Legal
Disclaimer---I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play
one on TV. On the advice of an attorney, I'm telling you now that I
cannot professionally advise anyone on any legal matters.....but I
can say this--
Even lawyers are confused by existing copyright
laws.
It is up to each individual to learn as much as
they can about this issue.There are many links to information on
the Internet. I am not responsible for their content; I am only
letting you know they exist.
In the United States, ANY artwork or writing is protected by
copyright law from the instant of creation, and the rights
usually belong to the creator of the work. (Exceptions include
"Works For Hire" done under contractual agreements which take the
copyrights from the creator and give them to the employer. Avoid
this sort of thing whenever you can, or at least get good
compensation for the rights you are giving up. ).
Registering a particular creation with the government makes it
possible to collect greater damages when lawsuits are involved, but
even unregistered work is still protected by existing copyright
law. Placing the copyright symbol along with the artists name and
the publication date helps to inform others that these laws exist,
and that you are aware of and actively claiming the protection due
to the artist. Copyright laws differ from country to country, and
are constantly being updated and changed due to new factors such as
the Internet, but it remains true that generally the person who
originally created the work holds the right to say who gets to make
copies--or not!
Copyright laws are applicable to big companies and to little
ones--and to individuals. Although companies who sell rubberstamps,
stencils, and sewing patterns expect them to be used by the
purchaser for their personal enjoyment, the user is NOT supposed to
make and sell hundreds of items for their personal profit. Some
designs are covered under "angel policies" which allows them to be
used in small quantities for making handmade items intended for
sale. This is stated on the packaging or the information given out
by the company. You can also ask for and receive permission to make
copies of work--but if you do not have permission to use an image,
then to do so violates copyright laws, whether anyone points a
finger and catches you or not.
Some works are in Public Domain, meaning the copyrights have
expired and they are free for use. Dover Publications maintains a
large archive of images in book and cd form which are all available
for use by artists at no charge, with up to ten images availble for
use in any one piece with no further permission needed. (This limit
is meant to discourage the printing of books made up solely of
these images by other companies. Artists are usually given
permission when it is asked to use the images as needed). Clip art
collections made good use of these images. Numbering in the
hundreds of thousands and collected into groupings, these Dover Pictorial Archives are invaluable resources
for artists who want to make use of images for transfers, prints,
stamping, backgrounds, collage and all sorts of uses.
Images that come to you through email, magazines, catalogs, on
tv or the internet are not "yours" to copy freely. You can cut up a
catalog and use it in a decoupage picture because no copies were
made. But its a violation to make prints of it at the copy
machine.
When asking the question "is it ok to make
copies and use them" remember that you must be the creator of the
image, or have permission (in writing is good!) from the creator,
or somebody's copyrights not being respected.
The words and pictures on my web pages are protected by
copyright law--and by putting the copyright statement on each page,
I am serving notice that I create and own these works, even though
I am sharing the information by way of the Internet. It is
perfectly acceptable to link to URLs when using the Internet, and
many people do this--it is the way the "Web" is strung together,
with information leading to other information, all branching off to
other points on the "Information Highway". In fact, many sites are
actually lists of links pertaining to the subject at hand. What is
NOT acceptable is to present someone else's words or pictures and
stateoutright or give the impression that they are yours. This is
stealing, plain and simple. When artwork is used in a book,
magazine, web page or CD it is important to credit the artist, and
to have that artist's permission in the first place---important in
legal AND moral terms.
No reputable publication knowingly violates copyrights--but
there are some small companies who do so knowing full well that
they do not have permission. One such company has been
"deep-linking" to pages in my website, to the sites of Polyform
Products, Polymer Clay Central, and to and those of many other
artists, and presenting those pages in "frames" with the true
artists' name and copyright statements deliberately removed--they
even go so far as to add their own false copyright claim! One such
company uses pictures in their publications with no credits given
to the real artists, and infer that the works are created by the
"author" of their stolen compilations. Most are taken from web
sites without permission. These violating works are then peddled on
e-Bay, Amazon.com, Barnes and Nobel, and in many other venues.
This despicable practice on the part of a very few has led some
polymer clay teachers to re-think the idea of putting up tutorials
or lessons of any kind, lest their work be pilfered by the
unscrupulous (and presented poorly as well!) I choose to continue
to share information, but to also put my name and copyright notice
more prominently on every page. I strive to improve my work, and to
share what I have learned--but I appreciate being credited for
doing so. I urge all who read this to be more aware of copyrights,
and to respect the work that goes into being creative. It is a sad
fact that it is easier to steal something than it is to create
it---but the rewards for creativity go far beyond the dollars that
a thief will gain, and "getting away with something" for a while
does not make it morally right, nor does it protect wrongdoers in
the long run from the consequences of their actions.
But there's more to this argument than just
legalities of copyright....there is ongoing discussion among many
artists (and musicians too) about the difference between "copying"
and "influences". When is it a rip off and when is it an
inspiration?
Although the courts continue to define the legal terms, it is an
ethical decision as well, and one that starts within the artist.
While the statement "There's nothing new under the sun" has a
certain truth to it, it is also true that each artist can interpret
the same scene in a different way. That's why there is room for
more than one painted still-life, more than one landscape, more
than one Mother and Child portrait, and more than one statue of A
Guy On A Horse. You'll find evidence of this on any museum's
walls.
Marcel Duchamp said "Art is whatever an Artist says it is." and
it is each artist's right and responsibility to take all sensory
input available and distill it into a unique and personal vision,
shared by way of their chosen media interpretation.
