RedBubble and copyright...

[click_click]

I see lots of huge brands and logos all over the designs at RedBubble.

The creators appear to be individual designers and not the respective brand owners.

I searched their forums about copyright infringement and the like but it appears that no one is addressing this issue beside having their "own" design be infringed upon.

I'm confused. Can someone shed some light into their copyright policy?

And how is it possible that individual designers there can upload parts of logos and designs of major brands?

[stockastic]

RedBubble is "art".  You aren't buying an image, just a print/card/t-shirt of it.   Any copyright issues would be the responsibility of the "artist" I guess, and if you're selling something as art, the rules are different. 

[click_click]

You have got to be $4!tting me ?!?!?! 

Zazzle doesn't sell images.

Cafepress doesn't sell images.

I hereby call myself an artist now. Yay, another title for me. 

[stockastic]

You have got to be $4!tting me ?!?!?!  

Zazzle doesn't sell images.

Cafepress doesn't sell images.

I hereby call myself an artist now. Yay, another title for me.  

Yeah me too. But because they're not selling/licensing the image - just a glorified POD shop - they escape responsibility for copyright - unless someone files a takedown notice. They don't inspect what you upload - it's all on you.


Those 'artists' selling T-shirts with mashups of copyrighted content might have issues, though - hopefully someone who knows more about this will jump in here...

[click_click]

I'm not sure about all that.

These mash-ups of Star Wars and Starbucks are featured on the front page. RedBubble has its fingers all the way in there.
I wonder how they could get away while Zazzle and Cafepress doesn't...

[stockastic]

I think this is what SOPA is all about.  Is RB responsible for what I upload and sell through their site?  Only to the extent of responding to a complaint, or takedown notice, from the copyright holder.  Personally I think that's how it should be.

[sjlocke]

That's like saying its ok for piratebay to freely distribute your work without retribution.

[sharpshot]

Why not email them and ask why they are allowing this?

[stockastic]

http://support.redbubble.com/kb/top20/copyright-trademark-and-dmca

[click_click]

Why not email them and ask why they are allowing this?

I might, their DMCA policy etc. is also quite vague: ... fair use is allowed in parody ...

So basically I can take any major brand logo and make fun of it and then sell it as my own work and make money off of it? Is that art?
That's BS (and I don't mean BigStock!).

[Karimala]

Why not email them and ask why they are allowing this?

I might, their DMCA policy etc. is also quite vague: ... fair use is allowed in parody ...

So basically I can take any major brand logo and make fun of it and then sell it as my own work and make money off of it? Is that art?
That's BS (and I don't mean BigStock!).

Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Saturday Night Live, etc. would disagree.

[click_click]

Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Saturday Night Live, etc. would disagree.

I guess, I mean it's fantastic for everyone to take already existing logos and well known brands, slap a funny slogan over it and ride on its wave of popularity while making money off of it.

[RacePhoto]

Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Saturday Night Live, etc. would disagree.

I guess, I mean it's fantastic for everyone to take already existing logos and well known brands, slap a funny slogan over it and ride on its wave of popularity while making money off of it.

Have a specific example? I mean the generalization doesn't show me anything, so to be honest, there's no way to answer.

If it's parody, yes it's allowed. If it's just clipping and copying, it's not allowed?

Then the second part of the question, where are you on the planet?

Something that's alright in the USA yes, Canada Maybe, EU no... It's not simple as yes or no, without a specific example.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody

United States

Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected from claims by the copyright owner of the original work under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 U.S.C. § 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

In 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a fair use defense in the Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books case. Citing the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose decision, they found that a satire of the O.J. Simpson murder trial and parody of The Cat in the Hat had infringed upon the children's book because it did not provide a commentary function upon that work.[15][16]

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, in Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, upheld the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called The Wind Done Gone, which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves, who were glad to be rid of her.
Canada

Under Canadian law, although there is protection for Fair Dealing, there is no explicit protection for parody and satire. In Canwest v. Horizon, the publisher of the Vancouver Sun launched a lawsuit against a group which had published a pro-Palestinian parody of the paper. Alan Donaldson, the judge in the case, ruled that parody is not a defence to a copyright claim.[17]
United Kingdom

Under existing copyright legislation (principally the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988), "There is currently no exception which covers the creation of parodies, caricatures or pastiches".[18] Parodies of works protected by copyright require the consent or permission of the copyright owner, unless they fall under existing fair use/fair dealing exceptions:

    the part of the underlying work is not 'substantial'
    the use of the underlying work falls within the fair dealing exception for "criticism, review and news reporting"
    enforcement of copyright is contrary to the public interest.[18]

In 2006 the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property recommended that the UK should "Create an exception to copyright for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche by 2008".[19] Following the first stage of a two-part public consultation, the Intellectual Property Office reported that the information received "was not sufficient to persuade us that the advantages of a new parody exception were sufficient to override the disadvantages to the creators and owners of the underlying work. There is therefore no proposal to change the current approach to parody, caricature and pastiche in the UK."[18]

[click_click]

... Have a specific example? I mean the generalization doesn't show me anything, so to be honest, there's no way to answer.

Here you go:






[/img]



They may appear to you borderline but to me this is not cool. As I said, I guess in a couple years the internet (or interwebz) has deteriorated down to some digital mixing pot where anyone can use anything to make money even if it's not "their" design. Just because someone knows how to hit "Save" in Photoshop or Illustrator doesn't make them an artist or the creator of original artwork.

[Karimala]

Last night Jon Stewart addressed SOPA, and his piece touched on using copyrighted material in parody, using his own show as an example.  Not sure if the link will work outside the US.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-18-2012/ko-computer

Good examples.  The Raiders logo would probably be fine as long as the designer created the monster dude, but the others?  Um...no.  It's interesting to note that RedBubble is an Australian company, just like Envato (http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/envato-and-copyright/msg238959).  Is there something in Australian copyright law that says this is okay, because it's clearly not in the US. 

[click_click]

... Good examples.  The Raiders logo would probably be fine as long as the designer created the monster dude, but the others?  Um...no....

That "monster dude" is a creation of George Lucas. Their race is called "sand people" and "it" occurs in a small movie series called "STAR WARS".

Come on people, we've been trying to have our images that were used in collages removed from flickr etc. and now it's ok to sell this stuff?

Help me out here.

[Karimala]

Ah...it's been years since I've watched "Star Wars," so I didn't recognize it. 

You're definitely right about the designs you showed, unless these artists were able to obtain property releases, which is highly doubtful.  There isn't enough difference between the original artwork and the new derivatives.  The Sand People guy might still pass based on how the Obama case turned out (in favor of the artist and not the AP photographer), but that doesn't mean George Lucas can't go ahead and file a copyright infringement lawsuit, letting a court of law decide.  These artists are all taking a serious gamble with their illustrations.  Stupid.     

[cuethesun]

I worked at Redbubble for 9 months and I can say for certain that the attitude to copyright was very cavalier.

There were several occassions when they received take down notices from Disney and the like, and at that point they took down the offending artwork. But ultimately, they leave it to the copyright owners to find the breach and take action.

There is also capability for regular users to report offending artwork, but I think that was mostly used for cleaning stuff that was violent, sexist, or pornographic etc. You could try reporting for copyright infringement and see how you go.

The CEO when I worked there has since moved on but it seems the process hasn't changed much. That said, the guy who now runs the show is pretty meticulous and I doubt he'd allow a procedure to be in place that he wasn't covered for from a legal standpoint.

[click_click]

I worked at Redbubble for 9 months and I can say for certain that the attitude to copyright was very cavalier.

There were several occassions when they received take down notices from Disney and the like, and at that point they took down the offending artwork. But ultimately, they leave it to the copyright owners to find the breach and take action.

There is also capability for regular users to report offending artwork, but I think that was mostly used for cleaning stuff that was violent, sexist, or pornographic etc. You could try reporting for copyright infringement and see how you go.

The CEO when I worked there has since moved on but it seems the process hasn't changed much. That said, the guy who now runs the show is pretty meticulous and I doubt he'd allow a procedure to be in place that he wasn't covered for from a legal standpoint.

Thanks for explaining this! It's much appreciated.

Could you kindly explain to me with the examples posted above how these works are not infringing of the copyright holders' rights?

Those are brand names and logos taken straight and printed onto products. How can this be not considered copyright infringement?

Some of the examples have no satirical side aspect to them or anything so how does "art" aspect play in there?

MicrostockGroup Email Updates

[Site]

Site	Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock	100
iStock	66.7
Fotolia	34.9
Dreamstime	26.7
Middle Tier
DepositPhotos	21.6
123RF	16.3
Canstockphoto	11.2
Bigstockphoto	9.5
Veer	8.7
Low Earners
PantherMedia	6.7
PhotoDune	5.8
isignstock	4.1
Zoonar	3.5
GLStockImages	2.7
Stockfresh	2.2
YayMicro	1.8
FeaturePics	1.4
MostPhotos	1.3
ScanStockPhoto	1.1
Crestock	0.8
Cutcaster	0.6
AllYouCanStock	0.1
ClipartOf
Pond5
RevoStock
Clipcanvas
DrawShop
ClipDealer
PhotoSpin
VectorStock
GraphicRiver
Pixmac
PhotoCase
The3dStudio
photaki
SuperHug
PhotoKore
iRockStock
Vivozoom
StockPhotoMedia
Regimages
ImageVortex
Imagegate
ViscoImages
More Poll Results Updated: 2012-05-26