Photoshop cut and paste aviation "art"

[Erik_Jensen]

X

 

[gumbyk]

There is also the 'moral rights'.
From NZ copyright law:

Moral rights remain with the creator, even when copyright is owned by someone else.
Moral rights give creators:
• the right to be identified as the author of the work, or director in the case of a film
(right of attribution);
• the right to not have a work falsely attributed to them; and
• the right to object to derogatory treatment of the work (right of integrity).

So, if you take a photo and sell the rights to it, you can retain the moral rights, part of which is the attribution

 

[parsifal]

There is no "international copyright law", however, if you hold a copyright in a country that is part of the international copyright convention, then the laws of your country carry to the member countries. This is the Berne convention. "One of the basic principles of the Berne Convention is that of "automatic protection", which means that copyright protection exists automatically from the time a qualifying work is fixed in a tangible medium (such as paper, film or a silicon chip).

There has not been a single successful court action in Australia under the berne convention since 1968. We are certainly a signatory to the convention. The biggest problem with it is its gernerality.

The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms. Australian precedents have extended this exception to also apply while the author or owner of that image is still alive....I suspect that is why amendments were made to Australian legislation were made in 2006 just before we signed an FTA with the US.

Further, Although the Berne Convention states that the copyright law of the country where copyright is claimed shall be applied, "unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work". This works in reverse however, where there is a lesser standard...in other words, its written to favour the user of that image to the maximum possible extent.....i.e., an author is normally not entitled a longer copyright abroad or greater protection than at home, even if the laws abroad give a longer term or are more severe. This is commonly known as "the rule of the shorter term" in Australia, and where British law forms the basis of the copy(right) protection. Where US statute forms the basis, its somewhat different

Not all countries have accepted this rule, and in Australia there are problems in its application because it bumps up against provisions of our constitution. The Berne Convention authorizes countries to allow "fair" uses of copyrighted works in other publications or broadcasts. Implementations of this part of the treaty fall into the broad categories of fair use and fair dealing and in Australia take the general form Ive previously described....ie proper acknowledgement, not used for commercial gain or profit, not an invasion of personal privacy.

The Agreed Statement of the parties to the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 states that: "It is understood that the mere provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication does not in itself amount to communication within the meaning of this Treaty or the Berne Convention." This language may mean that Internet service providers are not liable for the infringing communications of their users. That is certainly the view that has been taken in the High Court of Australia. Broad rule of thumb is if you post it on the internet, you take your chances, though there are definite limits to that interpretation

Critics claim that the convention does not mention any other rights of consumers of works except for fair use. The High Court has taken the view that this vagary generally makes the law and convention very open to challenge, and not given a great deal of weight.

The copyright law of Australia defines the legally enforceable rights of creators of creative and artistic works under Australian law. The scope of copyright in Australia is defined in the Australian Copyright Act 1968 (as amended), which applies the national law throughout Australia. Designs may be covered by the Copyright Act (as sculptures or drawings)> Again photos or rendered drawings, electronic images and the like are not specifically protected, and that's a problem.

Prior to Australia's federation in 1901, a number of Australian Colonies, later states, had enacted copyright laws. In part this was done to mitigate the inadequacy of the protection afforded to Australian authors by British copyright law. The state laws continued to apply after the federal Commonwealth of Australia was established in 1901, and literally are allover the place as far as protection is concerned. The laws operated in concurrency with the British copyright law that was in force in the colonies. This situation obviously had to be changed

The Australian Constitution gives the federal parliament power to make laws relating to copyright and intellectual property, concurrently with the states. Section 51(xviii) of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that "the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to, inter alia, copyright, patents of inventions and designs, and trademarks". As an immediate consequence copyright law was no longer established at state level, but by the federal parliament

The British Copyright Act 1911 continued to apply in Australia until the Australian Copyright Act 1968 came into force on 1 May 1969. The 1968 Act was enacted following the collapse of the imperial system after the passage of the British Copyright Act 1956, and following recommendations of the Spicer Committee, which had been appointed by the Australian Attorney-General in 1958 to review the 1912 Act to see what changes were necessary for Australia to ratify the Brussels Act of the Berne Convention.

The 1968 Act remains in force today, but has been amended on a number of occasions. The first major review occurred in 1974 when the Whitlam Government appointed the Copyright Law Committee, chaired by Justice Franki, to examine the impact of reprographic reproduction on copyright law in Australia. The committee was also asked to examine the impact of photocopying and "to recommend any alterations to the Australian copyright law to effect a proper balance of interest between owners of copyright and the users of copyright material in respect of reprographic reproduction."

During its deliberation the Franki Committee observed that because Australia was a net importer of copyrighted works it should be careful to not adopt too radical solutions. The Franki Committee recommended, amongst others, the adoption of a statutory licensing scheme. When commencing its review the Committee stated that the primary purpose of copyright law was:

"...to give to the author of a creative work his just reward for the benefit he has bestowed on the community and also to encourage the making of further creative works. On the other hand, as copyright in the nature of a monopoly, the law should ensure, as far as possible, that the rights conferred are not abused and that study, research and education are not unduly hampered."

As I said, this limits the extent of copyright liability in this country.....The Copyright Amendment Act 2006 made changes required by the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. In particular, it strengthened anti-circumvention laws, for the first time making it illegal in Australia to circumvent technical measures used by copyright owners to protect access to their works, and expanding the measures which count as technological protection measures which may not be circumvented. Like the FTA language, the new anti-circumvention law is closely modeled on the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, although it is not identical. There are relatively few legal precedents relating to the new Act, but there is a degree of government regulation worth mentioning

The Act also introduced a series of new exceptions into Australian copyright law. The most well known are the private copying exceptions, which follow on from proposals by former Attorney-General Philip Ruddock to allow people to record most television or radio program at home to watch at a later time with family or friends, and to format-shift their music (make copies from CDs onto personal computers and portable music players such as iPods). I cannot find any precedent relating specifically to images, but am pretty certain it will be suvject to very similar provisions, which in essence don't stray far from the 1968 Act.

The Act also introduced a copyright exception allowing parody and satire, and an exception to allow certain non-commercial use by public sector institutions like universities, schools, art galleries, and archives, provided that an Australian court decides an exception would be consistent with the Berne three-step test.

The other notable change made by the Act was to expand the provisions concerning criminal copyright infringement. The Act introduced strict liability offences for some copyright infringements, and a system of 'Infringement Notices' (on the spot fines). The stated aim of these provisions is to make copyright easier to enforce, particularly against commercial infringers. It is in the realm of commercial infringements that the legislation is strongest, and there have been quite a number of successful prosecutions where it involves breaches on a commercial basis. It is in the realm of reasonable personal use that Australian Law, including the application of the Berne convention, may be very different to what you are accustomed.

As I said at the beginning. its complicated and not as straight forward as you are trying to present. good luck to the owner of the image of my avatar whoever he is, in prosecuting me for a breach of his copyright......

This might be of some use

Australian Institute of Criminology - Copyright offences

 

[tomo pauk]

Not to be too snarky - that is a copied text, right?

 

[parsifal]

yep, Australian Commonwealth Govt material on copyright law. I wonder if Im in breach of its copyright?

 

[gumbyk]

yep, Australian Commonwealth Govt material on copyright law. I wonder if Im in breach of its copyright?

Nah, it's clearly been used for 'educational purposes'

 

[evangilder]

I wasn't making it "straight forward", I was giving a basic tenet of it. But I will bow to your knowledge as you now appear to be the expert.

 

[parsifal]

Im not the expert, but having published stuff myself which in part relied on "imported material", and which itself was "poached" by others, Im not just a straight consumer either.

In one area we are in total agreement....its anything but straight forward, and in those situation caution is the best approach.

The best way is to seek permission to use the image, or at minimum acknowledge the source. Not full proof, but minimises the risk. Further, what Im quoting only has relevance to my country, Im not in any position to make any comments about the copyright laws that apply overseas

 

[fastmongrel]

Putting aside the copyright issuses. Am I the only one to think the "re imagined" works arent very good anyway and anyone buying something that looks like it was knocked up by a 12 year old on an ipad pretty well deserves what they get.

 

[Erik_Jensen]

X

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would be interested in hearing from Ron Cole on this...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It doesn't matter if you change a photo it a little or a lot. The law doesn't work that way.

As mentioned, its going to depend what country you're in. So how does this stack up if Ron got permission to use those photos? I see a lot of his work on the internet, it would seem to me that someone would have confronted him by now.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I have to agree with Eric and Joe and based on your statement:

. Maybe these guys have obtained the legal right to use these, but I doubt it.

You really don't know if there are violations of copyright, so you are accusing somebody in a public forum of being very unprofessional, that is bordering on slander. Your 2nd example I tried to access but it states the page is not found. Regardless it is questionable if the 2nd would even be a violation since the source of the photo is the US Government, and if it is owned by them there is no copyright.

 

[Erik_Jensen]

X

 

[Erik_Jensen]

X

 

[GregP]

Are you a cop?

 

[vikingBerserker]

For the record, I have been in contact wit the photographer of the B-24 Witchcraft shown in the first post, and he did NOT give any permission to use his photo and was unaware that it was being used. Whether he chooses to pursue the matter is up to him.

For somebody who claims:

"This is the main point of this thread, hence the title: Photoshop cut and paste "art". I hate to see people duped and ripped off. This is all I have to say on the matter."

you are pretty obsessed with the whole Copyright thing, re read your posts and look at how many times you have talked about it versus people being "duped and ripped off". Now you are contacting the owners of a pic to see if they gave an artist permission to use their photo? BTW did you obtain his permission to post his photo as well since it apparently according to you is Copyrighted? I don't see you having given him credit, only the site you copied the photo from.

Sorry but this thread goes a little beyond you just not liking a particular "form" of digital art or artist. You've just joined this site (I assume as you have an interest in WW2 aircraft) yet in all 12 posts in 2 threads as of this time the only thing you have talked about is this. I have to think there is some sort of hidden agenda beyond sharing a concern, information, or an opinion.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[GrauGeist]

VB has a valid point and something I might add:
If you are trying to bring awareness to someone who's profiting from other people's works, there are appropriate venues for doing so, but bombarding this site isn't really one of those.

I might also add, that in the examples posted for comparison, the website's URL is plastered across the original image instead of the photo's owner. If it were my image that had that website's URL pasted over it, I would be all over that siteadmin like stink on shi!t for posting their info over my image and I can safely say it would be an ugly scene for all involved.

 

[rochie]

As I said in the B-24 thread on the same subject, I think the point has been made and wonder if it's time for the threads to be closed ?

 

[evangilder]

I see that he has pretty much removed his posts, but there are some valid points to people altering someone else's photo and claiming as their own. I have had it happen to me, as have many other photographers I know. If it is done without the copyright owner's permission, it is theft of the owner's intellectual property. Most photographers, if asked nicely, will usually allow their work to be used in artwork within reason. If it is done without their permission, they have a right to defend their work.