A Mature, Drama-free Discussion on Intellectual Property

[AniaR]

If you were to photograph people you didn't know, does the photograph belong to you or to the subjects? If they request you to destroy the photograph you took do you have to comply?

There are laws to protect photo journalism, maybe more than there should be. But despite people being allowed to do it without permission, certain industries do have policies (like childcare/students you need written photo release forms for any kid to be photographed) and many a legal battle has been won over a person charging someone for taking their photo without permission when it comes to privacy. So my answer to sum up: legally in many situations photojournaism is allowed without permission from subjects, but that doesn't stop subjects from charging and winning when they base their arguments around privacy rights.

[Mermaid Jewel]

New questions: If you were to photograph people you didn't know, does the photograph belong to you or to the subjects? If they request you to destroy the photograph you took do you have to comply? This has never happened to me but is a question I have wondered about. Same with modelling I guess. Does the photograph of the model belong to the model or to the photographer? If a model hires a photographer for specific images then the photographer has no right to add a watermark to their images, right? Just like in the professional photo studios?

First off, the photo is yours if you take it in a public space. Like, you were in the streets or the subway and you took people you don't know, it was in public and legally you are allowed to do this and own the copyright. However, if you really were to use the picture widely and for a lot, I'd probably ask the person permission, just in case.

And for the model thing, most models sign contracts to either share the rights or give it up to the photographer. In general, though, the two share the rights. Legally, it can get really messy so...personally (I'm not a professional though) I tell them what I'll be doing with the photos ahead of time.

[midwesternmermaid]

Don't show me anything! I want to come up with something on my own...
(dripping with a goodly deal of sarcasm as we aren't islands ).

[midwesternmermaid]

I'm a temporary body artist, specializing in henna. These link will take you to the awesome Lady Catherine's site where I basically have learned (almost) everything I need to know henna. This copyright article is specifically for henna body art, but can also apply to other things. I'll need to check my henna forums as well.
http://www.hennapage.com/henna/encyclopedia/copyright/

The thing that I think gets sticky is that there are only so many ways to create a basic form. What's a flower? A center with some petals? How many possible ways can one execute a flower? Vary the number, shape, color and size of the petals; change up the shape of the center. Quite a few ways, but I think it's almost nuts to think you can create something that no one has ever done anything like it before. You might reference artist A for the center, artist B for the color scheme, artist C for the shapes, and so on. This is why I'm hesitant to put henna patterns in the henna kits that I sell. While I may draw up my own pattern myself, I've been influenced by some great artists in the body art community.
With mermaid designs, what's a tail? Come on, how "originally creative" can we get with this? Wrap up the human legs, attach some flukes and fins and make all pretty. Same thing applies to tops and other accessories. What's a top? Something that holds the girls together, so you might as well make it look good. There's only so many ways we can do this (safely). We don't live in bubbles, but we live and breath together.

Overall, this is how I see it. If you create something on your own, it's yours. If you drew inspiration or referenced something, give credit where it is due. Just don't take someone's work and say you did it or try to pass of your work as someone else's.
A current example (from what I've seen so far in the mer community) is the desire to make Hannah-Fraser-inspired tails. Her tails are beautiful! I want one! Her tails are hers and any tail I would make would be mine. It just might be best to briefly glance at her work and then create something based on the impression it left in my mind. In any pix I might post of my creation, it would be fair to reference her work in my comments (design inspired by Hannah Fraser's mermaid tails, based on, [add a hyperlink], etc.). As far as what belongs to her are her own creations and the pictures of her wearing them (also, pictures of her in general. And photos also belong to the photographer, but that's between the two of them.).
I just remembered the Creative Commons Licensing used on DeviantArt: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/.

I hope this helps and this is only my take on it. Please know that I'm not out to step on toes or cause drama. I think the mercommunity is great and we can learn a lot from each other. My bubble is your bubble too.

[midwesternmermaid]

The second thing I'd like to pose to everybody is whether we are all being hypocritical by selectively condemning some acts of theft, and ignoring others. I do believe that some of the accusations of theft made about Mr. Ducharme are valid. But I haven't seen much acknowledgement of the fact that Eric's work has almost certainly been reverse engineered and adopted by others in the community. On the other hand, the very first tails Mr. Ducharme ever sold were fabric, and he was accused of stealing the idea from FoxMoon Productions. This is a pretty weird accusation, since nowadays the design of a basic fabric tail is considered so simple that the idea that someone could feel possessive of it seems hard to believe. Additionally, Make Van Daal purchased one of the tails used in the 13th Year and used reproductions of its fin in tails that he sold. Is this wrong? Is everyone guilty? Is no one? (emphasis added)

In the ball-jointed-doll community, there's a term for purchasing a doll commercially, make molds and recasting. While for personal use, this may be fine, it's a big NO-NO if one intends to sell the recasts. It's still the original design from the originator, but it's not yours. If you're going to make something and call it your own, you do so from scratch or assemble parts in your own desired fashion. In this case, it looks like a re-cast.

[Spindrift]

I think if you give credit/get permission it's all good. But what about people who don't whether it is because they don't think to or they don't want to (glory seekers)?

[Kanti]

Maybe the whole photo thing is similar to being filmed? Maybe you have to sign release forms before
they're allowed to use your photos or something like that. I think when you model, the first time you meet up
with someone you have to sign a bunch of release forms? Not really sure, but I assume the photos belong to
the photographer since they're the ones who produced the "artwork". You were just the subject, so I think if
there were no forms signed that release you of your attachment to the photos maybe they're still somehwat yours?

That's an interesting question. I never thought about that.

[midwesternmermaid]

I think if you give credit/get permission it's all good. But what about people who don't whether it is because they don't think to or they don't want to (glory seekers)?

Just a kind reminder from the perspective of "out of concern for you" could be helpful. Something like, "Hey, I love your work. It's incredible. What did you reference and what were your inspirations? Just asking because I'd hate to see someone with such beautiful work get in trouble because he or she didn't give credit where it was due." It might be more appropriate via a PM instead of on a forum. Sure, praise the snot out of them publicly (if there is some element in which they legitimately deserve it. We’re not out to butter up and manipulate here) that way he/she knows you like their work and the world knows that too. A gentle call-to-the-carpet might work best privately. Go ahead and add a "I didn't want to make you look bad on any forums, so that's why I wanted to connect with you privately." Hopefully, they'll get the idea that you don't want trouble, you just want to help.
If they respond with a “Oh, yeah! I basically copied so-and-so’s work over here” or a “I liked the color scheme here, the shapes here and the composition here,” remind them that the originators have rights to their work (“did you know…?”). Suggest they give proper credit to their sources (“The most basic thing we can do to show respect to them and their work is to cite them as a reference…”). Offer up some legal smeagal reference they can go to, and it’s probably as simple as web-searching “copyright law”. Make sure your typical person can understand it before passing it on.
Of course, they could get all defensive and all that's left for you to do is to attempt to part ways on a positive note: “Like I said, I don’t want trouble for you or for me. If you honestly feel like you’ve done right by anybody and everybody who might be involved, I know I can’t change your mind. I wish you the best.” Whether you want to keep your eye on them or give them a warning is up to you. Contact the originator only if you know for sure they copied his/her work, encouraging him to connect with the “thief” saying “If you referenced my work, I must insist that you would cite it. I understand that you may have drawn inspiration elsewhere. All I ask is that you give credit it where it is due.” The originator may also warn them that legal action may be taken (only if it’s possible for action to be taken, otherwise it might be reasonable to inform others publicly that images have been stolen and where the originals are).
I know of certain folks who have a habit of completely ripping off other artists’ work (such as taking my photo of my henna work and saying that they did it – hasn’t happened to me personally, but to other henna peeps). I imagine they are contacted privately, and it’s usually a case of “I personally know the artist this belongs to so you had better make this right,” before they are fed to the sharks – “Hey, henna peeps, go look at this person’s site and see what he/she has that belongs to you.”
Of course, a very simple thing artists can do to prevent their images from being stolen is to watermark them like crazy. I haven’t done this with all my images, but I need to. Watermarks can be as simple as the copyright symbol, the year and your name or username. Add terms of use to the bottom.
A Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am an artist and a mermaid. These are only suggestions which may or may not work or will need to be adapted to specific situations. Use your head and heart and don’t hold me responsible if something blows up in your face. Please know that I’m not intentionally setting anyone up for failure. Just trying to help.

[AniaR]

Like I said, there are actual laws when it comes to photos... for both privacy, photojouranlism, and copyright

http://content.photojojo.com/tips/le...photographers/ <-- this link has them in plain english with examples
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/les.../chapter5.html <-- this link references some of the legal jargon around privacy

Also, on all reputable art sites for displaying any visual work, it's copyrighted, and there are systems for reporting violation or people blatantly copying or stealing your work. There an infamous mermaid artist whos work is always being stolen (the one who painted the mother mermaid holding the baby) and on sites like deviantART people who even draw their own versions of her work will have it removed for referencing/copying without permission. A lot of legal things come into issue, especially when people try to sell said art work

[midwesternmermaid]

Also, on all reputable art sites for displaying any visual work, it's copyrighted, and there are systems for reporting violation or people blatantly copying or stealing your work. There an infamous mermaid artist whos work is always being stolen (the one who painted the mother mermaid holding the baby) and on sites like deviantART people who even draw their own versions of her work will have it removed for referencing/copying without permission. A lot of legal things come into issue, especially when people try to sell said art work

Okay, well let me make an example of myself, because I do want to do the right thing. I have this piece placed in my scrapbook and I provide a link to the original artist. I also have contacted her and obtained permission to post on DA. She said that it was okay but that I couldn't sell prints of my work which is fine. I've disabled download which also means I have to put my watermark on full-size view. What do I need to do as far as Creative Commons goes? In my comments, I also ask for suggestions on how I might better handle the situation.

http://midwesternmermaid.deviantart....craps#/d21rp5j

If we have to ask permission for every little thing, then maybe we are better off living in our own little, lonely bubbles. That would be the only way to guarantee we don't unintentionally run away with something that isn't ours. But that also means we don't put anything out there to share.
There are some things that are set up to be referenced. Generally, the originator seems to like to know "Hey, I used it over here." And what are the things that we don't need permission for? Do we need permission to use the color gradient on "mermaid cove 2"? http://www.hannahfraser.com/mermaid/ (as an example). What can we and can't we do with that? It doesn't seem fair that all other gold-to-green-to-blue-to-violet-to-white (or even to take a part of that equation) tails are thrown out of the water. That's just basic color wheel. It would be reasonable they not be made for sale but only for personal use. What if a mer wants to use it for paid mer parties? That mer would've done all the work on the tail themselves. The design just came from someone else.
I think I figured out why I feel so yuck about this. I'm an artist and I don't like being hampered. I might see something and it gets filed away in my mind and its almost like another tool in my toolbox or another color of paint, that I might pull out someday. Let me swim; don't stick me in the mud. That's not to suggest that I won't follow the rules. Sometimes it just seems like it's so hard to do.

[merboy78xy]

my two cents would be (not that I have any more importance of advice than has already been brought up or discussed) that I like what midwestnmermaid said about casting someone else's original and selling it. I think that there are a lot of people who "copy" a design, but re-sculpt it and make casts of THAT (like seeing a reproduction of the bust of Nefertiti or the David sculpture) and the legalities on it would be a little fuzzy, vs. someone who buys an actual original and casts that to sell.
As far as original ideas, I think it's always been interesting to see a drugstore's brand of whatever that says in the corner: "compare to the ingredients in..." I always feel like, that's fuzzy legality around "stealing" a copywritten formula, etc. And the same goes for movies: like when Transformers came out and before the major motion picture came to DVD in rental stores, you could already buy a cheap knockoff version of transforming robot aliens. Now, knockoffs have been around forever-- from perfume, to purses, clothing, movies, etc. So even though I feel like it's not the "greatest form of flattery"-- as the saying goes-- it seems to be somewhat accepted.
I do think that nearly everyone tries to emulate or "copy" the things they like, or find beautiful. As an artist, I do too. Though I try to steer clear of flat out plagiarism. I find that detestable. And usually when I copy art or something I've seen, it's to teach myself a new technique, style, etc. And is for me to use in my artistic arsenal and meld its influence with my style-- not to mass produce and sell.
So is it wrong? Is it right? I feel that intention has a lot to do with it, and so does the "giving credit where it's due." Art classes have their students "copy" the masters to learn. But they certainly don't sell it as their own.

Also, I AM VERY wary of releasing my ideas into the world, until they are A) fully formed, B) Protected to some degree, and C) I am ready to do so.
I have some new ideas I want to try for mermaid tails, and I'm sure others have thought of them too. Lord knows how many times I've thought of a completely new idea to find out that someone else has come up with the exact same thing. But I haven't seen these ideas out there yet, so I'm sitting on them until I can do them justice and really do em right!

[AniaR]

putting something on DA with explicit permission from the original artist is fine, but people do have to realize that for a lot of things in the line of copyright it's not whatever people's opinions are, there are laws. There an actual law that states the percentage of the original, so for instance, using colours from a mermaid photo is one thing, lifting that photo and photomanipulating it or drawing it and posting without permission from the original photographer, is a nono. In fact, I know one of Hannahs photogs, he's on DA, and always removing people's photomanipulations. I also think specifically midwesternmermaid, and no offence, but your sort of comparing different issues that have their own different rules, e.g. photography v.s. costume tail making. it sort of makes for a strawman argument when you start pairing it down like that when they're two different things.

On the costume making end of things- there are very very few laws that could even be manipulated to protect- but on the photography end, visual art, painting, music etc there's a LOT. I only spoke about the photo end of it BECAUSE it was specifically asked about photography laws and rules. Totally separate from a tail. I think you could debate the "what ifs" til the cows come home. The general sense I get from the community is to knowingly steal an idea from someone else, or to replicate someone's idea completely and lie about it is a loser thing to do. Everything else is fairly subjective.

[midwesternmermaid]

putting something on DA with explicit permission from the original artist is fine, but people do have to realize that for a lot of things in the line of copyright it's not whatever people's opinions are, there are laws. There an actual law that states the percentage of the original, so for instance, using colours from a mermaid photo is one thing, lifting that photo and photomanipulating it or drawing it and posting without permission from the original photographer, is a nono. In fact, I know one of Hannahs photogs, he's on DA, and always removing people's photomanipulations. I also think specifically midwesternmermaid, and no offence, but your sort of comparing different issues that have their own different rules, e.g. photography v.s. costume tail making. it sort of makes for a strawman argument when you start pairing it down like that when they're two different things.

On the costume making end of things- there are very very few laws that could even be manipulated to protect- but on the photography end, visual art, painting, music etc there's a LOT. I only spoke about the photo end of it BECAUSE it was specifically asked about photography laws and rules. Totally separate from a tail. I think you could debate the "what ifs" til the cows come home. The general sense I get from the community is to knowingly steal an idea from someone else, or to replicate someone's idea completely and lie about it is a loser thing to do. Everything else is fairly subjective.

Ok, they are different things and that's good to know. I was just getting a sense that there's a lot of needless lockdown and that's where my frustration was coming from. My scarecrow looked more like an angry bouncer, but I can put him and the rest of the cows back in the field where they belong now. Thanks, Raina for patiently laying that out for us (eh hem, me).

[AniaR]

I wrote you a really nice reply and then the server error ate it T_T
So for now, have this: <3

[Mermaid Lorelei]

^The server usually saves our last post attempt. There is usually a button at the bottom of the post box asking you about using your last post. It's saved me a few times.

[AniaR]

yeah It was from last night though and it just stayed on the error all night so I went to bed, lol

[Kanti]

? So if you don't watermark your deviantart photos are they free game? xD
I don't watermark anything but I always write at the bottom of the description that the photo is copyright by me?
I dunno if that means anything, though. Not that I care if my photos get recycled around the internet. As far as I
know nothing has really been "stolen" from me in the sense that someone takes my art and claims it to be theirs.
The places I've seen people usually link it back to my deviantart at least, so that's nice.

[AniaR]

? So if you don't watermark your deviantart photos are they free game? xD
I don't watermark anything but I always write at the bottom of the description that the photo is copyright by me?
I dunno if that means anything, though. Not that I care if my photos get recycled around the internet. As far as I
know nothing has really been "stolen" from me in the sense that someone takes my art and claims it to be theirs.
The places I've seen people usually link it back to my deviantart at least, so that's nice.

DA automatically copyrights your work for you it's a perk with having an account with them, below ever image right next to the category there's the copyright for you, it also appears on your profile, and in your gallery. So even without your own watermark, it's copyrighted for you. If you're fine with having your stuff shared and re-used etc then it's no biggy, but should you ever need to prove you're the owner, it's right there AND DA will back up in legal situations too!! (happened to a published photographer friend of mine!)