Celebrate Public Domain Day!
Copyright law is at best, quite complicated. Educating students about these complexities can be quite challenging. When asked if they can use "something," the answer is almost always, "it depends." Discussions about Creative Commons licensing, fair use, and plagiarism and appropriation abound. With public domain material, it's a pleasure to be able to just say "YES!"On the other hand, the journey of how works become part of the public domain collection is not always simple. Before 1998, in the United States, works 75 years or older graduated into the public domain. In 1998, President Clinton extended that term by 20 years, effectively cancelling Public Domain Day for 20 years.This year we can celebrate the release of music, film, literature, and other works of art from 1926—including Winnie-the-Pooh. Finding work in the public domain can also be a bit complicated. Multiple sources exist. Wikipedia Commons, Europeana, Library of Congress, and many museums are among them. A good place to get started is The Public Domain Review.Enjoy the journey!Source:https://hyperallergic.com/703299/celebrate-public-domain-day-2022/
Copyright and the American Way
Kate Kretz is an American artist, educator, and activist who has made it her mission to fight white supremacy and authoritarianism since the 2016 election. The MAGA Hat Collection focuses on ripping MAGA hats apart and making objects that function as physical manifestations of their racist truth.One of her most recent projects is the #fixedit American Diversity Flag. Pictured above, the flag aims to correct the all white stars version of the American Flag with stars that represent the melanin scale and the actual skin tones of the American people.Kretz started this project in August 2019 when she ordered an American flag and began ripping out the white machine stitched stars and replacing them with her hand embroidered ones. She published a sketch of her ongoing work on Instagram in February 2020 and filed a U.S. copyright for her concept.In June 2021, the singer Macy Gray wrote an op-ed calling for a new American flag based on melanin skin tones and shared a similar design saying the artist wished to remain anonymous and would not reveal the name. As many copyright infringement cases go, the smaller and less established artist, Kretz, could not afford to pursue the matter legally against the high-power and celebrity status of Macy Gray. Instead, she wrote a lengthy article for Medium, "David, Goliath, and The Futility of Copyright," in which she warns other artists about the limitations of copyright and she created the website.Follow the painstaking creation of “Reparation: Where Our Greatness Lies” on Instagram, and consider supporting this independent artist’s vision of a flag that represents ALL of us, the American Diversity Flag.
To Post or Not to Post?
Artists don't work in a vacuum, we are social creatures, we make work to show it. Fans and critics alike are necessary to the process of making art. These days showing your art almost always involves posting it online through social media. But how can you prevent getting ripped off? While it may take an artist a hundred hours to produce a single piece, it only takes thieves a matter of seconds to profit off of someone else's' work. Just as important as producing the work itself is learning how to protect it. Following are some options to do so:
Circle C
The first step is the simplest: add ©, the year, and your name to anything you create. This is your declaration of copyright and marks the art as yours. The © is important because it tells the viewer the work is protected by copyright. The © can be added digitally or drawn on by hand, the technique is not important, just the mark itself.
Watermark
Some artists choose to watermark their work. This is a visible branding that overlays your images. It is usually transparent and fairly large. Experts in digital imaging can remove it with Photoshop or other image editing software, however, it's usually not that easy to do. You can add watermarks to your images with Photoshop or similar image editing programs, some of which feature batch processing to make it easy and efficient. The downside besides the time it takes to do it is that it also compromises the viewing experience as it visibly alters the image.
Creative Commons
Founded by Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig, Creative Commons is an organization dedicated to making it easier to share work without the sometimes arduous process of copyright registration and without the same restrictions. Creative Commons offers a wide range of options to allow people to share their work on their terms. All have some level of sharing, the most restrictive being "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs." Licenses are in effect immediately upon implementation and there is no required fee. Creative Commons is a non-profit organization and donations are gladly accepted.
Copyright Registration
You can register your copyright with the Federal Copyright Office. Online registration fees start at $35 for a single registration. There is a wait time that can be up to 5 months. It's also important to know that while many international laws closely follow copyright laws in the U.S., they do not automatically apply internationally—you'll need to check those if you are selling your work internationally or find that your work has been used elsewhere in the world.
Following Up
You can check on your images to see if they turn up anywhere unauthorized by uploading your image to a reverse image site like TinEye or Google Reverse Image Search. This isn't full proof, but can certainly help you take a cursory look.The answer "to post or not to post" is complicated, and as with most ethical issues, it depends—on your circumstances.Sources:http://www.finearttips.com/2010/07/how-i-stopped-a-copycat-artist-on-facebook/https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-watermark-1701744https://www.copyright.gov/https://creativecommons.org/http://copyrightregistry-online-form.com/
Fashion Week: It’s Complicated
New York Fashion Week kicked off this past Thursday, and with it some complicated topics graphic designers are very familiar with:
Design Plagiarism
High fashion brand Saint Laurent is showcasing a dress with graphic lipstick prints that retails for $3,490 - but looks a lot like a dress from Forever 21’s 2013 collection that sold for $23. Saint Laurent is most likely safe from being sued for copyright infringement because copyright law prohibits the protection of a design if it can only be depicted in a limited number of ways— tubes of lipstick may fall into this category. However, it doesn't protect them from being called out for it.
Social Awareness
As New York Fashion Week Live reports, “one of the great ironies of fashion is the disconnect between the beauty of the products, and the way the materials are often sourced.” Consumers are increasingly demanding more humane treatment of animals and people, as well as the use of more eco-friendly materials. Fashion designers are responding and young designers like Max Gengos, are embracing the concept of “responsible luxury” when deciding on which materials to use and the conditions in which their products are produced.
Sustainability
We live in a culture of disposability. This extends to “fast fashion,” where cheap garments are produced quickly to keep up with trends. America buys 20 billion garments a year, 1 item per person per week. This results in 12.7 million tons of clothing thrown away each year. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that textile waste occupies nearly 5% of all landfill space and 85% of textile waste is not recycled. Ultimately this leads to overtime, overcrowding, and unsafe conditions for overseas workers employed to keep up with the demand.
Cultural Influence
Celebrities like Emma Watson and fashion designer Stella McCartney are speaking out in campaigns like this recent one for British Vogue on Fashion and Gender Equality, demanding empowerment for women and a better message for women of all ages and sizes, allowing them to feel good about who they are.As we enjoy the glamor of New York Fashion Week, we may also do well to consider the complicated relationships surrounding beauty and image.Sources:http://newyorkfashionweeklive.com/http://www.thefashionlaw.com/https://www.notjustalabel.comhttp://www.ecouterre.com/http://www.elle.com/http://www.weardonaterecycle.org/
Eliminating fear and loathing of fair use
Fair use exists to allow scholars, educators, researchers, and more to use copyrighted works without permission or paying royalties.Furthermore, fair use is one of my favorite topics to discuss regarding ethics in graphic design, because its status as a grey area leads to some of the most interesting conversations in the field. Unfortunately this same status has also caused anger and conflict in the design world, legal and otherwise.People crave rules—they want to know definitively if they can or can’t use something. I once gave a presentation on ethics in graphic design which included questions from the audience about whether or not specific artwork could be used. When it was done, I overheard a member of the audience grumbling loudly as they left because I wasn’t able to provide them with a simple yes or no about the use of an image. In this case, and others, the answer is almost always, “it depends...” (Of course, I am not a lawyer and can’t offer legal advice.) Then there is the can of worms that is opened when discussing cases like the Richard Prince/Patrick Cariou copyright case—this never fails to start a firestorm of controversy.The fair use doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. When evaluating whether or not the use is fair, there are four factors that are considered:
- What is the character of the use?
- What is the nature of the use?
- How much of the work will you use?
- What effect will it have on the market for the original?
As you can imagine, the answers to the questions are almost never black and white. The size of the image reproduced, the amount used, the distribution, and how much it was changed, are just some of the questions that are asked. In fact, lawmakers have said that it’s intentionally a grey area in order to keep an open dialogue while evaluating if an image’s use was fair or not.A copyright owner has the legal right to restrict reproduction of a copyrighted work and to demand royalties when a copyrighted work is used. Penalties for unauthorized copyright can be substantial. With this in mind, it makes sense to have an idea about whether or not your use of copyrighted work is defensible. Subsequently, some find the whole business so unpleasant that they avoid it all together.The president of CAA (College Art Association) and others are concerned that fear of copyright infringement may be stopping people from creating innovative work that adds to our culture. A recent study showed that 1 in 5 Artists, 3 in 10 Museum staff, and 4 in 10 academics state that they avoid issues of fair use when making, researching, and exhibiting art.In “Fair Use at Work in the Visual Arts,” a video that they’ve produced to educate and inform artists, educators, and researchers about the topic, they state that when courts look at fair use cases they look primarily at two things: is the work transformative and is the amount of work is proportionate? If the answer to these two questions is affirmative, the track record shows that the work will most likely be considered fair use and non-infringing.CAA has created a code of best practices to help navigate these murky waters and to encourage scholars and artists to work freely and uninhibited.How about you? Are you feeling more confident about fair use and copyright, or more fearful?Sources:http://www.expertlaw.com/library/intellectual_property/fair_use.htmlhttp://cmsimpact.org/fair-use/best-practices/fair-use-visual-arts#CodeStarthttp://copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC-wfVfIXiw
Searching for the great image
When searching for that great image online it’s easy and tempting to simply right click and copy any image you find. There is no warning signal or stop sign that appears with a message asking, “Yes, you can take this image, but should you?”Finding images online, and then what you do with them, poses legal questions as well as ethical ones that touch upon issues of integrity and morality. The ease with which internet surfers can grab images encourages copyright infringement. It doesn’t necessarily take that much more time to search through resources that provide images that aren’t in violation of copyright law.Creative Commons is one place where you can start. A non-profit organization that was founded by Larry Lessig, Creative Commons offers free tools that enable the sharing of images with a variety of options. Users can give permission to use their images with options like “some rights reserved.” Those seeking images can go to Creative Commons Search and find a number of resources that provide images utilizing Creative Commons licenses.If you decide to start where most of us do, Google, go one step further to Google’s Advanced Image Search. Here you’ll find a tool that not only let’s you search by format, language, geography, and more, but also by usage rights.There are a number of sites that offer free stock images. A post by Smashing Magazine lists a directory of sites offering free images for both personal and commercial use. This is in addition to the plethora of stock photography sites that offer a wide range of purchasing and licensing options for both royalty free images as well as for rights managed images.Another option internet surfers can try are images that are in the public domain. MakeUseOf has a list of 6 Free Website For Public Domain Images & Free Stock Photos.The last thing that users should consider is asking for permission. If you find an image that’s copyright protected, you can ask for permission to use it. Depending on how and why you are using it, you just may find the copyright owner is happy to share the image along with a photo credit.
Herding cats (aka copyrighting a Meme)
“Memes are, without a doubt, the greatest thing about the internet.” This quote comes from an article by Squire Sanders, Richard Pascoe, Richard W. Horton and Alex Butterworth, “Memes in advertising: a copyright mess.”I don’t know if I agree that memes are the greatest thing, but one of the biggest things? Yes. As the authors state, there is an entire sub-culture of the English speaking world that exists around memes. Memes are so popular they’ve become an expected and accepted means of communication. Photoshop users can easily make their own. If you lack photoshop skills you can visit sites like Quick Meme, where users can choose from a bank of images, type their own caption, and then post on the social media site of their choice. For those of you who don’t what a meme is, trust me, you do—you’ve been sharing them on Facebook and just didn’t know what the official name was. (See What is a ‘Meme’?)It’s no wonder that advertisers want in. Some examples of campaigns are Sprint’s use of Nyan Cat, Nissan’s planking commercial, and Wonderful Pistachio’s Keyboard Cat Commercial. However some have found themselves in trouble—including Warner Brothers for their use of Nyan Cat and [Keyboard Cat] in their top selling ‘Scribblenauts’ games. Many feel this is ironic in light of their strong support of SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and the diligence with which they track infringement of their own copyright and trademarks.Copyright ownership of a meme is typically shared between the owner of the image and the person who created the meme. This is where it can get difficult—sometimes proving next to impossible to track this information down. Even if you find the creator of the meme, you still need to find out if they have permission from the owner of the image and/or a photo release.If a company chooses to use the meme without permission they are taking a risk. Even if they do find the copyright owner and get permission, it doesn't mean they won't face more legal problems. Memes are very often offensive. The way the meme is used might trigger copyright infringement or defamation. Another thing to consider is that although attributing your work to the original creator is not required by law, it can help keep a meme creator out of an infringement lawsuit.What do you think? Have you used memes personally, commercially? More importantly, why do so many memes use Impact?Sources:http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=879e138f-c98b-4eb2-a55f-0037cf2ed906http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2013/05/03/warner-brothers-sued-for-infringing-cat-meme-copyright/http://www.livememe.com/mdsuaoxhttp://userinterfaced.com/why-are-memes-popular/http://www.worldipreview.com/article/internet-memes-copyright-licensing-in-an-ip-minefieldhttp://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/06/21/technology-internet-memes-pose-legal-questionshttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/05/07/copyright-memes-and-the-perils-of-viral-content/http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/tech/social-media/image-macros-memes-impact-font/index.html
Dog eat dog world?
Robynne Raye and her partner at Modern Dog, Michael Strassburger, have been involved in a copyright infringement lawsuit with Disney, Target, and the Jaya Apparel group for the past several years. Modern Dog filed a lawsuit against the companies when the artwork from the end papers of their 2008 Compendium showed up on T-shirts being sold by Target. Anyone that I've talked to about the case agrees that Modern Dog should win based on the evidence—as long as they can stay the course and raise enough money to stand up to the stonewalling tactics of the big dogs. The recent shenanigans by the defense makes me wonder about the dog eat dog world we live in.In a Print Magazine blog post from last week about the case, Steven Heller quotes an email from Raye and Strassburger, “After misleading us into thinking they were going to settle our case without mediation, the defense filed a surprise motion on May 14th to have our case thrown out. They no longer deny (or admit) that they copied our illustrations, instead the defense is claiming that your illustrations are not entitled to a broad copyright since the dog illustrations lack “expression” and fall into the “natural world” category.”Raye has posted some of the other comments made in court on her Facebook page. Here are a few highlights:
"Favorite quote from yesterday's Motion for Summary Judgment (said be the defense attorney): 'There's very little creativity going on here'."
"I just think this case has to be one of the most absurd in the history of copyright. They deny copying our dogs for months, then out of nowhere claim that our dogs are realistic depictions from the "natural world" so therefore not protected by a broad copyright anyway."
The image below shows the illustrations of dogs in question. The dogs on green background are Modern Dog's. The dogs in center on white are from the Target T-shirt. I've circled a few strikingly similar ones. You'll find more if you look closely.
The defense is trying to claim that the dog illustrations are technical rather than creative—anyone could have done them. Raye and Strassburger dispute this claim. In fact, Raye and Strassburger think the designer used a Wacom tablet to trace the illustrations. A PhD in mathematics from Stanford was among the expert witnesses called. The witness stated that there is less than a 1 in over 2,000,0000 chance that they did not trace the dogs their book.After much time and huge expense, the trial is scheduled for September 2013. I will continue to watch this case with great interest—as well as amazement at how low people can go. I will offer as much support for Modern Dog as I can. I hope you do too.Sources:http://www.printmag.com/imprint/weekend-heller-3/https://www.facebook.com/robynne.raye?fref=ts&ref=br_tfhttp://imprint.printmag.com/buzz-poole/modern-dog-copyright-and-the-burden-of-proof/http://minesf.com/resources/cca/2012/09/10/friends-of-modern-dog/http://99designs.com/designer-blog/2013/04/19/5-famous-copyright-infringement-cases
Moving the lines between copyright and fair use
Last month Richard Prince made history when the court ruling against him for copyright infringement against him was overturned.In 2008 Prince created a series of paintings, "Canal Zone," which incorporated the photographs of Patrick Cariou from his book Yes, Rasta. The work was shown at Gagosian Gallery in New York. In 2009 Cariou filed a copyright infringement case against Prince, Gagosian Gallery, Lawrence Gagosian, and Rizzoli Publications. In March 2011, Judge Deborah Batts ruled against Prince and ordered the defendants to destroy remaining copies of the catalog and unsold paintings from the series that use Cariou's photographs. Any collectors who own sold artwork were to be informed it would be illegal for them to publicly display the paintings.One of the key factors in determining fair use is whether or not the work is transformative. During the case Prince testified the the work “didn't really have a message.” Courtroom reports stated that the judge responded by assessing that for fair use to apply, a new work of art must be transformative—that it must “in some way comment on, relate to the historical context of, or critically refer back to the original work.”(1)After the 2009 court ruling Cariou stated, “This lawsuit is about arrogance, laziness and an overwhelming sense of power. It has nothing to do with art,” Cariou told Art in America, “At the end of the day, he took 41 pictures—it's not just one little part. It's almost half of the book. I really don't understand how he thought he could get away with it.”(2)Gagosian and Prince appealed the decision and the courts ruled last month that Batts’s interpretation was incorrect and that “the law does not require that a secondary use comment on the original artist or work, or popular culture,” but only that a reasonable observer find the work to be transformative.(3) In its decision the court wrote that Prince’s work conveyed an entirely different aesthetic and while Cariou’s photos depicted the natural beauty of Rastafarians and their environment, Prince’s work is jarring and provocative.This case is seen as a landmark. If the original ruling were not overturned, it could mean any artist who has copied, altered, or collaged other artists work could be found in violation of copyright. It could have affected artists like Andy Warhol and his images of Campbell Soup cans and Marilyn Monroe. Current and future implications for contemporary art and culture abound. As memes based off of copyright protected images, characters, or snippets from TV shower the internet, questions arise about the legal liabilities that their posters incur.Where do you think the lines fall between copyright infringement and fair use? Should the original ruling remain or were the courts right in overturning the decision? Does contemporary culture call for a change in copyright law and fair use?Notes/Sources:(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/arts/design/appeals-court-ruling-favors-richard-prince-in-copyright-case.html?_r=2&(2) http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-opinion/news/2011-03-22/richard-prince-canal-zone-cariou-gagosian-lawsuit/(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/arts/design/appeals-court-ruling-favors-richard-prince-in-copyright-case.html?_r=2&http://artherworldblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/internet-memes-and-copyright/http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2013/05/03/warner-brothers-sued-for-infringing-cat-meme-copyright/http://petapixel.com/2013/04/26/appeals-court-overturns-previous-ruling-rules-fair-use-in-richard-prince-case/
Do We Need a Copyright & Fair Use Best Practices Document?
While issues about copyright and fair use are not new, our feelings about them may never have been more divisive than they are today. It's also highly unlikely that in today's work environment, graphic designers won't be faced with these issues on a daily basis. Graphic designers looking for art and images they can use are apt to encounter Creative Commons—a nonprofit organization that seeks to offer alternative solutions to traditional copyright. They are likely to see established artists (Shepard Fairey) and designers (Fly Communications, No Labels Logo) find themselves embroiled in legal cases and allegations about copyright violation. They will most certainly see social media sites like Pinterest (who many feel are stretching the boundaries of copyright protection) being embraced by respected and established organizations like Design Observer.In the midst of this turbulent climate, what's a graphic designer to do? How do they navigate these murky waters and stay up-to-date with current trends as well as maintain a level of professionalism? Designer Dawn Mercurio has offered a suggestion, a best practices document for graphic designers.Mercurio's MFA Thesis research includes surveys with over 100 creative professionals. As a result Mercurio states, “Contemporary creative professionals are split on how they side for the need to protect and license work. From data, it appears to be divided among those who work in traditional print environments verses those who work in multimedia and web. It may be that the ubiquity of the internet has created a leveling of ownership, an acceptance for sharing and a practice of mutual appropriation among those who build around it. And now with the ability of instantly viral content (impossible to fathom in the original rendering of the Constitution) it seems that protection has an even more difficult struggle than ever before.”Mercurio asked those surveyed how they would rate their understanding of copyright law and fair use. Most said they were familiar with it. A little over 15% chose “hazy," with the majority falling into the "somewhat knowledgeable" category. When participants were asked about the Shepard Fairey case and if the transformation from the original photo was enough to dismiss attribution, purchase, or permission, the results were almost evenly split. A trend in divisiveness and confusion about the issues was apparent throughout the survey. This is evident in the answer given by print and web designers, the largest segment of creative professionals polled, about how often copyright issues arise. They responded that copyright issues arise only occasionally, when handling the content and art of others is endemic to design fields.Mercurio concludes, “One solution to address these divides is to adopt a policy of Best Practices for Creative Professionals. Other industries such as Online Video, Media Literacy, even Dance have established their own doctrines and have built safer, healthier environments to work in without limiting creativity or message." She argues that, "a doctrine built by lawyers familiar with both copyright law and art along with a diverse group of creative professionals, could rule on the Fairey case along with other common practices such as using unlicensed images even as a ‘comp’, that many creative professionals abuse and should be advised on."What do you think, do you feel there's a need for a Best Practices Document?You can download Dawn Mercurio's findings including case studies and surveys here:https://dl.dropbox.com/u/
Was Shepard Fairey’s use fair?
Last week Shepard Fairey was sentenced to two years probation and a $25,000 fine for tampering with evidence in his copyright battle with the Associated Press. Some, including prosecutor Daniel Levy, felt Fairey should have served jail time. Levy contends, “A sentence without any term of imprisonment sends a terrible message to those who might commit the same sort of criminal conduct.”For those unfamiliar with the case, Fairey was sued by the Associated Press in 2009 for copyright infringement for using a photo by AP photographer Mannie Garcia. Fairey then filed a suit against the AP, contending that his use of the photo fell under the doctrine of fair use. The case got murky when it was discovered that Fairey lied about the original photo that he used as well as destroyed documents that were relevant to the case.Plagiarism Today lists the belief "Fair Use Will Protect Me" as one of the top myths about copyright. They go on to state that most people who claim fair use are misreading the law. Fair use is meant to balance free speech against the rights of the copyright holder. Fair use is an affirmative defense; you would have to prove it after you are sued. Fair use is not meant to protect you from a lawsuit, but rather from having to pay damages after it is over. (1)The definition of fair use is the copying of copyrighted material for a limited and transformative purpose; to comment upon, criticize, or parody. The term transformative is as ambiguous and vague as it seems, and it's done so intentionally. Like free speech, judges and lawmakers want an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation. Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism, or parody. (2)According to Stanford University Libraries, when assessing whether or not something falls under fair use, lawmakers use four factors:
1. the transformative factor: purpose and character of your use(have you created new meaning, was value added to the original?)
2. the nature of the copyrighted work(was the original work factual or fictional? typically you have more leeway if it's factual)
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken(in general, the less you take, the more likely you will be excused)
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market(does your new work deprive the copyright owner of income or a potential market for the original work?)
In Fairey's case the issue was eventually settled in a civil case without answering the question of whether or not his use of the AP photo constituted fair use under copyright law. The financial terms of their agreement were not disclosed and both parties agreed to share image usage rights for any posters or merchandise produced using the "Hope" image.Fairey may have been sentenced for his criminal activity involved with this case, however the question still remains, would his use of the AP photo have been fair if he hadn't lied and tampered with evidence?Notes:(1) http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/stopping-internet-plagiarism/your-copyrights-online/3-copyright-myths/(2) http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.htmlSources:http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-shepard-fairey-20120908,0,6021274.storyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/stopping-internet-plagiarism/your-copyrights-online/3-copyright-myths/http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/shephard-fairey-is-fined-and-sentenced-to-probation-in-hope-poster-case/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/shepard-fairey-jail_n_1861680.htmlhttp://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
Is using Pinterest in your best interest?
Interest and use of Pintinterest, a relatively new social media tool, has grown exponentially over the past few months.
“Woe to you! You thieves and imitators of other people's labour and talents.Beware of laying your audacious hand on this artwork.”—Albrecht Durer
Interest and use of Pintinterest, a relatively new social media tool, has grown exponentially over the past few months. The site drew 23.7 million unique visitors in February, up from 3.5 million in September, according to research firm Nielsen. Another firm, Experian Marketing Services, ranks Pinterest as the third-most-popular social networking site, behind Facebook and Twitter.(1) From blog posts like “16 Ways Educators Use Pinterest,” to online advice from Inc, “9 Tips: Boost Your Business with Pinterest,” Pinterest is being touted as the latest and greatest social media tool.If you're not familiar with it, Pinterest is an online tool that lets you share visual content quickly and easily. It requires membership by invitation only. Once accepted members get a special copying tool (pinmarklet) and they are encouraged to use it to copy content from other websites to Pinterest's website. Some people are complaining that Pinterest doesn't create content for their own website—their members find it for them.With all of this gathering and sharing of content questions have been raised about whether its practices with regard to copyright law are in the best interest of its users. Copyright issues and terms of use have been a topic debate since the site's launch last September and they have modified their terms in response. Pinterest has a page on their site named Pin Etiquette with “Credit Your Sources” listed as number three. They also let their users know under their Terms of Service about their responsibility for content they post and give them a link to their Acceptable Use Policy which contains a fairly lengthy list of legalese. This information is there if their users seek it out, however, critics complain that Pinterest does not ask users to consider permissions before each "pin," aiming to make the user experience seamless. While having your content shared helps popularize it, many feel that the content creators, designers, artists, and photographers, should be asked or paid first.Some organizations, like the Artists Bill of Rights, are questioning the legalities of Pinterest and whether or not it is in the best interest of content creators. In a blog post entitled "Pinterest versus Ethics and the Law - Part 1" they refer to artist Albrecht Durer's warning, “Woe to you! You thieves and imitators of other people's labour and talents. Beware of laying your audacious hand on this artwork.” They state that, "Even at over five hundred years old this is still a message for our time. Works of art are an expression of the makers' soul, they are part of the authors being, and it is for these reasons that all people on earth are granted the human right of copyright. Copyright gives each of us the exclusive right to choose who can, and who cannot, distribute our works."(2)Others, like Brooke Isabel Gushen in her blog post "Pinterest, a Social Media Website, Shifts its Terms of Use," are talking about the cultural implications along with the legal issues. Gushen refers to Larry Lessig's TED Talk where he discusses the creativity that comes from remixing in our contemporary culture. Taking great things from the past and recreating them into something new that reflects our experience is the hallmark of today‘s generation. In his talk Lessig refers to what now look like ridiculous objections to progress from the past, like John Philip Sousa's horrified response to the "talking machine," and makes a plea for copyright law to be based on common sense.What do you think? Is Pinterest an innovative new tool that benefits its users and is a reflection of contemporary culture, or is it a manipulative social media tool that leads its users down a road of copyright infringement and is damaging to visual content creators?Notes:(1) http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/12/business/la-fi-pinterest-20120413(2) http://artists-bill-of-rights.org/news/campaign-news/pinterest-versus-ethics-and-the-law-%11-part-1/ Sources:http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/12/business/la-fi-pinterest-20120413http://www.personal.psu.edu/big5040/blogs/brooke_gushen_-_technical_writing/2012/03/pinterest-a-social-media-website-shifts-its-terms-of-use.htmlhttp://artists-bill-of-rights.org/news/campaign-news/pinterest-versus-ethics-and-the-law-%11-part-2/http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/250700/what_you_should_know_about_pinterest_and_copyright.htmlhttp://www.inc.com/john-brandon/9-tips-boost-your-business-pinterest.htmlhttp://mashable.com/2012/03/
Does John Williams have no empathy?
The recent Logo Garden scandal has many graphic designers up in arms. From the Action Alert sent by AIGA to warn graphic designers about possible theft and plagiarism of their logos, to the blog post "Love Thy Logo" on RockPaperInk by Bill Gardner, it is clear many are appalled.When Gardner found more than 200 of his own designs offered on the site, he documented Williams' outrageous and unethical behavior along with examples of the slight modifications of well-known logos like the identity for World Wildlife Fund and Time Warner Cable that are also on the site.Clues concerning how Williams' feels can be gleaned from his recent guest post for the entrepreneurs blog On Startups, "No Capital? No Problem. What You Get For Free Is Priceless." He gives readers a pep talk about starting their own business and the value of organic growth. He never clearly gives them a picture of how using one of his logos fits into this picture, but goes about instilling a spirit of comraderie with them accompanied by the claim that his experience with branding led him to make an easy to use logo maker available to startups and DIYers. As Gardner asserts in his post, these startups and DIYers will most likely have no idea where the work came from or that it is not his to sell.While many may be glad that the slight modifications that Williams made to the logos may actually increase his liability by demonstrating his willful copyright infringement, what bothers some designers most is the question of how he can do this to his colleagues. As Gardner says, "You'll note I avoided going on a tirade about the issues with the $100 internet logo firms. They have foibles that too deserve penance but designers have no forgiveness for theft. Thou shall not steal another designers work."One wonders what led Williams to take this path. Was it lack of integrity, greed, or simply no empathy for his colleagues? A recent article for The Chronicle of Higher Education, 'Why Should We Care?'—What to Do About Declining Student Empathy, discusses educators' concern about a decline in student empathy. The troubling conclusion of a recent study by a team of social psychologists is that American college students have been scoring lower and lower on a standardized empathy test over the past three decades. The article talks about what the reasons for this decline may be as well techniques to improve levels of empathy. Besides the social benefits, research also links empathy in students with better academic outcomes. Educators are concerned because when used with skill, empathy can guide us to balance the needs of ourselves, those around us, and our larger social contexts with judicious care. Taking on another person's thoughts and identifying with their emotions are traits at the core of empathy. Williams disregard for what the implications of his "logo maker" are for his fellow designers makes one think that he has not considered what it would be like to walk in their shoes.What do you think is behind Williams behavior—lack of integrity, greed, or simply no empathy?Sources:http://www.aiga.org/common/newsletter/source/August2011_Action_Alert.htmlhttp://www.rockpaperink.com/content/column.php?id=88http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/54498/No-Capital-No-Problem-What-You-Get-For-Free-Is-Priceless.aspxhttp://chronicle.com/article/Why-Should-We-Care-What/128420/
Ask the Lawyer
Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts (VLA) is a non-profit site that was founded in 1969 to provide legal,educational, and advocacy support to low-income artists and arts organizations. In 2010, VLA launched AskTheLawyer.com to archive and present basic and pertinent legal information to arts and legal professionals.Organized in four sections—Topics, Glossary, Resources, and Contact—the site is controlled and operated from the United States and may not be appropriate or available for use in any particular jurisdiction other than the United States. When accessing the site users are cautioned that while information concerns legal issues, it is not legal advice, nor does it constitute an attorney-client relationship.Topics includes information about copyright and trademark along with contracts and first amendment issues. The Glossary offers definitions of legal terms used. Resources contains links for contracts, copyright, trademarks, for-profit and nonprofit corporations throughout the U.S. The Contact page lists the address and phone numbers for VLA.Source: http://askthelawyer.info/
Is "Tomoko Is Bathed by Her Mother” fair use?
The difference between fair use and matters of integrity is not always crystal clear. Those involved in visual communication are often called upon to decide which takes precedence.One of the most powerful images of the twentieth century is W. Eugene Smith’s photo “Tomoko Is Bathed by Her Mother.” The image shows a child with a congenital disease caused by mercury pollution in Minamata, Japan.Although Tomoko’s parents originally gave permission for Smith to take the photo in 1971, after Tomoko died in 1977 they were upset by the continued use of the photo and asked that the image not be used. In 1998 Smith’s widow, holder of the copyright on the photo, complied with the parents’ wishes and forbid future use of the image. This impacted exhibitions of the “One Hundred Greatest Photographs of the Twentieth Century” and also was seen as a disservice by those who felt Tomoko’s image should be able to be used under “fair use” guidelines as it has helped in the fight against industrial pollution.Do you think the original image should still be in circulation under fair use guidelines or should the wishes of the family take precedence as Aileen Smith decided it should?PLEASE NOTE: Permission to use the image discussed in this case study, “Tomoko Is Bathed by Her Mother,” was respectfully denied. The image can be seen online here. The image below is from the same series and reproduced with permission from Aileen Smith.
Creative Commons: Copyright with Flexibility
Creative Commons is a non-profit corporation that offers ways to grant copyright permissions for creative work that make it easier for people to share or build upon the work of others.The Creative Commons licenses enable people to easily change their copyright terms from the default of “all rights reserved” to “some rights reserved.” Creative Commons licenses are not an alternative to copyright. They work alongside copyright, offering a means to modify standard copyright terms. Creative Commons offers a spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and the public domain.Critics claim claim that it undermines copyright. Last month ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) began a fund-raising campaign to fight groups that support free culture and digital rights, among them Creative Commons. Some feel this claim is laughable because Creative Commons actually creates licenses to protect content creators.Which side are you on? Do you think Creative Commons are offering options that make copyright licensing easier to implement and enforce, or do you think they are undermining copyright and compromising the rights of artists?Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups#ixzz0vOlNNRiN
"Hope" Poster - Fair Use or Copyright Infringment?
One of the most celebrated works of campaign art in American history, Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster, was added to the collection of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington. The poster has also been the focus of a copyright-infringement lawsuit between Shepard Fairey and the Associated Press.In early February 2009, the Associated Press determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission. At the time of the Associated Press’ original allegations, Shepard Fairey’s attorney stated that the use of the image is “fair use” and thus protected by copyright law. A few days later Fairey filed a suit against the Associated Press, asking a judge to find that his use of an AP photo in creating the poster did not violate copyright law.In his February 9, 2009 Complaint for a declaratory judgment against the AP , Fairey claimed to have used an AP photograph of George Clooney sitting next to then-Senator Barack Obama as the source of the “Hope” posters. However, as the AP alleged in its March 11, 2009 response, Fairey had instead used a close-up photograph of then- Senator Obama from the same press event, which is an exact match for Fairey’s posters. In its response, the AP also correctly surmised that Fairey had attempted to hide the true identity of the source photo in order to help his case by arguing that he had to make more changes to the source photo than he actually did and that he at least had to crop it.In October 2009, Fairey admitted to the AP that he fabricated and attempted to destroy other evidence in an effort to bolster his fair use case and cover up his previous lies and omissions. In early 2010, it was disclosed in court that Fairey is under criminal investigation after he said he erred about which AP photo he used as a basis for “Hope.” He acknowledged that he had submitted false images and deleted other images to conceal his actions.
As of April 2010, lawyers for artist Shepard Fairey were ordered to disclose the identities of anyone who deleted or destroyed records related to a copyright dispute over the Barack Obama “Hope” image. Fairey’s image has had an undeniable cultural impact. His red-white-and-blue poster of Obama with the word “Hope” at the bottom (pictured) has spurred an ongoing parade of parody images featuring everyone from Sarah Palin (“Nope”) to Heath Ledger (“Joke”).Paste magazine’s easy-to-use, web-based Obamicon generator—one of many online tools that make it easy to modify an picture to look like Fairey’s poster—has reportedly created more than 500,000 of these images.What do you think? Is the Obama "Hope" poster an example of fair use or copyright infringement?SOURCES:http://www.ap.org/iprights/fairey.htmlhttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/02/copyfight-erupt/http://www.copyright.gov/