what is the general opinion on this

[mooseman]

I have a curiosity on this.
Lets take the image below taken from a Google search and owned by someone other than I.
I take this image redraw it and have all the elements of my work, maybe I make some changes maybe not but I redraw or trace it and have that work product.
Is this pirating art no pun intended.......curious what do you think especially you who make your $$ from creating such (better) art ?

mooseman

[Hey Monkey]

It absolutely is pirating that work. If you use it as inspiration and create and wholly original piece it is yours. But if you trace, directly take elements from that piece etc you are stealing that artists work.

[balloonguy]

I am pretty sure that you can search royalty free images that the creators will happily share for no charge...

[AntonySharples]

That's a pretty standard clip art that is free all over the internet.  If it was an intensely drawn piece, I would say yes.  But something like this is readily available for free or for like a buck.

[Sbrem]

Yeah, I'm afraid so if it looks just like it. The really big question is whether or not you want to gamble on the owner coming after you, they only have to prove when they created it, no © or ® necessary. Is it worth the possible lawyer fee? Shutterstock will let you pre-buy, we give them $49.00, and we can let a customer pick from their vast library; a vector images are essentially $10.00. Why redraw a questionable image? Beside it being good practice for drawing? And of course, the wide variety of totally free images as other folks are mentioning is an option.


Steve

[blue moon]

I started to write a long post but decided against it as it would not really help make matters easily understood.


redrawing it exactly, is the same as reproducing it. The fact you did it by hand, does not matter, you are still copying. Unless you have the copyrights or the image is in public domain, you are breaking the rules.

so it's simple (from copyright standpoint). to be able to use it, it either:
-you created it
or
-you acquired the rights (public domain or purchase)

pierre

[mooseman]

here is the problem or issue that twists my mind. Have a look at the google search at the links below they are all almost exactly the same image as I previously posted. It is a common design so who copies who , who owns the image? and how does anyone come up with something similar without being subject to pirating some other claimed art.


http://www.wpclipart.com/flags/pirate_flags/pirate_flag_skull_with_red_bandana.png.html

http://www.playcrossbones.com/Jolly_Roger_Flag.php#sthash.n4vl5oHR.dpbs

http://www.orientaltrading.com/pirate-flag-a2-70_1647.fltr


https://www.google.com/search?q=pirate&newwindow=1&safe=off&biw=1366&bih=599&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIrvWhycvWyAIVxs6ACh3t_QhF#newwindow=1&safe=off&tbm=isch&q=pirate+flag

There is so much out there on just about any popular image how in the world could someone not be a pirate and actually be original ?
another prime  example our friend Calvin


 https://www.google.com/search?q=pirate&newwindow=1&safe=off&biw=1366&bih=599&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIrvWhycvWyAIVxs6ACh3t_QhF#newwindow=1&safe=off&tbm=isch&q=calvin&imgrc=Mjv3-94C8Brq2M%3A

[kingscreen]

The WPCLIPART site has this: http://www.wpclipart.com/terms.html
That's when you click Terms of Use under the image.  States the image is Public Domain.

[blue moon]

As KS mentioned, WP site specifically states that the images are his creation and the they are public domain. That should cover you. . .

the Calivn image is a blatant copyright violation, no question about it!

pierre

p.s. and few more details for anybody wanting more. Please remember this is my interpretation of the Law and I am not a lawyer.
1. just going from the WP website might not really be enough if it ever goes to court. I try to back up the original information to confirm what was said. For example, I found a really cool tiger on an public domain vector site and I could not believe it was free even though the description clearly stated that it was on original piece of work with copyrights being released. I dug around for about 30 min and eventually found the original painting of the tiger. Vector version of it was just a quick cleanup and conversion. Person posting it assumed that since they vectorized and removed some background that they now had the right to make the image public domain. Artis (the convertor) was some place in far east, was still in high school and had no understanding of the copyright rules. Point being that just going to a site that claims they own the art should not be enough. Ppl lie, cheat and steal or in best case they are ignorant of the law. Trusting a highschool kid with the copyright understanding is a risky proposition!
2. Calvin! The image is identical to the original that should stop any further discussions!
What are the exceptions and why does this not apply in this case?
-educational use, you can display or reproduce the image for education. If you are taking a comic book design class, Calvin can be in your textbook.
-parody, only if the parody is of Calvin. Doing a parody of ISIS and using Calvin to get the point across does NOT count.
-editorial, that means you can report the news about Calvin and use the image. The news has to be about Calvin or something related. Showing Calvin pissing on ISIS while you are reporting on the surfing conditions in Zimbabwe does not qualify.
-artistic expression, you can use Calvin's image if you are going to create a piece (limited edition) that is going to an art gallery and the purpose of it the pursuit of artistic expression. So creating a flash mob while dressed as Calvin is OK, printing T-shirts with him at an art festival is not!

I am sure there is more, but this is off the top of my head. . . Check these guys out and buy their book, it has a ton of information in it (I just picked it up, have not yet had a chance to read it). You can also watch their video that explains a lot of this.

! No longer available

pierre

[mimosatexas]

The Calvin peeing image has a pretty interesting story: https://triviahappy.com/articles/the-tasteless-history-of-the-peeing-calvin-decal

Obviously it isn't legal to make and sell them, but the floodgates have also been open for 20 years and not stopped by the owner of the IP.  In other words, it is unlikely you will get in trouble for selling them because you are one of hundreds or thousands of people also selling them illegally, and the IP owner doesn't have the resources to stop them all through lawsuits.  This is kind of like the "if you don't protect it, you lose the rights to it" thing that many well known brands suffer from, and why companies like Apple sue absolutely everyone for anything remotely associated with their IP.

[Frog]

I, and probably many of you, have received from clients, or found on the internet, clipart designs that were obvious traces.
Then, they become traces of rasterized traces, and so on and so on, until they are so well used that they seem to be public domain stuff that started out strictly not.

[blue moon]

also, as an admin here, I have to point out that violating the copyright even though there is no potential of getting caught is against the law and should not be encouraged. Please, consider NOT doing it.

thanx,

pierre

[mooseman]

also, as an admin here, I have to point out that violating the copyright even though there is no potential of getting caught is against the law and should not be encouraged. Please, consider NOT doing it.

thanx,

pierre

all well and fair but who would be the judge and jury. this is my whole conundrum...
Pierre to the letter of the law.... if violation = exile from this board most likely only you and the crickets would  be left...the silence would be deafening


I would sum it up by taking a line from the Beatles...which in itself is a violation

 Nothing you can make that can't be made
mooseman

[Frog]

also, as an admin here, I have to point out that violating the copyright even though there is no potential of getting caught is against the law and should not be encouraged. Please, consider NOT doing it.

thanx,

pierre

all well and fair but who would be the judge and jury. this is my whole conundrum...
Pierre to the letter of the law.... if violation = exile from this board most likely only you and the crickets would  be left...the silence would be deafening


I would sum it up by taking a line from the Beatles...which in itself is a violation

 Nothing you can make that can't be made
mooseman

Actually, Pierre said that we can't encourage it.
That kind of risky behavior and abuse of the forum would probably be grounds for at least a little "time out".

[mooseman]

also, as an admin here, I have to point out that violating the copyright even though there is no potential of getting caught is against the law and should not be encouraged. Please, consider NOT doing it.

thanx,

pierre

all well and fair but who would be the judge and jury. this is my whole conundrum...
Pierre to the letter of the law.... if violation = exile from this board most likely only you and the crickets would  be left...the silence would be deafening


I would sum it up by taking a line from the Beatles...which in itself is a violation

 Nothing you can make that can't be made
mooseman

Actually, Pierre said that we can't encourage it.
That kind of risky behavior and abuse of the forum would probably be grounds for at least a little "time out".

hey Frog,
Understood completely from Pierre's reply just goes to the  squeness of the whole issue.
Anyway I pretty much have a censes 300+ reviews 13 replies .
  I withdraw the whole question ,we were never here and  we never talked
mooseman