Free Graphics & Photos For Your Labels

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Nah, just a bit pretentious. That's all.

Oh and I wasn't actually singling you out. But obviously you felt that shoe fit.

Ohhh, then please enlighten us as to what post you were referring, so we can all share in the hilarity of your witty little meaningless comment.

Pretentious? I would rather be considered pretentious, than write cute little posts in an attempt to mask obvious intellectual shortcomings so you don't actually have to engage in a meaningful conversation because you fail to understand the words and references people make.

To the OP, I apologize for the short hijack and promise not to devote anymore time to Burro by searching this thread. You know what they say, "When you argue with an idiot, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience" Burro I concede to your experience. Goodbye and good riddance....



V
 
godfathermg57 said:
the ethics debate on intellectual property rights gets tiring. For people like the OP and WhiskySix, it should be fairly reasonable why they support strong IPR's with regard to artists work etc... that being said it's not the only ethical standard, and for most of humanity's history has not even been an enforced standard. It's not as clear cut as "it's just theft"; certainly the blatant use of other peoples work to make money without giving them any mentioned credit is considered bad, but the manipulation and appropriation of other work into yours is a stickier matter.

If I take a shot from a movie, posterize it in photoshop, map it to vectors and create my own image that incorporates it, am I stealing? Legally perhaps, but ethically it's more complex than that.

It's really not more complex than that. You can rationalize all you want (and I have, many times so I'm throwing stones at myself too) but the fact is, if you take something that somebody else produced and used any part of it as your own without compensation, you are stealing.

Nobody has a hard time with concrete examples. Somebody takes the time and effort to widdle perfect walking sticks (cheesy I know but go with me). You like the walking sticks and think they would be the perfect piece with which to build a fishing pole. So you take one and make a kick ass fishing pole without telling the woodworker.

You have changed it. Made it your own. Gone further with the design than the original wood worker. You still took something that wasn't yours to start. You stole.

Yes it's cheesy, but it's the exact same thing. Now, the usage on such a small level nobody is going to care. We're not making money on it so who cares, right? Go ahead and keep on rationalizing. Lord knows I do on occasion (mp3s anybody). But don't for a minute think it's a defendable stance to take.

I'm not saying you can't do it or that you should feel bad about it (I don't and I'm probably a bad person because of it). But you give up your right to be offended when somebody who pours all of their effort into a craft is put off by people just taking things for their own use without thinking twice.
 
You have changed it. Made it your own. Gone further with the design than the original wood worker. You still took something that wasn't yours to start. You stole.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this example at all. Re-use does not equal theft, unless you literally stole the walking stick to begin with. Ask any honest artist (in any medium) and they will tell you that they "borrowed" all sorts of ideas, techniques, etc. from their influences.

One of my hobbies is refinishing broken antique Philco radios and retrofitting them with discarded computer parts. Am I stealing from Philco?

Is a sculptor who works with found objects stealing?

Is a collage artist stealing?

Was Andy Warhol nothing but a thief? The Parthenon was made with materials from a previous temple. Were its builders thieves? I could go on forever.
 
It's really not more complex than that. You can rationalize all you want (and I have, many times so I'm throwing stones at myself too) but the fact is, if you take something that somebody else produced and used any part of it as your own without compensation, you are stealing.

Nobody has a hard time with concrete examples. Somebody takes the time and effort to widdle perfect walking sticks (cheesy I know but go with me). You like the walking sticks and think they would be the perfect piece with which to build a fishing pole. So you take one and make a kick ass fishing pole without telling the woodworker.

You have changed it. Made it your own. Gone further with the design than the original wood worker. You still took something that wasn't yours to start. You stole.

Yes it's cheesy, but it's the exact same thing. Now, the usage on such a small level nobody is going to care. We're not making money on it so who cares, right? Go ahead and keep on rationalizing. Lord knows I do on occasion (mp3s anybody). But don't for a minute think it's a defendable stance to take.

I'm not saying you can't do it or that you should feel bad about it (I don't and I'm probably a bad person because of it). But you give up your right to be offended when somebody who pours all of their effort into a craft is put off by people just taking things for their own use without thinking twice.

The fishing pole example is insane. Completely disagree. Under that strange rationale - all innovation is theft and all innovators should feel terrible.
 
Sorry, but I don't agree with this example at all. Re-use does not equal theft, unless you literally stole the walking stick to begin with. Ask any honest artist (in any medium) and they will tell you that they "borrowed" all sorts of ideas, techniques, etc. from their influences.

One of my hobbies is refinishing broken antique Philco radios and retrofitting them with discarded computer parts. Am I stealing from Philco?

Is a sculptor who works with found objects stealing?

Is a collage artist stealing?

Was Andy Warhol nothing but a thief? The Parthenon was made with materials from a previous temple. Were its builders thieves? I could go on forever.

good username to post correlation... +1
 
To the OP, I apologize for the short hijack and promise not to devote anymore time to Burro by searching this thread. You know what they say, "When you argue with an idiot, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience"

My original intent was never to argue with you Voo. Maybe my original comment was an unnecessary attempt at being "witty" but it was not aimed at YOU alone. I did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings and honestly i think your reaction has been a bit extreme to say the least. You brought it too a very personal level and that speaks to your immaturity and extreme sensitivity. You dont want to be brought to my level?? You are the one calling me names. I am writing this to you Voo, as I am SURE you are still searching this thread for my comment.

If anyone else thought my OC was a personal attack on them and their manhood I sincerely apologize. And to the OP, I apologize as well, as I think your intent was to be helpful and not start a thread where children would get into playground fights.

Voo, at least we agree on one thing. This forum isnt the place to do this. If you feel the need to continue your hissy fit, feel free to message me.
 
sensibull said:
Sorry, but I don't agree with this example at all. Re-use does not equal theft, unless you literally stole the walking stick to begin with. Ask any honest artist (in any medium) and they will tell you that they "borrowed" all sorts of ideas, techniques, etc. from their influences.

One of my hobbies is refinishing broken antique Philco radios and retrofitting them with discarded computer parts. Am I stealing from Philco?

Is a sculptor who works with found objects stealing?

Is a collage artist stealing?

Was Andy Warhol nothing but a thief? The Parthenon was made with materials from a previous temple. Were its builders thieves? I could go on forever.

In my example, you did steal the stick. It wasn't yours, you didn't get permission, you didn't pay for it, you stole it. Why is it so hard for people to understand that if you take a graphic that somebody spends 10 hours making and use it without permission or compensation, it's the exact same thing as taking a tangible product that somebody spent 10 hours making.

It doesn't matter at all how you use it. If you don't get permission and pass it off as yours, you have stolen regardless of your application.

And yes, Andy Warhol IMHO did steal. It takes nothing away from his talent. And in the end, the original owners gave implicit permission because they were better off because of what he'd done. Campbell's had a lawsuit drawn up that many legal scholars believed they could win, but they realized that while he had trademark infringement, they gained more as an American icon through his work than as a victorious lawsuit winner.

Your radio example doesn't apply because you mentioned these were found and discarded parts. Discarded implies dissolving of ownership. Therefore, if you use them, it's no longer theft. Those parts you use that you don't find, I'm sure you pay for.

The issue isn't application, it's origin. If you didn't make it from scratch, any piece you acquired elsewhere needs compensation or at least permission.
 
Burgs said:
The fishing pole example is insane. Completely disagree. Under that strange rationale - all innovation is theft and all innovators should feel terrible.

If they take something and actually use a piece of it in their "innovation" without compensation, permission, or credit, yes they should feel terrible because they are thieves.
 
\And yes, Andy Warhol IMHO did steal. It takes nothing away from his talent. And in the end, the original owners gave implicit permission because they were better off because of what he'd done. Campbell's had a lawsuit drawn up that many legal scholars believed they could win, but they realized that while he had trademark infringement, they gained more as an American icon through his work than as a victorious lawsuit winner.

baaaaahahahhaha!

can i get a citation please? oh, the citation can't be, "A$$, My"

campbell's never wanted to sue warhol, in fact, they commissioned a painting from him

also, you're stealing malt because you didn't grow and malt the barley yourself and are using it to make beer.
 
motobrewer said:
baaaaahahahhaha!

can i get a citation please? oh, the citation can't be, "A$$, My"

campbell's never wanted to sue warhol, in fact, they commissioned a painting from him

also, you're stealing malt because you didn't grow and malt the barley yourself and are using it to make beer.

Now you're just intentionally trying to miss the point. If you don't create something yourself, and somebody else currently has claim to it, you must either (a) pay for it, (b) ask permission to use it, or (c) give credit to somebody else in order to use it. It obviously depends on the situation (tangible good, academic idea, or a photo) but there's no way around it.

If you want to call BS on the Warhol statement, be my guest. It came from a business law class dealing with trademaek infringement in college 10 years ago. I have no citation to provide (as i dont memorize textbook names 10 years after the fact) so if in your mind that in any way validates your argument, so be it. Congratulations! Campbell's did commission a painting from him of their dried soup and donated real soup cans for his gallery - 25 years after he did his first painting of soup, during which, pop culture advertising proved he was an asset. Business is about money. Who cares what he did as long as it makes me richer.
 
Okay, that’s one approach. The advantage to that type of zero-tolerance policy is there’s no grey area; either it’s theft or it’s not. The disadvantage is that common sense gets left out. So if you cruise over to the “DIY project” section of this site and see a cool design for a sparge braid, no fair using it yourself or even improving it without compensation to or explicit permission from the original author. I won’t even get into the entire beer recipe archive found here. It’s a clear rule, but no reasonable person would consider it misuse.

We’re all adults. We can decide for ourselves what’s reasonable use of information found on the Internet. If you personally want to use the zero-tolerance policy for stuff you come across, that’s fine. For me it seems reasonable that someone who posted a sparge braid design/beer recipe/image to a public forum without stipulating any conditions for it’s use won’t be harmed if I use it personally for non-commercial purposes. It seems reasonable to me that Disney won’t be harmed if some guy uses Jimney Cricket holding a beer mug as a logo for homebrew he shares with his friends. So I propose that everyone abide by whatever they best consider fair use. If it breaks your heart to see others engaging in what you consider blatant, immoral theft, then send them a private message specifically stating what you think is improper rather that casting vague innuendo about misuse found in this sub-forum in general.

That's it. I'm done.
 
If you want to call BS on the Warhol statement, be my guest. It came from a business law class dealing with trademaek infringement in college 10 years ago. I have no citation to provide (as i dont memorize textbook names 10 years after the fact) so if in your mind that in any way validates your argument, so be it. Congratulations! Campbell's did commission a painting from him of their dried soup and donated real soup cans for his gallery - 25 years after he did his first painting of soup, during which, pop culture advertising proved he was an asset. Business is about money. Who cares what he did as long as it makes me richer.

wrong again. the original campbell's painting was done in 1962. campbell commissioned him in 1964.

i hope information from one of the world's most established auction house is a good enough reference:

For their part, the Campbell Soup Company used the soup can as their company logo and corporate identity. After the paintings' debut and wide publicity in 1962-1963, the company appreciated that their most important product had been catapulted into a new realm. In October 1964, the company commissioned Warhol to make a larger 3 x 2 foot painting of a tomato soup can for Oliver G. Willits upon his retirement as Chairman of the Campbell’s Board of Directors.

http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=159344472
 
OP here. Every single one of you are wrong and right in one way or another. As a graphic artist, portrait/wedding photographer, and someone who teaches basic graphic art to young and old students, I'm cringing as I'm reading a few of these view points, and hell, my viewpoint is right and wrong to some as well.

I just want to say this so you would at least have the vast majorities' guidelines for our work... Of course it's ok to borrow other artists work. We consider our work borrowed when you ask us for permission. Sometimes, we also consider it borrowed when you take it without asking first, as long as you show us what you made with it in the end. But in any circumstance, if you "borrow" something that carries a price tag, without asking, you stole it. Stealing is illegal. If it carries a price tag, and you ask us to use a free copy of it because you only use it in your home brewery, we'll say yes, and email you a usable duplication (the only problem here is I'm sure this isn't the case 100% of the time). But remember - if it is on the internet to be sold - this is our income, and we sell this work for this very reason. We sell it to people who want it. But we'll be ethical and reasonable with you if you are with us. You aren't the decision maker when it comes to use of our work, we are (as well as the laws of course). Please ask, or use good judgment on your own.

Add the sites to your resources if you want. Use your own judgment and keep posting your labels for feedback. I'll probably think to myself "Wow, that's a great painting/photo/graphic on your label." I'll research and find the image, then the artist and look at more of their work anyway.
 
If they take something and actually use a piece of it in their "innovation" without compensation, permission, or credit, yes they should feel terrible because they are thieves.

I feel you - if they go on to sell said "innovation" and make money w/ out giving credit. But I'd have to second riromero's plea for some common sense in this particular situation. It's homebrew we're talking about here man.
 
OP here. Every single one of you are wrong and right in one way or another. As a graphic artist, portrait/wedding photographer, and someone who teaches basic graphic art to young and old students, I'm cringing as I'm reading a few of these view points, and hell, my viewpoint is right and wrong to some as well.

I just want to say this so you would at least have the vast majorities' guidelines for our work... Of course it's ok to borrow other artists work. We consider our work borrowed when you ask us for permission. Sometimes, we also consider it borrowed when you take it without asking first, as long as you show us what you made with it in the end. But in any circumstance, if you "borrow" something that carries a price tag, without asking, you stole it. Stealing is illegal. If it carries a price tag, and you ask us to use a free copy of it because you only use it in your home brewery, we'll say yes, and email you a usable duplication (the only problem here is I'm sure this isn't the case 100% of the time). But remember - if it is on the internet to be sold - this is our income, and we sell this work for this very reason. We sell it to people who want it. But we'll be ethical and reasonable with you if you are with us. You aren't the decision maker when it comes to use of our work, we are (as well as the laws of course). Please ask, or use good judgment on your own.

Add the sites to your resources if you want. Use your own judgment and keep posting your labels for feedback. I'll probably think to myself "Wow, that's a great painting/photo/graphic on your label." I'll research and find the image, then the artist and look at more of their work anyway.
Get off your high horse and quit dictating how others should act.
 
Burgs said:
I feel you - if they go on to sell said "innovation" and make money w/ out giving credit. But I'd have to second riromero's plea for some common sense in this particular situation. It's homebrew we're talking about here man.

In one of my early posts in this thread, I mentioned that I wasn't trying to change behavior. As I said, I'm no stranger to an occasional lapse in my theory (some of my iPod content, my winter warmer label, etc). But I know that if I'm called to the mat on the subject, there's no place to justify my actions. I am looking for people to simply acknowledge the same.

The likelihood of people caring or even finding out is next to none. It doesn't change the actions.
 
The likelihood of people caring or even finding out is next to none. It doesn't change the actions.

A+ statement. I understand that what I don't know, won't hurt me, and everyone wins. But I would definitely love to know when someone wants to or did use my labels for their home brews. Not for copyright reasons, but for "flattery".
 
I remember in basic training how, upon discovering that I could draw, my fellow recruits asked me to design tattoos for them. For free of course. I gave up on a career in art soon after that.
 
I remember in basic training how, upon discovering that I could draw, my fellow recruits asked me to design tattoos for them. For free of course. I gave up on a career in art soon after that.

Overloaded with requests I assume?
 
OP here. Every single one of you are wrong and right in one way or another. As a graphic artist, portrait/wedding photographer, and someone who teaches basic graphic art to young and old students, I'm cringing as I'm reading a few of these view points, and hell, my viewpoint is right and wrong to some as well.

I just want to say this so you would at least have the vast majorities' guidelines for our work... Of course it's ok to borrow other artists work. We consider our work borrowed when you ask us for permission. Sometimes, we also consider it borrowed when you take it without asking first, as long as you show us what you made with it in the end. But in any circumstance, if you "borrow" something that carries a price tag, without asking, you stole it. Stealing is illegal. If it carries a price tag, and you ask us to use a free copy of it because you only use it in your home brewery, we'll say yes, and email you a usable duplication (the only problem here is I'm sure this isn't the case 100% of the time). But remember - if it is on the internet to be sold - this is our income, and we sell this work for this very reason. We sell it to people who want it. But we'll be ethical and reasonable with you if you are with us. You aren't the decision maker when it comes to use of our work, we are (as well as the laws of course). Please ask, or use good judgment on your own.

Add the sites to your resources if you want. Use your own judgment and keep posting your labels for feedback. I'll probably think to myself "Wow, that's a great painting/photo/graphic on your label." I'll research and find the image, then the artist and look at more of their work anyway.

I would like to thank you for the links.

If you are going to bring up a legality reference and consider something stealing or illegal. Remember you only need to change something a small percentage, I think it's 10%?, for the copyright to no longer apply and therefore not be stealing.

Before you respond to that think of how many times that something has been changed ever so minutely throughout history and been a huge benefit to humankind.

I know this hits a nerve for you because it is close to you heart and lively hood but remember you're on a home brewing forum that basically is all about sharing. Sharing ideas, recipes, DIY's, information and other brewing related things.

Then again that's just my opinion and you know opinions are like Aholes everyone has one. lol
 
ShakerD said:
Remember you only need to change something a small percentage, I think it's 10%?, for the copyright to no longer apply and therefore not be stealing.

From the US copyright office website.

"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent."

To take it a step further, even using images based on another's work is often seen as infringement. CorelDraw had a contest some year's back to be on the box cover of their next year's product. The winner drew entirely with the program (ie without scanning or tracing) an image of an Indian chief. The drawing was based on a photograph owned by Tony Stone. Even though the computer artist made some notable changes and rendered the entire thing using Corel, the photographer hit paydirt in the lawsuit.
 
Then again that's just my opinion and you know opinions are like Aholes everyone has one. lol

Hahahaha nice, I'm taking that one. It strikes a nerve, but I don't get very angry, just frustrated at the attacks and responses from people not in the mood to hear it.

I'm not sure on what the percentage is either, but the artwork does need changing so it isn't used exactly or a direct representation of the original I believe. Some were assuming that I'm angry and then they respond in anger or hurtfulness. I love looking at labels and logos, and I'm happy to contribute my 2 cents when they want to ask the HBT community. I've learned more here in 3 months or so than 2 years on my own.
 
From the US copyright office website.

"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent."

To take it a step further, even using images based on another's work is often seen as infringement. CorelDraw had a contest some year's back to be on the box cover of their next year's product. The winner drew entirely with the program (ie without scanning or tracing) an image of an Indian chief. The drawing was based on a photograph owned by Tony Stone. Even though the computer artist made some notable changes and rendered the entire thing using Corel, the photographer hit paydirt in the lawsuit.

Lol you are taking that quote out of context. That quote assumes you are creating a new version on the same thing. Like if you make a Blue Moon clone and put a Blue Moon label that you scanned and printed on you computer than yes that applies.

Remember we are talking about making Beer Labels out of pictures and backgrounds not duplicating manufacturers labels

I'm not going to include quotes for the sake of everyone's sanity but I will include a link.

Copyright Registration for Derivative Works

Making a beer label in my opinion would be considered a derivative work.

That being said Copyright laws are not cut and dry like a speed limit they are subject to interpretation.

I am opting out of this conversation because I see this as kind of hijacking the thread and while not unlawful it is unethical.

lol cheers
:mug:
 
ShakerD said:
Lol you are taking that quote out of context. That quote assumes you are creating a new version on the same thing.

Remember we are talking about making Beer Labels out of pictures and backgrounds not duplicating manufacturers labels


Copyright Registration for Derivative Works

Making a beer label in my opinion would be considered a derivative work.

That being said Copyright laws are not cut and dry like a speed limit they are subject to interpretation.

:mug:

I 100% agree it would be a derivative work. The paragraph I quoted can be found in a section of the link you provided titled "Preparing Derivative Work." Just because a work is derivative doesn't mean it's not infringement. You still have to get the owner's permission.

The Corel example pretty much sums it up.
 
People don't realize they are stealing. The internet and search engines like Google make it easy to find exactly what people are looking for so they think, "hey, no one will ever know". And, none of the points the OP made ever cross 99% of people's minds. I think it's akin to ordering a cheeseburger, or any other food for that matter, and being blissfully unaware of what it took to bring them that cheeseburger.

I've done my fair share of desktop publishing and have toiled with vector images for hours on end. Cheers to the OP for bringing this topic up. And, watch out... Big Brother is watching you... he at least knows your IP address!
 
I could be mistaken, but in copyright law, don't you have to vigorously defend your IP lest it become "abandoned" and part of public domain? The examples I was given were Xerox and Kleenex. Those trademarked names became household names and thus, Xerox couldn't sue someone for writing a memo that says "please provide a xerox of the invoice to the purchasing manager." Of course, I could be all wet on that.

However, that doesn't change the fact that freely posting hi-rez, un-watermarked copies of your work on the web is tantamount to throwing a bunch of 100 dollar bills into the wind and calling the cops to say "look at all these people taking my money." Or posting your bank account info and SSN on the web and then claiming identity theft.
 
k, not going to read through the entire thread but, I do have an opinion about the original post...

If I find a pic online that I think would look good in a label on a bottle of beer that I'm not selling, I'm going to use it.

If I find a pic online that I think would look good in a label on a bottle of beer that I'm going to charge money for, or even enter in a contest, either I wouldn't use it or I would find out what I would have to do to use it legally.

Personally, I wouldn't feel right using somebody elses work for my own gain, in the slightest. Period...
 
Get off your high horse and quit dictating how others should act.

so I guess rock stars should quit bitching about people stealing their music and downloading it illegally too huh that's just another high horse they are riding.

grow up. the guy is offering free image sources, and advice how to get images legally.

(and just so you know dictating means saying "act this way or else" I don't see that anywhere, he's not threatening negative action if you don't do what he says. he's offering advice) you don't even know the meaning of the words your using let alone the context to use them in apparently.
 
What the heck is going on this thread? At any rate, thanks to the OP for posting some free resources.

I'd also like to mention the Wiki Commons image site as a great, great resource for some amazing images. Sometimes the posters want some kind of credit, but usually don't.

The National Archives have some great photos too. But it's hard to navigate and they're still in the process of digitizing a lot of media. You have to go to "Digital Copies" tab, then under the Advanced Search, only check "Photographs and other Graphic Materials". Otherwise you'll get some confusing results.

But I've had a few pictures I've taken that I've asked for help with editing at online forums and people accused me of using copyrighted materials. I guess I just take good photos.

Photobucket has recently released some nice editing options for images with their free accounts.

And even Photoshop will let you make a some decent edits with their free accounts.
 
What the heck is going on this thread? At any rate, thanks to the OP for posting some free resources.

I immediately asked myself this same question within seconds of getting the first reply.

Thanks for contributing as well, I can post them in the original so future users won't have to search deep into this thread.

But I've had a few pictures I've taken that I've asked for help with editing at online forums and people accused me of using copyrighted materials. I guess I just take good photos.

I don't mind helping you edit them. Feel free to post here or PM.
 
A few other sites worth mentioning if looking for creative common licensed images:
Defense Department and their military collections
Hubble Telescope images

Thanks for offering to help. If I need a new label, I may take you up on that.

I've been able to use free sites and their editing tools to create Jones Soda style labels for my beer. I tinker with the effects, but I like a nice crisp photo. I only make labels for bottles that I give away. My labels all have the same look to them, yet they all have a little different feel.

The very first one a few years ago using CorelDraw:
TortoiseLabel-1-2.jpg


And the last label I made using Photobucket:
IMG_1400-1-1.jpg
 
Well FWIW, I am a graphic designer and I did in fact win a small claims lawsuit for copyright infringement on a local company in AZ. (No names will be mentioned). What I was able to decipher throughout my entire situation is that the law will only back you if the infringement was "created to turn a profit". I had a magazine spread submitted as a proof. They used the file.... it was even low res LOL, and I was able to win my claim based on the fact that they had never paid for the proof and made a profit using my spread. It gets REALLY complicated and honestly a bit above my head not being in the law field, but to that note I consider copyright infringement using any materials that could be used to turn a profit. IMO beer labels for our homebrews would not count. It IS ALWAYS nice however to get permission to use an artists work. Again my .02.

On that note:
vectorstock.com and 123rf.com are the primaries I use when doing any vector work. Have fun.:D
 
On that note:
vectorstock.com and 123rf.com are the primaries I use when doing any vector work. Have fun.:D

I've used vectorstock many times, in fact when I read your post I could've sworn I included it in my original post. 123rf.com looks good cuz it appears to be cheaper than what I've been using commercially, but it doesn't appear to be vector images, just photographs.

Thanks, I'll add them both to my original post so future users who search won't have to look deep into this thread.
 
From the US copyright office website.

"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent."

To take it a step further, even using images based on another's work is often seen as infringement. CorelDraw had a contest some year's back to be on the box cover of their next year's product. The winner drew entirely with the program (ie without scanning or tracing) an image of an Indian chief. The drawing was based on a photograph owned by Tony Stone. Even though the computer artist made some notable changes and rendered the entire thing using Corel, the photographer hit paydirt in the lawsuit.

I don't want this post to go unnoticed here. cimirie, you hit the nail on the head.

By creating labels for our home brew beer, we are not claiming copyright to said labels. Yes, many of us google image search our ideas. We use these images as inspiration to our personal designs. Even if you design looks similar to another design, and you didn't know it, you could be sued. Fair use protects us a little bit, but in my opinion not enough.

I legally cannot sell my beer so I am 100% not turning a profit from the labels.

Funny law suit story, my dad's company was sued by a big box home improvement store in the MidWest. Their name was the same as our last name. I had to relinquish our domain name because it incorporated our last name and "wood products."

How ridiculous is that? Thanks for the free resources though. Everyone else that's arguing, step away from the keyboard, relax, and have a home brew already :tank:
 
Back
Top