What's new

fair use and flickr

quiddity

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
21
Location
Frozen Tundra
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
so i peruse flickr, find a photo i like, print it off, make a painting based on image, sell said painting and never acknowledge photographer.discuss...
 
so i peruse flickr, find a photo i like, print it off, make a painting based on image, sell said painting and never acknowledge photographer.discuss...

Then ........... you'd be a scumball. - - along with thousands of others...

r
 
I think this would be better suited for the general/off topic discussion section
 
The general rule is that you can use a photo as a reference or inspiration. Ie if you're drawing (or in your case painting) a photo of a dog, you can use a reference to get an idea how to draw the fur, or porportions of a certain pose, but you can't actually use the direct subject (the dog) you're referencing to make an image out of. A more personal example, I have a photo where colored pencils are arranged to make a shape of heart. If you saw my photo and decided you wanted to draw a picture with colored pencils making a shape, that's fine but directly using my photo, or anything that is distinctly recognizable to my photo is not. to re-create the image is off limits. Concepts and poses are fair game. Directly copying a photo is not.

Also, you don't have to sell an image to be guilty of copyright infringement. Merely copying the photo can at times be a basis for a lawsuit.

There are plenty of free "stock" resources on the internet which are completely available for use.
 
Last edited:
so i peruse flickr, find a photo i like, print it off, make a painting based on image, sell said painting and never acknowledge photographer.discuss...
That would not be fair use. That would be a derivative work, which in the U.S., would be illegal to create or sell without a release from the original copyright owner.
 
so i peruse flickr, find a photo i like, print it off, make a painting based on image, sell said painting and never acknowledge photographer.discuss...
That would not be fair use. That would be a derivative work, which in the U.S., would be illegal to create or sell without a release from the original copyright owner.

Not necessarily. The painting could qualify as transformative.
 
Also this has nothing to do with flickr specifically - with the presented info and situation you could have found the image from anywhere; it being on flickr specifically has no bearing at all.

Now if you mean that the photo on flickr is specifically using the Creative Commons Licences rather than all rights reserved (which is an option) then you'd have to read the specific licence that the photo was listed under and the applicable rules for that licence.
 
Straight from the horses mouth;
U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use - I have added some emphasis
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
    1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
    2. The nature of the copyrighted work
    3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
    4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Reviewed November 2009
 
that is assuming they have a registered copyright. ie paid the govt
 
Depends on the country - in the UK you don't need to register at all; whilst in the US (from what I understand) registration isn't need to get copyright, but it does affect how much you can sue for. However there is also a grace period for registration after you find an infraction on copyright (I'm not sure of the specific details but I recall that its something like a few days from the finding of the work/creation of the work in which you can register and get the full protection).

Other countries will also have variations on these rules as well.
 
In the US, if your copyright is not registered you can sue in federal court for as much as you want to sue for, but the court will only award actual damages.

If your actual damages were $2.47, or even $2,470.00, it gets kind of expensive to sue if you didn't register your work.

You do have 3 months from the infringement to apply for copyright registration. The cost to register image copyrights by mail can be as low as $0.05 per image. Online registration can be less than a penny per image.

If your image is registered you can sue for statutory or actual damages. The max statutory damage award is $150,000 per infringed image (plus all your court costs and attorney fees). There is no limit to actual damages, but actual damages are harder to prove.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line is if you put your stuff out on the web is subjected to be stolen and you won't stop it on flickr, here, or your own host website.
 
Bottom line is if you put your stuff out on the web is subjected to be stolen and you won't stop it on flickr, here, or your own host website.
And as there are no national boundaries on the net, they can steal it in say Indonesia and just poke their tongue at you as it would be pretty hard to enforce.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom