[Jabberwocky]

Okay first off... Long time no see. School's been kicking my butt and I finally changed majors from Forensic Science to Fine Arts... with a minor in Forensic Science... hehehe...

Anywho, I have a question on copyrighting work.

1) How much needs to be changed from the original for it not to be considered stolen?

-I was told by an art student in Canada that at least 70% has to be original. Heck if you are going to do 70% put in the effort and do the other 30% as well.

2) If you take someone else work turn it into something like a background, can you call it yours and have copyright claim on it?

- Someone who owns a 'background website' tried telling me that she has legit rights to the background that has someone else artwork on them.

3) I know many of you create websites... what is the copyright on the coding? I know on basic stuff you can't, but when does it cross the line?

Thanks in advance... I'm hoping to be around more...
_________________
Im not saying that there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but warning labels should be remove and let the problem take
care of itself.

[Gort]

Hey Jabber:

Good to see you back around. Hang tough on the school stuff - you'll be awright.

I'm going to chime in here on the web stuff. First of all general language based authoring for html and css cannot effectively be copyrighted; it's absurd to say it can be. Now you can of course blantantly "code lift" a site line for line, and the end result if that you'll probably catch some flack for it, but I doubt it would ever reach litigation. I had a couple of my sites lifted back in the 90s (same html, same layout but different graphics), but I saw it as flattery; the use wasn't commercial, but had it been, I likely would have politely protested.

On the other hand, dynamic authoring and the functionalites therein are easily protected by copyright. Let's say you create an online booking application using ASP.Net; the first tier UI constructs on the front end may not be successfully protected, as there has to be standards for usablity (and there are - just look at all the travel sites), but the actual object oriented programming language can be protected under patents and/or copyrights, because the programming requires a specialized attention to detail and customization in communicating with the GDS (global distribution system).
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[Jabberwocky]

Thanks Gort.
School's really bad this semster. I have had mainly book classes and butt head teachr to boot. Next semster when I start pottery again it'll be all better.

I figure trying to copyright code would be similar to trying to copyright english. There's only so many ways to make a table... just like there's only so many ways you can say cat.
_________________
Im not saying that there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but warning labels should be remove and let the problem take
care of itself.

[Gort]

[Jabberwocky]

I figured it would be harder to copyright something like HTML coding...
Thanks for your help. I wanted to make sure I had correct info before saying anything...


Now for the other two questions... I know someone here knows the answers.
_________________
Im not saying that there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but warning labels should be remove and let the problem take
care of itself.

[Impaler]

Discussed here.

From Aliasmoze's post: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html
_________________
QED, sort of.

[Giant Hamster]

The only copyright laws I know are music.

1. "Sound-a-like" songs are illegal. If it sounds like an existing song in style or melody structure, they can take legal action against you for copying them.

The best example being John Cage's lawyers suing another musician for putting a silent track on his CD and winning because John Cage already made a silent track.

2. sampling. you can not sample without a license. period. no matter how short, how little, how quiet or how unrecognizable your sample (of any copyrighted material) is, if you don't have a license for it and someone decides to challenge you on it, you can get sued.

So to relate these to graphic art, if they're as strict: No you can't lift anything from another drawing. It's either 100% original or it's illegal.

I'm not a graphic arts law expert, I'm just taking what I know of music rights and assuming they're probably close enough to the same.

[B0b]

A 1. in the UK new laws say if the work you're ripping looks in anyway similar to the original ur fecked. (don't know how it is in the rest of the world).

A 2. i believe you can only use someones work for a background if you've asked permission to do so, as its enhancing your own work while using their effort.

in the past when i was working for a vehicle heating firm i've paid illustrators a flat fee for an image i wanted to use in an advert.

A 3. anyone who wants to keep their code will protect it from being edited (ie use ASP dot NET and compile so that you can't see what they've done) else if you can understand whats in the code its a free for all, there are enough help sites that explain how to do most of the complex stuff out there

[Jabberwocky]

Thanks Impaler, but that was mainly on using references for work. Which does help with one question, but not about the altering to make a background out of it. Although I did not know the specifics of the Derivative Works. So thank you for that.

A little side note: You (Impaler) stated, 'That's a somewhat feasible solution for, say, work taken from National Geographic.' I just found out that one of their photographers lives like 4 blocks away from my college. One of my friends works in his and his wife's gallery... Man I need to get out of that art room more often.

Okay, anyways, let me try and reword some. Can someone take someone else's graphic (random google search blah blah) and alter it onto a background. Then make people have to give credit to them [person who found said pic and turned it into a background) to use it.

Here's a really really bad fast example:


Sign my name to it and make people have to give credit to me...

Sorry Sijun... really rough background mock, but I figure people knew this image as yours... One of my favorites. and it to give peeps an example of what I'm meaning.
_________________
Im not saying that there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but warning labels should be remove and let the problem take
care of itself.

[Giant Hamster]

To answer your latest question I'd relate it to photography.

If a photographer takes a photo of someone and plans on displaying it anywhere, they are *supposed* to go over to them and ask them for permission to share or sell the photo they took of that person. If the photographer doesn't do this the person they took the photo of can sue them for photographing them without consent.

Now say the photographer didn't get consent to take a picture of the aformentioned person and still put it up online. If you want to use that photo you still have to give the photographer credit for the photo even though they illegally took the picture of someone else who didn't authorize them to do so.

So, simply said, I would have to say yes, you do have to ask the stealing bastard to use their ripped off background even though some of the elements in it are used without permission.

[B0b]

actually a photographer can take a picture of anyone/anything in a public place

u think that news broadcasters ask the 50 odd people in the background of a shot etc if they don't mind being on TV?

if you're using a model for the shot, thats a different matter, they need to sign a model release form signing the photos you take of them over to you..

taking pictures in a private area u need to ask permission or ur in it up to ur neck

taking pictures of a military area, etc is really putting urself @ risk

[B0b]