Author Topic: using pre 1923 images in design (Read 12111 times)

agsandrew · « **on:** March 18, 2012, 14:58 »

Most of the design elements in my microstock image collages I create from scratch or generate in software programs. I feel uneasy to use internet images resources since their copyright status is very often unclear. Yet from what I understand it should be quite save to use illustrations from pre-1923 books and publications as part of image collages or as sources for tracing. I will appreciate user feedback on this issue.

cidepix · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2012, 15:32 »

Mona Lisa is pre 1923.. Does that mean I can trace Mona Lisa and make money on it?

I don't know if it's safe, but I don't like the idea..

No, I actually hate the idea of tracing someone else's images.. I think it's ugly!

Do something original, or don't do it at all..

helix7 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2012, 17:13 »

I agree. I wouldn't risk it. Agencies might accept that stuff now, but who knows in the future. Look at what happened at SS with all of the images that were created using Filter Forge. They accepted that stuff, thousands of images, and then did a mass-delete of all of them when they changed the policy. A few folks even had their accounts closed because they uploaded more filter-forge-generated images after the new policy went into effect.

I heard a rumor (someone who knows someone at a big agency sort of thing, so heavy emphasis on the "rumor" part of this) a while back that this agency was considering changing their policy of accepting public domain derived images. This was quite a while ago, many months, and nothing has come of it so either the rumor was incorrect or the discussion about the policy change didn't go anywhere. But the very idea that there may have been discussions about this sort of thing within the walls of an agency makes me want to steer clear of public domain stuff completely.

Do your own work and you'll never have to worry it.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2012, 22:12 »

Quote from: cidepix on March 18, 2012, 15:32

Mona Lisa is pre 1923.. Does that mean I can trace Mona Lisa and make money on it?

Yes

http://us.fotolia.com/search?k=mona+lisa&filters[content_type%3Aall]=1&submit.x=0&submit.y=0

Microbius · « **Reply #4 on:** March 19, 2012, 03:44 »

I think most agencies allow it in practice but forbid it in their terms ("works must be solely created by you" or similar wording). So they have left the door open to close down portfolios in future.
The best selling vector artist on SS seems to base a lot of her designs on old PD illustrations, so not sure if they ever will turn on these illustrators, but I wouldn't risk it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** March 19, 2012, 11:01 »

There are at least two iStock contributors who have many photos or scans taken from out-of-copyright books.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #6 on:** March 19, 2012, 12:10 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 19, 2012, 11:01

There are at least two iStock contributors who have many photos or scans taken from out-of-copyright books.

It's perfectly legal. Why not?

But before someone jumps on this as a new way to make "easy money" fast. It might take you an hour for one scan to get it done right, edited and corrected. There's print through, all the type on the back of the page showing. Texture that's undesirable. Fading and foxing. Sure if you want that antique look it's fine, but for a nice clean image, it's going to be awhile.

Just pointing out, it's not as easy as shoot the page, crop and upload.

agsandrew · « **Reply #7 on:** March 19, 2012, 18:53 »

Well, I see that the issue is not clear at all… so I guess I will keep away from this approach for now, but the attitude that tracing Mona Lisa is somehow ugly is a little funny to me in the light of the fact that a lot of renaissance painters used projection devices and traced outlines of their subjects - Leonardo likely did the same thing. Unless you have been in Louvre all you have ever seen are the copies… The whole creative process is a recombination of copies. The nature of creative process in itself is protein encoded copy passed via copying mechanism of DNA. Do you want to create something original? Then get yourself some random number generator…

I know, I know… clipart collections look atrocious… with this I agree… but hey, go to Wal-Mart and see what customers buy… sometimes I think "the uglier the better"… Original Mona Lisa would probably be rejected by microstock agencies as a thing of "little commercial value"… In order to survive Leonardo would have to paint a lot of colorful blurs and zombified grinning clerks… that what sells… I wish we could trace more - and learn a thing or two from past… but no… let us be creative and run Difference Cloud filter over a gradient… LOL

Oldhand · « **Reply #8 on:** March 20, 2012, 18:17 »

Your problem is where you get the PD images from. If you take them off the internet that will fall foul of IS - you need to actually take a picture of the artwork in situ or scan in from a hard copy book and provide that as a "releasee". You have to show you have "created" it. I know - it sounds odd, but without citing a source you are opening your portfolio to deletion depending which agency it is. Public domain is just that - make as much of profit as you want with impunity, but if it's queried where you derived the image from (which it will be in time), you need to say, I scanned it in from such and such, or photographed it from such a place. Don't try a Google images search and expect to get away with it. These images sell very, very well, so proceed with caution.

mtkang · « **Reply #9 on:** March 20, 2012, 22:09 »

I wonder where is the source about pre 1932 media will be in public domain? issit world wide?

It will be good to understand it, so one can make use of public domain objects.

I remember there are some agencies are focus on selling all scanned images from prints that is in public domain or out of copyrights..

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** March 20, 2012, 22:24 »

Quote from: mtkang on March 20, 2012, 22:09

I wonder where is the source about pre 1932 media will be in public domain? issit world wide?

It's different in different countries, and in a few cases can be extendable.

nicku · « **Reply #11 on:** March 21, 2012, 01:13 »

My best selling pictures across all agencies are Public Domain photos. if the design, artwork drawing, sketch etc. is in public domain that means that the image is waved of any copyright; you can use that design, image, drawing , for anything including commercial use.

SS, DP and partialy FT have understand this and allow PD pictures to be sold as RF. DT,123RF, are not, and request to be submitted as editorial.

Course in SS case you will need to provide all the info, time of the creation, author, year of publication etc.

In the end if a PD image is not copyrighted and can't be according to all international laws .... who will sue you for selling that image ( specifying that is not yours and is a PD picture)

Perry · « **Reply #12 on:** March 21, 2012, 03:54 »

I want to comment on the topic. I think that year 1923 is correct only for works printed in USA and made by US citizens. If I remember correctly, IS allows only works printed in 1884 and earlier, they should be totally "safe". The Berne convention was in 1886 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works

Many european laws extend the copyright 70 years after the creator's death, and in many cases 1923 would not be enough.

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #13 on:** March 21, 2012, 04:33 »

.

ETA: Nevermind

Microbius · « **Reply #14 on:** March 21, 2012, 04:53 »

Quote from: Oldhand on March 20, 2012, 18:17

Your problem is where you get the PD images from. If you take them off the internet that will fall foul of IS - you need to actually take a picture of the artwork in situ or scan in from a hard copy book and provide that as a "releasee". You have to show you have "created" it. I know - it sounds odd, but without citing a source you are opening your portfolio to deletion depending which agency it is. Public domain is just that - make as much of profit as you want with impunity, but if it's queried where you derived the image from (which it will be in time), you need to say, I scanned it in from such and such, or photographed it from such a place. Don't try a Google images search and expect to get away with it. These images sell very, very well, so proceed with caution.

Didn't think to mention this.
Yes, if you decide to go down this road you need the original PD source and to take the scan or photo yourself. Obviously nothing off the internet.
Even if the original source is PD the photo or scan of it probably won't be, it will belong to the person who took the photo or scan.
There are lots of people on ebay selling antique books and the like that could be possible sources.

nicku · « **Reply #15 on:** March 21, 2012, 06:01 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 21, 2012, 04:53

Quote from: Oldhand on March 20, 2012, 18:17
Your problem is where you get the PD images from. If you take them off the internet that will fall foul of IS - you need to actually take a picture of the artwork in situ or scan in from a hard copy book and provide that as a "releasee". You have to show you have "created" it. I know - it sounds odd, but without citing a source you are opening your portfolio to deletion depending which agency it is. Public domain is just that - make as much of profit as you want with impunity, but if it's queried where you derived the image from (which it will be in time), you need to say, I scanned it in from such and such, or photographed it from such a place. Don't try a Google images search and expect to get away with it. These images sell very, very well, so proceed with caution.
Didn't think to mention this.
Yes, if you decide to go down this road you need the original PD source and to take the scan or photo yourself. Obviously nothing off the internet.
Even if the original source is PD the photo or scan of it probably won't be, it will belong to the person who took the photo or scan.
There are lots of people on ebay selling antique books and the like that could be possible sources.

Yes, you need to take the photo or scan yourself, BUT that don't mean that you hold the copyright of the photo/scan representing the artwork. The design is still in PD regardless who take the photo/scan. Buyers pay for a high quality copy of the PD artwork not for a design, concept that you created.

At this kind of work is permitted to sell copies but is not possible to sell the rights ( in DT SR-EL license, case) because you practically sell the rights for something that you just copied not designed.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #16 on:** March 21, 2012, 14:31 »

Quote from: Perry on March 21, 2012, 03:54

I want to comment on the topic. I think that year 1923 is correct only for works printed in USA and made by US citizens. If I remember correctly, IS allows only works printed in 1884 and earlier, they should be totally "safe". The Berne convention was in 1886 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works

Many european laws extend the copyright 70 years after the creator's death, and in many cases 1923 would not be enough.

True but the big problem is the laws have changed at least four times in the past 40 years. So the old laws are not the new laws. Berne convention has changed it's agreement. So when and where are very important.

BEFORE 1923 for the USA is an easy one. Even with the Berne convention there have been changes and some countries still have their own rules. It's a maze.

When was it first copyrighted and where. Was it ever copyrighted? Because some things that were never copyrighted in the US (for example) may have been in France. They are still protected by default in the US. Italy doesn't recognize the right of panorama (or whatever it's called to shoot ancient works and buildings, in public places) But they don't seem to be chasing people down for selling them. NT and Heritage in Great Britain, appear to have big claws and want to own everything they have any bit of. (Including an entire mountain in Australia!)

There are no simple answers to most of this.

And no you don't have to make the image or scan yourself. Easy example. NASA photos are available on the web, for download, free and you can use them. There's already enough misinformation without people making up their own facts.

Microbius · « **Reply #17 on:** March 22, 2012, 03:10 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 21, 2012, 14:31

And no you don't have to make the image or scan yourself. Easy example. NASA photos are available on the web, for download, free and you can use them. There's already enough misinformation without people making up their own facts.

That's because the actual photos/ images in that case are in the public domain. We were talking in the context of works that have fallen into the public domain because of their age. In those cases someone needs to digitize the image by photographing/ scanning it, and also often put in all the hard work of cleaning it up/ retouching it. They then own the copyright for those particular scans or photos. Of course they can wave their rights and let you use them for resale.

If this is incorrect please let me know. I don't think anyone reading the thread would have read our comments any other way than above.

nicku · « **Reply #18 on:** March 22, 2012, 06:25 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 22, 2012, 03:10

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 21, 2012, 14:31
And no you don't have to make the image or scan yourself. Easy example. NASA photos are available on the web, for download, free and you can use them. There's already enough misinformation without people making up their own facts.

That's because the actual photos/ images in that case are in the public domain. We were talking in the context of works that have fallen into the public domain because of their age. In those cases someone needs to digitize the image by photographing/ scanning it, and also often put in all the hard work of cleaning it up/ retouching it. They then own the copyright for those particular scans or photos. Of course they can wave their rights and let you use them for resale.

If this is incorrect please let me know. I don't think anyone reading the thread would have read our comments any other way than above.

If you copy/scan a image and clean/adjust it you don't have any copyright of the image. The only way that you can hold some copyright is wen.... example: you scan a B/W image and modify it like colorizing the subjects. you have turned a B/W PD image in a Color image. You can hold the copyright ONLY ON THE COLORS/COLOR VERSION OF THE IMAGE, not the whole subject.

A more practical example is the Eiffel Tower.... The tower in day time is Public Domain , BUT in the night when is illuminated the tower is copyrighted.

Microbius · « **Reply #19 on:** March 22, 2012, 07:01 »

Eiffel tower is a good example, if I photograph it in the day I don't have copyright of the Eiffel tower's design, but I do have copyright of the photo I just took.

From what you are saying it sounds like I can just download all the images you have scanned from old books and sell the same scans on stock sites under my name. Are you saying that that would be okay?

nicku · « **Reply #20 on:** March 22, 2012, 07:35 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 22, 2012, 07:01

Eiffel tower is a good example, if I photograph it in the day I don't have copyright of the Eiffel tower's design, but I do have copyright of the photo I just took.

From what you are saying it sounds like I can just download all the images you have scanned from old books and sell the same scans on stock sites under my name. Are you saying that that would be okay?

I think you did not understand what i trying to say.....

No you can not download my images and resell it. BUT YOU CAN scan the same image from another book and sell it; and YOU CAN NOT sell the rights of the scan ( say.... using SR-EL license from DT or other means).

Regarding the Eiffel Tower example..... in this example is involved much more elements/details than a flat scan of a drawing or artwork .

Microbius · « **Reply #21 on:** March 22, 2012, 07:39 »

We are in complete agreement, I was just checking that was what you meant.

nicku · « **Reply #22 on:** March 22, 2012, 07:50 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 22, 2012, 07:39

We are in complete agreement, I was just checking that was what you meant.

You must photograph/scan the image from the original source (book) , and you must have the means to proof that if will be necessary ( specially on SS and IS). Many accounts were closed because of that.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #23 on:** March 23, 2012, 02:10 »

Quote from: nicku on March 22, 2012, 07:50

Quote from: Microbius on March 22, 2012, 07:39
We are in complete agreement, I was just checking that was what you meant.

You must photograph/scan the image from the original source (book) , and you must have the means to proof that if will be necessary ( specially on SS and IS). Many accounts were closed because of that.

Law and the site rules are not the same thing. I'll repeat that again as I have before.

The original question was "Most of the design elements in my microstock image collages I create from scratch or generate in software programs. I feel uneasy to use internet images resources since their copyright status is very often unclear. Yet from what I understand it should be quite save to use illustrations from pre-1923 books and publications as part of image collages or as sources for tracing."

Yes you need to modify an image to be able to copyright your version, altered image, or produce your derivative. It has nothing to do with colorizing, but could. Just the fact that someone copies, cleans, sharpens and makes "significant alterations" makes it something that can be protected.

Yes you can use pre-1923 sources as your parts for collages. No you don't need to own the original or have it in your possession. IS may require this, but the law doesn't.

There's no reason why someone would need to have the original source materials to shoot, when they are available on the web. The same laws that apply to print media, apply to electronic media. If it's from a CD, the original book, a re-print (like the above mentioned clipart collection that's a reprint of the original book, identical and unaltered... interesting?), or a website with PD images archived. It's all the same.

I'd actually find it difficult for the people who spent all that time scanning the clipart books, to be able to claim any infringement for use in any case because of the first important question of law. Did they alter the original and somehow make it their work? Just copying something, doesn't qualify.

Here it is, read this. It's based on the law not some microstock lawyer or made up rule:

If you start with a PD image and make substantial changes or modifications to a work (ie: original, creative), then that new work IS copyrightable, it is considered a "derivative work".

Just copying an old book or a re-print is NOT a derivative.

Featured on SS, which may be of interest. I think it's the original agency or artist. Hey illustrators, another style niche?

RetroClipArt = 2776 files.

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-602218p1.html

avava · « **Reply #24 on:** March 25, 2012, 20:01 »

Quote from: nicku on March 22, 2012, 07:50

Quote from: Microbius on March 22, 2012, 07:39
We are in complete agreement, I was just checking that was what you meant.

You must photograph/scan the image from the original source (book) , and you must have the means to proof that if will be necessary ( specially on SS and IS). Many accounts were closed because of that.

Thats not true nicku how do you make that up. Many accounts are not closed and you don't have to proof that you received scan from original book. Truth or rumor.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: using pre 1923 images in design (Read 12111 times)

agsandrew

cidepix

helix7

RacePhoto

Microbius

ShadySue

RacePhoto

agsandrew

Oldhand

mtkang

ShadySue

nicku

Perry

ThomasAmby

Microbius

nicku

RacePhoto

Microbius

nicku

Microbius

nicku

Microbius

nicku

RacePhoto

avava

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors