As I noted above, you don't have to sell anything to violate copyright. That's a common misconception that has cost more than a few people money in the long run. I'm not sure why people think you have to have sold something to violate copyright, but the advice gets passed around repeatedly.
Haha. I have a feeling this inside joke is going to be a long-standing one. Well, @Daemon Wolf is likely just trolling, because no one is really as dim as he presents himself on these forums and still retains the ability to type. In any event, the purpose of the discussion isn't to try to remedy his ignorance, if ignorance it is. What ends up happening is you get other people reading threads like this on the internet, and they actually believe what they're reading. So I try to set the record straight, having had one too many times to try to fix something after someone goes ahead based on misconceptions, or even uses a service like Legal Zoom (that really tends to do a bad job with IP matters). Actually, deviantART has a fairly good, straightforward explanation of things in their Copyright Policy. It's one of the better ones for online communities. Their 'Cautions" sections addresses some of the most common misconceptions, including the one about sale: "Some Cautions In most cases it does not matter how much of the material you have used, whether it's a single frame, a few moments of audio, a short clip of video or any other sampling it's still considered to be protected by copyright and you still require the owner's permission for use. It doesn't matter how you obtained the material, it's still considered copyrighted and you still need permission. It doesn't matter whether or not you've credited the proper owner, it's still considered copyrighted and you still need permission. It doesn't matter if you are not selling it or making a profit, it's still considered copyrighted and you still need permission. It doesn't matter if you can find other people using things without permission, it's still considered copyrighted and you still need permission. It doesn't matter if you've edited it a little bit or made a few alterations, if it's recognizable it's still considered copyrighted and you still need permission." Of course, it is hard to believe that someone thinks you need a sale for infringement. If you did, then anyone could freely distribute copies of any books, DVDs, etc., or make them all free on a web site or via streaming, and there would be no infringement as long as they weren't selling anything. You could stand on a public sidewalk outside Walmart with a box of burned DVDs of the latest movies and just pass them out for free. So the idea that you need a sale is self-evidently nonsense, but people believe it anyway. *Note - the amount used and commercial/noncommercial nature will play into a Fair Use analysis, if you have the potential for that defense, but they're not dispositive. If you want to look at the whole copyright policy at deviantART, it has some good info: https://about.deviantart.com/policy/copyright/ Kind of a top level view, but it is easier for most people than reading through the Copyright Act or something from a legal treatise.
I realize that Steerpike has corrected your misconception at least twice, but I can't help personally noting that you are quite incorrect. At this point, I assume that you're joking and you now know better, but if you do still believe your above statement, even a tiny little bit, I would recommend that you do some research before you take any action based on this belief.
I went to art school just as computers were first being introduced at the post-secondary level. As a result, I've got one foot in analog, the other in digital.
You'd be surprised how many times in a given year someone comes to me to fix something they did according to advice they read on the internet. The first question that arises at that point is whether or not it can be fixed. With copyrights, often it can. Trademarks less so, but still can be done in many cases. With patents, it is often difficult to save them from their past mistakes.
This thread has made me think that people often claim copyright defense with an argument based on plagiarism--"I gave credit!" This suggests that as a population we've internalized rules against plagiarism and not rules against copyright. Those plagiarism rules are presumably being taught in school. I find myself wondering if schools have started teaching about copyright--teaching in a useful way, rather than in a sort of copyright equivalent of abstinence. ("Never publish anything ever! Aieeeee!")
Yes, that's another very common misconception. You'll even see people post something on YouTube with the disclaimer that they don't claim rights in the work and crediting the party who has the rights. Of course, none of that makes any difference for copyright infringement, but the idea that it does persists. I don't know to what extent schools teach about copyright. I've given lectures on copyright law, patent law, &c to students, but those were most often at the MBA level, with a couple of lectures for undergraduate business students, art students, and marketing students. I think that for programs like that, it's worth at least one good lecture on the subject, and if you're getting an MBA it wouldn't hurt to have a general survey course that covers Intellectual Property.
I suspect, based on admittedly no evidence whatsoever that if copyright is touched on in elementary, junior, and high school, it's probably focused on "don't pirate!" I'd be pleased if schools were addressing the idea of students as content creators, and gave them guidance on fair use (with a big focus on all those things that are NOT fair use despite mythology claiming that they are) and on their own rights to their own creations and on other copyright issues. I just have cynical doubts as to the odds that that is happening.
I think you're right. Some content producers have actually run cartoons and episodes on children's television about how bad piracy is, and they just leave it at that. I remember reading somewhere about a school exercise for some pretty young elementary school kids that was meant to drill into them how wrong it was to pirate. But I've never heard of much being done in K-12 to give kids a good understanding of copyright law, fair use, and their own rights as creators of content.
This thread has become a good warning for casual copyright violation and the inherent dangers associated with it. Even if just for fun, the public use of other people's images should be done carefully. Private mockups are safe of coarse because no one will ever know. This forum is particularly stringent on copyright use. Obviously, with the introduction of the meme, the internet itself isn't.
First before any sueing happens, usually a Cease and Desist follows first. In most cases. If mass money was generated, then suing usually comes first. However, the user manipulating the image is only using for his own visual purpose.
I sell stock photography online from time to time, and I would definitely seek legal action against someone using my stock photography illegally, whether or not they were making a profit for it. Free stock exists, people. You don't have to steal the paid stuff. (DeviantArt is wonderful, especially if you aren't looking to use it commercially.) I'm not a fool and there probably exist images out there with bits or whole pieces of my photography who have not paid for it, but that doesn't mean I'd sit back and let it happen if one particular bit of artwork was brought to my attention. Back to the OP's point: I usually do mock-ups for my NaNoWriMo submissions. Once in a very long while, I'll do one for fun. When I get home I'll dig one up and post it.
I mocked another one up for my new WiP. This is the working title. Oh, and please forgive me the indulgence of the critic's quote (and the rogue apostrophe). I don't really think that about my work, it just helps with the overall design. No copyright infringement - the image was taken outside my flat at 3AM this morning.
Thanks. I've gone with Faded Neons as a WT, but I also like Three-Colours Neon - even if I have no idea what the latter means or signifies.
