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.
