MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: unnonimus on October 31, 2017, 16:27
-
"Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law"
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=sports_entertainment (http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=sports_entertainment)
page 242:
"To his surprise, however, his attorney seems reticent. When he asks his attorney why, she explains that board games are not copyrightable,"
"Explaining to those creators why their games are not copyrightable is difficult. "
page 243:
"The noncopyrightable nature of board games appears generally accepted as black letter copyright law"
page 244:
"the game itself—the manner of play, the way the game proceeds, the very “heart” of the game—appears to be unprotectable."
-
and....... :o
-
Not again.
-
Hey, who doesnt enjoy a free lesson in copyright law in bizarro land?
-
The artwork in the game is copyright protected and the name and logo can be trademarked. Even elements of game play might be patented.
When Hasbro sues you it may not be for copyright infringement but it's still going to cost you.
-
For anyone new to the stock agencies who reads this: It doesn't really matter to a contributor what one country's copyright rules are. What matters are the agency requirements. If you don't meet them, they won't accept your content. Arguing law(s) from various countries with them will not help.
If you plan to sell your own work, erring on the side of conservative interpretations of IP (intellectual property) rights will avoid you having to spend money on lawyers that will likely dwarf anything you might make from an image. Your goal is probably to make money licensing your work, not get a legal education and drain your bank account.
-
you said: " not get a legal education and drain your bank account."
You are 100% wrong and you are spreading misinformation.
Copyrights protect works of art, such as photographs. The copyright protects the photograph, not what is within the photograph. The photograph protects your rights as a photographer. To say that you infringed on someone's rights because you took a photo of it is not true. You can legally photograph and sell photos of almost anything.
The agencies base their policies on non-existent IP 'laws' that do not exist. It is better to have educated agencies that understand copyright laws, than have uneducated and misguided agencies that have no clue about copyrights. Right now, most stock agencies, if not all, are misguided and have no understanding of copyrights and trademarks, and it hurts photographers and limits commerce.
Here is an example of an uneducated misguided stock agency (Getty):
http://wiki.gettyimages.com/the-walt-disney-company/ (http://wiki.gettyimages.com/the-walt-disney-company/)
Images of the above mentioned may be suitable as editorial content with permission from Disney.
No you do not need Disney's permission to create content for editorial purposes.
And no, board games are not protected in such a manner that stock photos of board games should be restricted.
-
If an agency wants to ban people from having a blade of grass in their images, they can do that.
I don't know why you keep coming on here and telling us this stuff.
If you're so sure you're right, and the law is applicable in every country, why aren't you selling these files yourself from your own site, and keeping the info to yourself?
-
"And no, board games are not protected in such a manner that stock photos of board games should be restricted."
Obviously they are since the board is covered in copyrighted artwork. Like any other piece of artwork.
-
you said: " not get a legal education and drain your bank account."
The agencies base their policies on non-existent IP 'laws' that do not exist. It is better to have educated agencies that understand copyright laws, than have uneducated and misguided agencies that have no clue about copyrights. Right now, most stock agencies, if not all, are misguided and have no understanding of copyrights and trademarks, and it hurts photographers and limits commerce.
Obviously there is a great business opportunity for you here......
-
Trademarked. Milton Bradley is fierce about protecting their trademarks.
-
Guitars last time, board games this time, something else the time before.... I wonder what category we'll get treated to in the next thrilling instalment?
-
... It is better to have educated agencies that understand copyright laws, than have uneducated and misguided agencies that have no clue about copyrights....
Then please do everyone a favor and address your arguments in favor of your point of view to the agencies, not to us.
-
I wonder what category we'll get treated to in the next thrilling instalment?
My guess is wigs and hairstyles.
-
Guitars last time, board games this time, something else the time before.... I wonder what category we'll get treated to in the next thrilling instalment?
Pixels. You can't copyright a single pixel, therefore anything made of pixels is uncopyrightable.
-
Unnonimus, I will tell you: You are right!
Are you happy now?
Good, so you can go to sleep…
[Good night!]
-
Guitars last time, board games this time, something else the time before.... I wonder what category we'll get treated to in the next thrilling instalment?
Pixels. You can't copyright a single pixel, therefore anything made of pixels is uncopyrightable.
So you won't mind if I download all your content and sell it myself?
-
3 days to full moon.
-
Copyrights protect works of art, such as photographs. The copyright protects the photograph, not what is within the photograph. The photograph protects your rights as a photographer. To say that you infringed on someone's rights because you took a photo of it is not true. You can legally photograph and sell photos of almost anything.
As always, you're being parochial; though I have to admit, I didn't know until recently that the law on this has changed in the UK, and apparently the EU:
http://www.ipg.uk.com/ipg-blogs/5958/copyright-changes/what-publishers-need-to-know (http://www.ipg.uk.com/ipg-blogs/5958/copyright-changes/what-publishers-need-to-know)
(legal links at bottom of article)
-
Not again.
Why not, coms from the same person who discovered that dog spelled backwards is God and ADOBE:
MD5SUM
SHA1SUM
YOUR WELCOME
Needs to lay off the hard Halloween cider.
-
This is direct from the US government:
"Copyright Registration of Games (FL 108)"
'Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. "
https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.pdf (https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.pdf)
The reason why games are not copyrighted is because they are not works of art.
-
you said: "Needs to lay off the hard Halloween cider."
because of the lack of usage of SHA1SUM and MD5SUM and similar technologies, most stock media companies do not detect duplicate uploads, and they also permit people to upload work that has been uploaded by other contributors. almost every stock agency fails to detect duplicate uploads due to lack of usage of SHA1, MD5, or similar algortihms.
-
you said: "As always, you're being parochial; though I have to admit, I didn't know until recently that the law on this has changed in the UK, and apparently the EU:
http://www.ipg.uk.com/ipg-blogs/5958/copyright-changes/what-publishers-need-to-know (http://www.ipg.uk.com/ipg-blogs/5958/copyright-changes/what-publishers-need-to-know)"
your comment and the article you referenced has to do with the extension of the copyright act (number of years a copyright is valid) and has nothing to do with this forum post.
-
How do you photograph an idea?
-
This is direct from the US government:
"Copyright Registration of Games (FL 108)"
'Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. "
https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.pdf (https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.pdf)
The reason why games are not copyrighted is because they are not works of art.
But the artwork on the playing board, and the box, are undeniably works of art... and you're going to have trouble taking a picture of a board game without featuring any of those. A drink isn't a work of art, but stick it in a Coca Cola bottle and start making stock images of it, and you're going to have an issue.
Too often you seem to focus on this 'it's not a work of art' issue, while not looking at the bigger picture. Firstly, something doesn't specifically have to be a 'work of art' to be covered by copyright laws. Secondly, there are other laws to protect content that isn't necessarily copyright related. Third, and this is the most important one that you always seem to ignore even though everyone keep reminding you of it...
Agencies can accept whatever they want, no matter what the current copyright laws are regarding the content of the image. So none of this matters. You can raise things they should accept but don't which we agree with, or things they should accept but don't that we don't agree with... none of it matters. It's not illegal to wear trainers (or sneakers for our brothers and sisters across the pond) while out at night, but if a nightclub doesn't want to let you in because you're wearing trainers... then you're not getting in. That's the just the way it goes.
-
you said: "As always, you're being parochial; though I have to admit, I didn't know until recently that the law on this has changed in the UK, and apparently the EU:
[url]http://www.ipg.uk.com/ipg-blogs/5958/copyright-changes/what-publishers-need-to-know[/url] ([url]http://www.ipg.uk.com/ipg-blogs/5958/copyright-changes/what-publishers-need-to-know[/url])"
your comment and the article you referenced has to do with the extension of the copyright act (number of years a copyright is valid) and has nothing to do with this forum post.
Quite wrong.
Formerly in the UK, a 2D representation of a 3D work of art wasn't a copyright issue, now it is.