Artists exposing online, take a look at this

[DrT]

http://apefluff.com/colorful-illustrations-93c-please-do-not-buy-this-book/


So if you display your art online, lower the dpi and get them watermarks going.

[FrozenEngel]

Thank you for posting this. I just posted it on the art forum that I go to. I'm not really surprised that it happened but I'm always shocked a little bit when I hear about things like this. May be because I put myself in the artist's shoes of finding out randomly in Barnes & Noble that my work was stolen. :\

[DrT]

I'm not necessarly surprised, more sad really: there are many ways to protect your work online, if only by restricting the 'save as' option, or putting watermarks and the like.

Thing is: it takes a while to do it right, and some people a so eager to put it out there that they forget the basic safety rules.

The sadest things, is that if ever they want to profit from their work they could get in trouble with copyright, as someone else already used their work and published it.

[freiman]

Actually, this is an horrible offense, but it might work out well for the artist.

Copyright is automatic on the web. It doesn't have to be stated, because it is automatically assumed to be in place.

If the artist can find a lawyer who can simultaneously stand up and utter the words "Violation of Fair Use" they have a good chance of getting a paycheck. Since it was never negotiated, the royalty could easily be "All the proceeds, plus a damages settlement"

Of course, nobody wants somebody else to take their work and sell it without permission, but getting all the money does take some of the sting away.

f

[DrT]

I wouldn't be so optimistic about it: the editor is based in hong kong, the info is false...

only the back account is real, and to get the manpower and rights to investigate THAT trail, you need a lot of backup.

read the article. The guy is actually trying to get the money to the artists. And it's not likely it will happen, unfortunately

[Ruestir]

Copyright is automatic on the web.
You might want to check your sources on this. There is no such thing as an automatic copyright. You have to take measures to protect yourself.

[KiaKat]

If you create something, and it's original, you hold the copyright. Yes, you have to take measures to *prove* you hold the copyright, but that's not terribly difficult. Just have a dated piece, or documentation of its creation.

Plus, my understanding is that most of the original works in this case are physical, rather than digital, correct?

[DrT]

Actually, I'd put money on the opposite: the internet is the purest definition of public domain.
so unless you don't state it on your site, and on the pics, and you protect the pics against a 'save as', you're sharing them with the rest of the world, for free.

[DrT]

If you create something, and it's original, you hold the copyright. Yes, you have to take measures to *prove* you hold the copyright, but that's not terribly difficult. Just have a dated piece, or documentation of its creation.
Plus, my understanding is that most of the original works in this case are physical, rather than digital, correct?

the way I get it, is that this book was made out of images on the net, saved from there and perhaps photoshopped a bit.

in the digital age, proving copyright is a bitch. Do you date all your sketches ? how can you prove the date was put there three years ago, and not yesterday ?

[Ruestir]

the way I get it, is that this book was made out of images on the net, saved from there and perhaps photoshopped a bit.

in the digital age, proving copyright is a bitch. Do you date all your sketches ? how can you prove the date was put there three years ago, and not yesterday ?
Exactly! I have a couple friends who've had to fight this battle. It's not as "automatic" as you'd think.

[Evandril]

Was a fairly 'big' stink a while back about a major name in the art world (I can't remember any of the names, sorry) who'd blatently stolen images from another artist online, to the point were even people mostly clueless about art could tell it was the original artist's work...And he got away with it, since noone could 'prove' where it came from.

[KiaKat]

Yeah...the one who creates all the 'bunny' popart.

Hmm...when I get home, I'll find the section in federal law about copyright. I used to have it at hand, but after my server blew up, I lost it.

Though I think Constant Commons has it somewhere on their site.

[Sehson]

If you create something, and it's original, you hold the copyright. Yes, you have to take measures to *prove* you hold the copyright, but that's not terribly difficult. Just have a dated piece, or documentation of its creation.

Plus, my understanding is that most of the original works in this case are physical, rather than digital, correct?

Actually the only way to have definitive copyright on anything is you must submit each individual work to the US copyright office, fill out the paper work and pay the hefty filing fees.

The old mail it to yourself does not hold up anymore it boils down to whom has the most money and best lawyers, in one of the photo communities they were discussing a case where someone did a derivative work off someones photography, then sued the photographer for infringement and won because he had better lawyer and more money.

[KiaKat]

Hey, I said you have to take measures to protect and prove you hold it, but the original copyright, under law, exists the moment you create the original piece.

However, negotiation and blahblahblahing is 99% of Law in this country, so multiple methods of evidencing are necessary to prove a copyright is held by the originator of the piece.