The program is called Foobar2000. It is possible to make plugins, but for modifying the program itself is prohibited by the author. And this is because he doesn't want to take responsibility over the fact that if somebody makes a bad version which crashes/formats hds/kills pandas etc.

 

[rahvin]

all freeware programs are not open source...
And about modifying program and then redistributing it in the name of the author is more bad than distributing in the name of yourself (the modifier)...

well, i said in 50000000 places already that you have to avoid making false claims about it. redistributing something you changed in the name of the author would surely constitute a big ball of panda dung, so i never suggested that.

rahvin.

 

[DotNoir]

But then again even though you said it in 50000000 places the point is that it still is prohibited, if not given the permission by the author. ie. open source

 

[rahvin]

But then again even though you said it in 50000000 places the point is that it still is prohibited, if not given the permission by the author. ie. open source

i'm not sure what is, now. if you mean changing the source and redistributing it under the name of another, yes, it's prohibited and my pandas here say i said it.
if you mean modifying it at all for personal use, or for redistribution under your name for free if the original was distributed for free, i don't think it's prohibited. but since you're saying the exact opposite in the past three thousand posts i take it you're pretty sure of the contrary and stop arguing.

rahvin.

 

[Horza]

Here's where I jump in and mess things up. The most disturbing thing here is that being from different countries the legislations people refer to also differ, even if in the case of copyright laws (and especially EU directives) they tend to be somewhat coherent. I'm speaking for the behalf of Finnish law *SHAKES FIST*

First thing: You can't just go and publish something you've found published by other people. Doesn't matter if it's been made available "for free", be it painting, movie, record, article, website, photograph or whatever. Yes, you have your rights for personal use, but publishing isn't something I'd call that.

There are, of course, exceptions (and limits to exceptions and exceptions to limits of exceptions), such as educational or scientific use, citations, articles about the work in question, etc. But just to publish other's works "as is"... no way.

Second thing: Comparision to computer programs are... well, stupid. Most of the "free" (free as in "free beer") ones are published under a certain license, in which the copyright owner waives some of his rights. Or actually does not waive, but grants some "extra" rights concerning the use of it.

This would be so much easier if I could speak (or write) English. Let's make a NS-flamebait: Adolf Hitler made some quite tolerable paintings.

 

[Horza]

And oh, for the Finnish people here:

http://tinyurl.com/a1mu

That should make a stop for speculations. You should find the relevant links to the parliament motions and reports of committees concerning every paragraph, section of the law and clause. If you don't get it, stop the guesswork

I'm evil.

 

[rahvin]

Let's make a NS-flamebait: Adolf Hitler made some quite tolerable paintings.

as with so many things and people, one would wish he'd just stopped at that.

rahvin.

 

[DotNoir]

I wonder what would happen if I said I don't like Hearses music...

Hearse... I don't like your music.

 

[DotNoir]

Sure...