Informative Writings
» Avoiding Copyright Infringement
Copyright is a tricky concept that is hard to understand completely. Many people share the common belief that it's limited to books, articles, and written materials, and this makes it pretty confusing for those of us who care about the actual meaning of the term. The funny part is that because this faulty thinking is so rampant, many people are currently unaware of the fact that they are violating copyright law themselves. I'm sure that if many of them understood it better, they would take the necessary measures to fix their errors.
This is whatiscopyright.org's paraphrased definition of copyright law:
"Copyright is a protection that covers published and unpublished literary, scientific and artistic works, whatever the form of expression, provided such works are fixed in a tangible or material form. This means that if you can see it, hear it and/or touch it - it may be protected. If it is an essay, if it is a play, if it is a song, if it is a funky original dance move, if it is a photograph, HTML coding or a computer graphic that can be set on paper, recorded on tape or saved to a hard drive, it may be protected. Copyright laws grant the creator the exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the work publicly. Exclusive means only the creator of such work, not anybody who has access to it and decides to grab it."
From reading the above, you've learned that almost anything can be protected by copyright law, which grants the creator of every work the exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivitive works, distribute, perform, and display the work publicly.
How does this affect me?
This basically means that whenever you use your
favorite Miley Cyrus photo in an MSN icon, you could potentially be committing an offense. And while this may seem
like common sense to most people, obviously it isn't. Almost every single day, I wander onto websites that are presenting photography that they do not own (in their layouts) and even redistributing celebrity photographs taken off of Google in the form of "blends" or "PSD's".
I'm not here to condemn anyone who does this. After all, I used to do it myself and used to think that anything I took off Google was free simply because it was freely accessible. Ever since, however, I have learned that this is certainly not the case and that one could get into big trouble for distributing works that are not his own. So, to put it simply, I'm trying to educate you on the subject and make you more aware of the consequences for displaying and redistributing works without the permission of the initial creator.
But I'm getting the images off Google...
So? Why should it make a difference whether the image happened to get picked up by a search engine? It doesn't make what you're doing right in the least. Let's suppose you worked very tediously on an image and then happened to have Google come across your page to display the image on its own search engine. Then, someone just went onto Google and took your image with the excuse that it was "freely accessible". How do you think you would feel? Personally, I'd be pretty ticked off.
But I'm not selling them. Therefore, I'm okay!
When people tell me this, I get slightly peeved and annoyed by the ignorance that this statement displays. Let me point out the last part of the definition:
"Copyright laws grant the creator the exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the work publicly. Exclusive means only the creator of such work, not anybody who has access to it and decides to grab it."
Notice how it says that copyright laws grant the creator exclusive rights to his or her image. Therefore, it does not matter that you're not using the image to gain money. You're still violating copyright law, because you are using an image that you probably never received permission to use. "Not using it for free" isn't going to guarantee protection.
Moreover, for the sake of putting down the lame "not using it for money" excuse even more, it's possible that you're using the images for money and you just don't know it. Do you have a graphic-related website with Google ads? Then you're essentially using the images for profit, because the content of your webpage (your images) is what you're using to draw your visitors. If Sally knows that your website has a great collection of celebrity icons and visits your webpage because of this, there's obviously a greater chance that she'll click on your Google ads (if you didn't have those icons, she wouldn't have come in the first place). Therefore, you're essentially using the images for cash.
Also, if you're one to sell premade layouts for several bucks, and the layouts are ridden with images of Linday Lohan, then you're using the images for profit. You're taking the original photographer's work and unlawfully using his/her images for your own personal gain.
It's not like I'm going to get prosecuted...
Think again. Getty Images is now searching through webpages to find images stolen from them, using advanced technology to find the images and charging $1000 for every instance they find. In fact, Perez Hilton is currently facing heat for this. So no, don't assume you're completely safe just because "everyone does it".
Even if there's only a 0.0001% chance that you'll get into trouble, refer to the example I presented to you in response to "But I'm getting the images off Google..." There's simply no justification. Just because one steals and happens to never get caught, that doesn't make what he's doing right.
Why is it such a big deal anyway?
Because it's stealing, duh! You're copying and displaying a work that someone else took the time to create. Imagine creating a layout and having someone work off of it, adding several brushes, and then putting it onto his webpage. It's the same idea. Moreover, when you copy someone else's work, you're essentially devaluing the initial creation. Why should a graphic designer have to pay money for stock photography that he wants to use in his artwork if he can find it modified somewhere else--for free?
But I say that credit goes to the original owners!
It annoys me that people think they can snatch images from Google or the latest Vogue magazine and then make several minor changes so they can display them on their webpage, assuming that putting a simple "Credit goes to original owners" message onto their sidebar will fix everything--either that, or they simply link back the original site in their "Credits" section and think that using an image while still linking back is still adhering to copyright law (when it clearly isn't, because permission probably was never given to use the work anyway).
Then, as soon as Billy comes along and steals the blend that the person took (at most) several minutes to make, the person goes haywire and accuses Billy of being a low-life stealer, when this is essentially what the person was doing in the first place. This is the perfect example of what I'd like to call a "double standard".
But..but..everyone else is doing it!
If you've ever said that to your mom, I'm sure you've heard her say,
"If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you do it?"
As overused as that old saying is, it still has its own truth to it. Just because everyone else does something, it doesn't make it right. I have a feeling you know where I'm going with this, so I won't explain it any further.
It's okay to take anything without following the rules...It's the internet!
Great then! Why don't I just take everything you've made, possibly including layouts you've worked many hours on (that you didn't say anyone else could use, might I add) and just use it all to make my own graphics so that I could distribute it to other people and demand that people credit me if they use it? Hmph...I didn't think so.
Well, what about images on Livejournal accounts (and other similar places)?
Livejournal pages often provide the newest images from runway shows, and people often use these webpages to find images to use themselves. Unless the Livejournal accounts specify that the modeling agency gave them specific permission to redistribute their work, then those aren't lawful at all. Because the aforementioned scenerio is unlikely, taking images off of Livejournal accounts and similar webpages is no better than ripping them off Google. Sorry.
So what on earth am I supposed to do?
Fortunately, you don't have to adopt a life of crime to use images in your work. Below, I have provided several solutions so that you can move away from stealing others' images and towards more original designs.
Instead of using images from the Google search engine, use an image search that actually tells you the terms and conditions for the images. Here are a few that offer that service:
For even more links, visit 100 (Legal) Sources for Free Stock Images (Thanks, Ice!).
Also, remember to be careful about redistributing images. Some of those sites may allow for personal use only.
- Try taking your own pictures for your layouts. There's less of a chance that you'll be violating copyright law that way, and while you're at it, you might come up with a new style that you'll absolutely love.
That's it. Spread the word. Inform people that they could be in danger of getting into serious trouble with copyright law. Then they could start protecting themselves and removing images. Feel free to link back to this page if you'd like!
Without
Jem's
page, this article would not be the same.