Copyright Infringement?

[MaxStout]

This just in...Federal court holds that monkeys don't own the copyright to their selfies.

I really want to see this go to the appellate courts.

 

[beergolf]

NOW, that said, where it would be different was if you instead did 1 of 2 things, used an artists rendering of the image that was stylized to look like a drawing of some sort with some changes (

Ask Shephard Fairey about this......He spent a lot of time in court trying this.

 

[Curtis2010]

There actually was a Three Stooges beer and a related bottle opener that played one liners from the Stooges. A friend of mine still has one of each. Dont know the legal arrangements though.

Update:

Here it is on Beer Advocate. Apparently not very good.

http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/122/396/

Also their official swag site sells several beer related items and the Stooges did at least two films with "beer" in the title...so I dont think their or their heirs would object on principle.

More reasons to like the Stooges! :beer::beer::beer:

 

[SevenOaks]

This one is my new favorite
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=568209

 

[Dirt_McGirt]

I have never had to interact with anyone behind the counter. They have never seen what I am copying, never cared. It's all self-service if you don't mess with the counter-workers - I walk in, go over to the laser-printer, plug in my USB stick or slap my printed copy on the machine, run my credit card, and away I go.

Maybe I have the most lax Kinko's employees ever? I don't mind, if that's the case.

That's been exactly my experience, too, whether printing labels or anything else. At most I get a "have a nice day" when I'm walking out the door.

 

[canehdianman]

If anyone asks, just tell them that you own the copyright to the image. 99.9% of pictures they won't be able to tell.

 

[Curtis2010]

This one is my new favorite
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=568209

Thats great! I never knew the Stooges made a "How to Brew" video. Should be required viewing for all new brewers.

 

[Minky]

Thats great! I never knew the Stooges made a "How to Brew" video. Should be required viewing for all new brewers.

The Stooges prove just how bad over-pitching really is!!

 

[unionrdr]

I liked how Moe started munching the yeast cake wrappers like tater chips or something. The sound effect was a nice bonus. The stuff they used was pretty close to what was actually used at that point. Wish I'd gotten mom's big crock though...

 

[kombat]

This thread has motivated me to look into pricing for wireless, duplex, colour laser printers. $330 ... *almost* within a reasonable price range.

 

[Pappers_]

So here's how it all plays out, as long as you aren't selling or marketing the beer in anyway, you're good to print that. BUT, because Office Depot would be profiting off of the reproduction of said copyrighted photo by selling you the labels, they can only do so if you are the copyright owner of the property. It's definitely not public domain. You can find photos of mine of University of Hawaii sports among others all over the Internet but they are still copyrighted by me in the IPTC coding on the photo which is basically coded information hidden inside the image for my protection. Basically the way it works for situations like this is in order to protect themselves, if the image appears to be professional grade, they reserve the right to refuse it on speculation. It may seem a bit extreme, but if you sold a single bottle of that beer to someone, whoever currently owns the rights to the 3-stooges (o think MGM?) could and most likely would sue the crap out of not only you, but Office Depot. You could sell one beer for $5, they could sue you and Office Depot each for probably around a mil depending on their contract terms regarding the copyrights on the franchise. I've had printing companies make me prove that the photo was mine for other people and myself both.

Bottom line is neither of you've done anything wrong. You're not profiting so you're ok, but she would be so she's correct in not reproducing the image. But either way, public domain is a term tossed around in the social media age that truly doesn't exist for professional work bc we all copyright our stuff.

Thanks for clarifying that, very helpful.

 

[ChasinABuzz]

Ask Shephard Fairey about this......He spent a lot of time in court trying this.

No Shepherd Fairey is a graphic designer who takes pieces of peoples work and alters them in various ways to make them his own and then uses them in very large scale campaigns. Not even remotely close to the same thing here. Not to mention Fairey uses his work in a very political manner and targets some of the most powerful people in the world with some of it so I have a feeling they are a wee bit more inclined to come after him that the relatives of actors from a tv show that have been dead for decades lol. I'm talking about having a friend draw the image as a cartoon that is just based on the composition of the photo. Just because an image is taken once doesn't mean an artist can't use it as inspiration. You just need to take enough artistic license with it and make it different. Switch 2 of the stooges, stylize the image, etc. like I said before though for him to make labels for beer he's not selling just for fun, that's a lot of work.

 

[ChasinABuzz]

If anyone asks, just tell them that you own the copyright to the image. 99.9% of pictures they won't be able to tell.

If they are going to take the time to ask, they will make you prove your name matches the copyright in the metadata. If the metadata is gone they won't print. It really just depends on how diligent of an employee you get but if they're diligent enough to question it in the first place they're most likely not just going to believe your word. Otherwise there's no point in even asking.

 

[ChasinABuzz]

This just in...Federal court holds that monkeys don't own the copyright to their selfies.



I really want to see this go to the appellate courts.

Hahaha I know right?! I think it's hilarious that an image has gone from the usual "who owns it" to now people in the photography world are having heated discussions about the definition of a "sentient being" hahaha

 

[MaxStout]

Hahaha I know right?! I think it's hilarious that an image has gone from the usual "who owns it" to now people in the photography world are having heated discussions about the definition of a "sentient being" hahaha

I see what PETA is trying to do here. If they can establish that animals are "legal persons" by way of giving them property rights, that opens the door to a lot of things.

 

[ChasinABuzz]

I see what PETA is trying to do here. If they can establish that animals are "legal persons" by way of giving them property rights, that opens the door to a lot of things.

I think that's their thought process, but where they are going to fall apart is the fact that their main witness has no consciousness to what's happening. So that opens the door to representative groups and when they claim to be that, we're going to see all their trash tossed into the street. And they have some deplorable trash in their name.

I grew up one city over from their headquarters in Virginia. That group is the scum of the earth. They're in a law suit now in VA right now for literally taking a dog off someone's porch, taking it to PETA headquarters in Norfolk, and euthanizing it. It stills axes me that people still support a group who believe pets are wrong and we have to euthanize them all to solve the problem. They are the definition of psychotic.

 

[unionrdr]

Dang tree-huggin' puey fusee' crowd & their bleeding heart liberalism's. Sure, I don't want my animals abused, or somebody makin' money off my stuff. But some folks go a lil too far with their failed & useless lives.

 

[MaxStout]

I think that's their thought process, but where they are going to fall apart is the fact that their main witness has no consciousness to what's happening. So that opens the door to representative groups and when they claim to be that, we're going to see all their trash tossed into the street. And they have some deplorable trash in their name.

I grew up one city over from their headquarters in Virginia. That group is the scum of the earth. They're in a law suit now in VA right now for literally taking a dog off someone's porch, taking it to PETA headquarters in Norfolk, and euthanizing it. It stills axes me that people still support a group who believe pets are wrong and we have to euthanize them all to solve the problem. They are the definition of psychotic.

I don't get them, either. I think it's just a control thing.

The slippery slope that would begin if animals are deemed "legal persons," is that such a legal person enjoys rights to sue and be sued, just like human individuals, corporations, organizations, governments, etc. Plus they would enjoy constitutional rights. The animal would no longer be considered just someone's property. The fact that an animal is not aware won't be a problem, courts would have to assign it a guardian ad litem to represent it.

It's just a bad idea all around. However, I doubt very much that the effort will be successful. But PETA will certainly give it a shot.

 

[beergolf]

No Shepherd Fairey is a graphic designer who takes pieces of peoples work and alters them in various ways to make them his own and then uses them in very large scale campaigns. Not even remotely close to the same thing here. Not to mention Fairey uses his work in a very political manner and targets some of the most powerful people in the world with some of it so I have a feeling they are a wee bit more inclined to come after him that the relatives of actors from a tv show that have been dead for decades lol. I'm talking about having a friend draw the image as a cartoon that is just based on the composition of the photo. Just because an image is taken once doesn't mean an artist can't use it as inspiration. You just need to take enough artistic license with it and make it different. Switch 2 of the stooges, stylize the image, etc. like I said before though for him to make labels for beer he's not selling just for fun, that's a lot of work.

True he does get his work out there so he is more likely to be sued. But using someone elses work is still copyright infringement. Plain and simple. Is a guy that is using an image for a beer label on a beer that is not going to be sold likely to be sued? I seriously doubt it. The idea that you can use someone elses work for inspiration and change it slightly is false and has been proven in court. Jeff Koons has been sued several times for using someone elses work for inspiration. He even changes the medium. Again he is a famous artist making money from his work, but is still copying others ideas for his work.

Here is something from a Jeff Koons copyright infringement case.

As copyright lawyers Owen, Wickersham, and Erickson explain in analyzing the previous cases brought against the artist, "Even a quantitatively small amount of copying can be infringement if it copies a qualitatively important part of the original work." They note a common misconception "that you can avoid infringement by making at least 20 percent changes from the original," but counter, "This is not true. Infringement is not a mathematical formula."

 

[unionrdr]

That's why I think PETA is being nothing more than PITA!

 

[Sstraley01]

I do graphics and one thing none has picked up on is not the fact that the original poster is not selling for profit but the printer that is producing the labels is reproducing for profit and that is where the trouble lies..

 

[MaxStout]

I do graphics and one thing none has picked up on is not the fact that the original poster is not selling for profit but the printer that is producing the labels is reproducing for profit and that is where the trouble lies..

It's not a problem if the printer has a policy in place requiring the customer prove he/she has full copyright ownership of the work. If the printer has such a policy, and is taking reasonable steps to ensure protection of others' copyrights, that can become an affirmative defense to contributory or vicarious infringement under the DMCA.

 

[ChasinABuzz]

I don't get them, either. I think it's just a control thing.

The slippery slope that would begin if animals are deemed "legal persons," is that such a legal person enjoys rights to sue and be sued, just like human individuals, corporations, organizations, governments, etc. Plus they would enjoy constitutional rights. The animal would no longer be considered just someone's property. The fact that an animal is not aware won't be a problem, courts would have to assign it a guardian ad litem to represent it.

It's just a bad idea all around. However, I doubt very much that the effort will be successful. But PETA will certainly give it a shot.

Oh yea they'll try anything. They picketed us at Bass Pro in Hampton VA because we shot a bird that had gotten inside and couldn't get out and was starving to death. Because apparently we should've just let it suffer because that's ethical...

 

[ChasinABuzz]

True he does get his work out there so he is more likely to be sued. But using someone elses work is still copyright infringement. Plain and simple. Is a guy that is using an image for a beer label on a beer that is not going to be sold likely to be sued? I seriously doubt it. The idea that you can use someone elses work for inspiration and change it slightly is false and has been proven in court. Jeff Koons has been sued several times for using someone elses work for inspiration. He even changes the medium. Again he is a famous artist making money from his work, but is still copying others ideas for his work.



Here is something from a Jeff Koons copyright infringement case.

That's exactly what I said earlier, the chances of anything happening in the beer case we're talking about are 0 - none. And yes you can use someone's work for a basis to expand on in your own, if it's legitimately altered to garçon he original but not show it directly. It's all gray. I understand what you're saying, but it all boils down to how much change was made, and the final use of the rendering and what impact that has on the reputation of the subject or original artist.

 

[ChasinABuzz]

I do graphics and one thing none has picked up on is not the fact that the original poster is not selling for profit but the printer that is producing the labels is reproducing for profit and that is where the trouble lies..

That was in my first post.

 

[ChasinABuzz]

Just use an official government photo of Obama or Hillary. They're both dimwits and White House photos aren't copyrighted. Just about any member of Congress would work too, but many of those aren't recognizable faces like the two dimwits mentioned above.

Good Luck and Cheers!

White House press pool imagery is heavily copyrighted brother lol

 

[madscientist451]

White House press pool imagery is heavily copyrighted brother lol

Yeah I used to work in the News business in DC. The White House has its own official photographer that is paid with the money the Federal Reserve Prints, so those pictures are available for anyone to use

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/white-house-photos

Don't know if this photo has a copywrite, but its a good substitution for the stooges:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Hillary-and-Obama-pic-575x380.jpg

 

[dkwolf]

Having a copy of the photo does not allow you to make copies, any more than buying a copy of a movie allows you to copy that. The photo studio owns the copyright to the image. The fact that your family is the subject of the photo is irrelevant; unless the studio executed a "work made for hire" agreement with you (they rarely do), the copyright remains with the author of the work (studio).

This. Under US copyright law, a photographer owns the copyright to an image the moment he hits the shutter button. A studio can give you a copyright release that would allow you to make copies - without that, you're SOL.

 

[ChasinABuzz]

Yeah I used to work in the News business in DC. The White House has its own official photographer that is paid with the money the Federal Reserve Prints, so those pictures are available for anyone to use

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/white-house-photos

Don't know if this photo has a copywrite, but its a good substitution for the stooges:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Hillary-and-Obama-pic-575x380.jpg

Right for non-profit purposes. You still can't run your business with press pool imagery as your marketing. In this instance he could use them yea but I thought you were implying that there's no copyright on any press pool imagery whatsoever.

 

[ChasinABuzz]

I think I misunderstood the reach you were describing is all.