Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SLtesterL2

Is this Illegal?

Recommended Posts

So, I was thinking of creating a painting business where customers had the ability to choose the EXACT image of what they want (through google or any other search engine) and I try to copy that image and make it into a painted version of that image. I mean it's not totally copying and pasting that image and plastering my signature on it but I'm taking my time to actually mimic the look so I'm not sure if that's theft or not. If it's nessasary, I will TOTALLY 100% give all credit to the original artist, but I would also want my Lindens for my work as well. If you could, also post any information from the kowledge base or wiki to confirm your reply.Thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take this for what it's worth.  I think if neither you nor your customer has rights to the original image, then you would be infringing.  You could fully protect yourself by only working with images that were demonstrably in the public domain or were released under one of the licenses that permits sale of derivative works.  Alternatively, you could partially protect yourself by, in addition to these images, only using images that the customer claimed to have rights to use.  Considering the presumably small real world value of your work, you would probably be safe enough doing that, unless the image belonged to an entity that customarily aggressively enforces its IP rights, such as Disney.

I am not a lawyer, and this may not be sound advice.  It may be worth exactly what you paid for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is illegal unless you are doing it with images that are in the public domain, you personally own the IP rights to the image because you created it as original work or you have specific written permission from the creator of the image to do what you describe.  You can not profit by copying other people's work this way except for the three situations named above. That is what copyright means,  Only the person who owns the IP rights has a right to copy it in any form by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being California based, SL falls under the Copyright Act of 1976,17 U.S.C. § 107 and has a provision within it that defines what constitutes "fair use". http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html .

 

I would pay particular attention to the last line of that link, "If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super relevant advice:

Sleep happy at night, knowing that you gave your originals honest credit,  do your paintings and make people in SL happy.

I invite you to free yourself from convoluted rules and adopt a strong, contemptuous attitude for all this mass-hysteria over "intellectual capitalism" and all its twisted, distorted pseudo-ethics..

Intellectual capitalism is quite incompatible with art, the purpose of which is, simply understood, just making people happy. Not making "rights owners" money.

And don't let the law or anyone tell you what you can and can't do with your intellect and tools, as a human being, especially if you're minding your own business and making your SL "clients" day by giving them the exact painting they wanted to play with, in your own original intepretation.

Listening to some of todays's biggest copyright advocates usually leaves a bad taste in everyone's ear for a very good reason: they'd like you to accept a draconian legal system in which whatever is not explicitly permitted, is forbidden. This is actually a classic political formula for oppressive Law as applied to a population of slaves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Vegro Solari wrote:

Super relevant advice:

Sleep happy at night, knowing that you gave your originals honest credit,  do your paintings and make people in SL happy.

I invite you to free yourself from convoluted rules and adopt a strong, contemptuous attitude for all this mass-hysteria over "intellectual capitalism" and all its twisted, distorted pseudo-ethics..

Intellectual capitalism is quite incompatible with art, the purpose of which is, simply understood, just making people happy. Not making "rights owners" money.

And don't let the law or anyone tell you what you can and can't do with your intellect and tools, as a human being, especially if you're minding your own business and making your SL "clients" day by giving them the exact painting they wanted to play with, in your own original intepretation.

Listening to some of todays's biggest copyright advocates usually leaves a bad taste in everyone's ear for a very good reason: they'd like you to accept a draconian legal system in which whatever is not explicitly permitted, is forbidden. This is actually a classic political formula for oppressive Law as applied to a population of slaves.

WHile I understand your distane for the current system this is terrible advice. You could get suied for all your worth if you follow this advice. Aside from this the OP isn't just doing it to make someones day they're clearly doing it for the money. Which isn't wrong.

I think thinking it's wrong to make money from your art (aka your time and skill) is a little bit twisted in itself. While the current system is convoluted at best expecting to be paid for your work like you would any other job isn't wrong. You shouldn't have to be ashamed to expect to be paid  and have your rights to your work protected. It takes hours of time and years of skill to create a work of art. If I designed youa webpage right now I would want to be compensated as it would take me months to do and took me years to develop skills in. Are you to tell me that expecting compensation is wrong?

 

now to OP what about painting pictures of there avatars themselves instead of random pictures on the web? Anyone can just upload the pick themselves but a picture done of the avatar and hand painted just for them is something you couldn't do on your own and would be worth the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Madeline, don't be such a scaremonger! Nobody's going sue anyone in a court of law for doing commissioned SL paintings or replicas. The reason's that lawyers are greedy, and there's basically no money in SL paintings whatsoever. Don't kid yourself that supposedly by "understanding the law" you're safe from being sued. Not so! Sad reality - the lawmakers themselves don't even understand all the laws, and that means everyone is guilty of something. The only way to be really safe from being sued is to not have any money that enemy lawyers could grab. Then no one cares about sueing you!

So you can wind that all-deafening legal siren right down and maybe re-read what I said, as a human being to other human beings.

If the inherent intellectual freedom to do whatever you want with your skills and tools is placed on one side of the scale, and getting paid regular artist wages is on the other, a person of minimal forsight chooses the freedom, every single time.  The sneaky trade here proposed is just too unequal.

Rather they would work in the ketchup factory for money, than just agree that what they, artists, get to do artistically or intellectually is now going to be legally or "ethically" delimited by a caste of "intellectual capitalists" (rights-owners).

Whenever you see the formula "it's forbidden because not -specifically- permitted to you by our law to do it", you should learn to perk up, someone fancies you are their unthinking slave. Unless you proudly give them the middle finger, they might consider your silence legally binding consent for all time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an artist in RL I take exception to your attitude.  There is no restraint on my intellectual or artistic freedom due to copyright laws. If I choose to sell the rights to one of my paintings to someone there is nothing wrong with that either.   It is certainly not intellectual or artistic freedom to copy someone else's work that you don't own the IP rights to and sell it for a profit, even if the profit is only a few dollars.  Indeed it is just the opposite.  It is intellectual and artistic fraud and is stealing pure and simple.

You can couch it in any socialistic twaddle you wish but your advice is BS.    If you believe in what you say why are you selling your work on MP for L's? Why aren't all your items full perm? Prove what you say you believe in, send me a full perm copy of everything with an unlimited and unrestricted license so I can sell it and make some money.  That should free you inellectually and artistically.

To the OP: Pay no mind to this person who is giving you extremely bad advice.  He lives in lala land but you must live in reality.  The reality is that he won't be around to pay your legal expenses if you follow his advice and are caught and the artist you copy chooses to sue you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone for taking the time to post on this thread. So this raises up a few more questions that I thought up of. One being what are examples of public domain pictures and the other is more on the copy right issue of things. I constantly see icons and symbols from major companies, as someone stated, Disney. I can go to the market place and find several shirts with Mickey Mouse on them. Same thing with hello kitty or spongebob squarepants. I see shirts or toys from the exact same picture I can located through google images and still these merchants are able to sell their product regardless of copyright issues and such and im pretty sure they didnt get the rights from disney. So,my question is what allows them to do that when they are clearly just taking the image and slapping it on a mesh shirt or any object for that matter or even advertisement. By no means am I saying that the people that say that I can't infringe work are wrong, I just don't see what the people who are selling those products are doing where I can't just by having some fun and copying and image I like or an image a friend or client may like and recreating it through paint. Also, it's true I don't mind the lindens but I would also sell the paintings as kind of a small

Time hobby and not a huge corporation. I would love to make someone's day by painting them a picture but I'm not going to lie and pretend like I'm a saint an do of for free unless they're a close friend. Also one last question, if this idea is scrapped, can I at least display what I infringed in my SL house and not sell it but just display it? Thanks again so much for all of your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because other's are violating copyrights doesn't make it right for you to do it too. People commit crimes everyday in RL.  Do you think that it is OK for you to do too just because others are?

The other's just haven't been caught - yet.  There was someone who posted recently that got caught selling Disney character shirts and had her items pulled. You also run the risk of someone reporting you to the person that owns the IP rights, which some people will do.

People who sell items that are made violation of another person's IP rights are not well respected by the rest of the content creator community.     Ask yourself how you'd feel if someone took something you worked hard on and stole it and sold it for money you'd never see. 

Here is a link that shows when things pass into the public domain under US copyright law.  Be aware though that other countries may have different laws.  To find things that you can use legally, google public domain images.  You can also look for images in general using image search and go to the web page where it is posted.  Many times you may see that the artist will allow use under a license with specific terms, such as a creative commons license.  Some will allow you to do it for free, others will charge a fee.  If no licensing information about the image is on the web page you can contact the artist if you can see who it is, or the owner of the web page and ask.

I think that you will find that there is a wealth of public domain images available to you as well as images that you can legally obtain a license for use for free or a small fee.  There is so much available it makes the risk of running afoul of the law foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madeline Blackbart wrote:


Candii9 wrote:

-1

I'm sorry you feel the facts deserve a minus point.

-2 for now claiming your opinion is a "fact".

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Vegro Solari wrote:

Now Madeline, don't be such a scaremonger! Nobody's going sue anyone in a court of law for doing commissioned SL paintings or replicas. The reason's that lawyers are greedy, and there's basically no money in SL paintings whatsoever. Don't kid yourself that supposedly by "understanding the law" you're safe from being sued. Not so! Sad reality - the lawmakers themselves don't even understand all the laws, and that means everyone is guilty of something. The only way to be really safe from being sued is to not have any money that enemy lawyers could grab. Then no one cares about sueing you!

So you can wind that all-deafening legal siren right down and maybe re-read what I said, as a human being to other human beings.

If the inherent intellectual freedom to do whatever you want with your skills and tools is placed on one side of the scale, and getting paid regular artist wages is on the other, a person of minimal forsight chooses the freedom, every single time.  The sneaky trade here proposed is just too unequal.

Rather they would work in the ketchup factory for money, than just agree that what they, artists, get to do artistically or intellectually is now going to be legally or "ethically" delimited by a caste of "intellectual capitalists" (rights-owners).

Whenever you see the formula "it's forbidden because not -specifically- permitted to you by our law to do it", you should learn to perk up, someone fancies you are their unthinking slave. Unless you proudly give them the middle finger, they might consider your silence legally binding consent for all time.

so what your telling  me is that no one has ever suied anyone of rights being voilated on sites that the person themselves were not making or making low amounts of money? You have  heard of napstar right? And no one has been sued for file sharing when they weren't making money off of it? If your telling me that then your niave at best. There's no way to be safe from being sued even if you aren't turning a profit. The only real way to be safe is not to obviousally rip off people work by sharing files (or in this case) selling there item in plain view.

 

As one human being to another I think you should try to understand that some people make a living on there ability to create art. A person with minimal forsight is going to choose the ability to LIVE off there skill set. What your saying is that art should have no inherant value? It's funny that people don't have this Ideal about people who are scientist or mathameticians. Should those people also give away there hard work for free as well? Should a scientist be expected to work for free as well? How about a doctor? Why are those people more deserving of being paid then an artist? Should not scientific theory be free as well?

 

I'm sorry but earning livable wages for a skill set that has taken years to aquire is only a logical desire. Most people (I'm sure when push comes to shove yourself as well) wouldnot choose to work at a ketchup factory whent hey could be earning more for something they have taken years of there lives to develop. I'm sorry but this "freedom to do whatever" flower hippy love crap is just that CRAP. You can  all give me down votes all you want but realisitically a person has to live and expecting to get paid for your hard work is not wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


SLtesterL2 wrote:

Thank you everyone for taking the time to post on this thread. So this raises up a few more questions that I thought up of. One being what are examples of public domain pictures and the other is more on the copy right issue of things. I constantly see icons and symbols from major companies, as someone stated, Disney. I can go to the market place and find several shirts with Mickey Mouse on them. Same thing with hello kitty or spongebob squarepants. I see shirts or toys from the exact same picture I can located through google images and still these merchants are able to sell their product regardless of copyright issues and such and im pretty sure they didnt get the rights from disney. So,my question is what allows them to do that when they are clearly just taking the image and slapping it on a mesh shirt or any object for that matter or even advertisement. By no means am I saying that the people that say that I can't infringe work are wrong, I just don't see what the people who are selling those products are doing where I can't just by having some fun and copying and image I like or an image a friend or client may like and recreating it through paint. Also, it's true I don't mind the lindens but I would also sell the paintings as kind of a small

Time hobby and not a huge corporation. I would love to make someone's day by painting them a picture but I'm not going to lie and pretend like I'm a saint an do of for free unless they're a close friend. Also one last question, if this idea is scrapped, can I at least display what I infringed in my SL house and not sell it but just display it? Thanks again so much for all of your help.

honestly those people are doing something illegal and just haven't been caught. It's like shop lifting just because you weren't caught doesn't make it any less wrong. You could probably get away with displaying it in your house and not sell it as most likely you won't get caught.

 

I still stick by my suggestion of offering to paint a portrait of there avatar itself and sell that. I think people would like that service a lot to be honest as they could use it in the profiles and houses and so one. And you could charge per avatar int he picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


LepreKhaun wrote:


Madeline Blackbart wrote:


Candii9 wrote:

-1

I'm sorry you feel the facts deserve a minus point.

-2 for now claiming your opinion is a "fact".

 

 

So your saying that copyright laws are not fact? So they don't exist? Pretty sure they are infact fact. And that taking someone else work without permission is in fact against the law. Unless you would like to prove to me that this "opinion" is some how NOT a fact?

 

I'd also like to give YOU a -50 for not know about copyright laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madeline Blackbart wrote:


LepreKhaun wrote:


Madeline Blackbart wrote:


Candii9 wrote:

-1

I'm sorry you feel the facts deserve a minus point.

-2 for now claiming your opinion is a "fact".

 

 

So your saying that copyright laws are not fact? So they don't exist? Pretty sure they are infact fact. And that taking someone else work without permission is in fact against the law. Unless you would like to prove to me that this "opinion" is some how NOT a fact?

 

I'd also like to give YOU a -50 for not know about copyright laws.

Of course copyright laws are a fact. However, our individual interpretations of them are our opinions about that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So am I to assume that then using other people pictures without permission is then just my "opinion". Or that people have ther right to earn money off there hard work also just an "opinion"? Is this why I deserve random downvotes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


LepreKhaun wrote:


Madeline Blackbart wrote:


LepreKhaun wrote:


Madeline Blackbart wrote:


Candii9 wrote:

-1

I'm sorry you feel the facts deserve a minus point.

-2 for now claiming your opinion is a "fact".

 

 

So your saying that copyright laws are not fact? So they don't exist? Pretty sure they are infact fact. And that taking someone else work without permission is in fact against the law. Unless you would like to prove to me that this "opinion" is some how NOT a fact?

 

I'd also like to give YOU a -50 for not know about copyright laws.

Of course
copyright laws
 are a fact. However, our individual interpretations of them are our
opinions
about that fact.

-3 for missing the point entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to applaud you for your ability to present situations (hypothetical or not) to the forum community and get some very interesting conversations started because of them.

As for your OP... I have to wonder why anyone with such artistic ability would want to use it only to copy someone else's images.  Surely there are more creative ways for someone to put their talent and ability to use.  Does it really matter whether or not it's legal?  I would think that the more pressing question would be does doing so really satisfy you as an artist?  Does it honestly touch your soul to just duplicate someone else's vision?  Isn't there anything more in you that's yearning to come out?

There are ways to make money commercially without giving up your artistic integrity.  If you have none, then do it.  But, if you have any sort of integrity left, I suggest you fight for it.  Once that's gone, what's left?

If I may be so bold as to suggest to you another course of action, consider reproducing the favorite pictures that your customers have taken in SL.  That way, there are no legal questions and, depending on the customer, you may be able to inject more of your own aesthetic into the piece... just a thought.

...Dres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dresden Ceriano wrote: as to suggest to you another course of action, consider reproducing the favorite pictures that your customers have taken in SL.  That way, there are no legal questions and, depending on the customer, you may be able to inject more of your own aesthetic into the piece... just a thought.

...Dres


This is exactly what I've been suggesting this whole time. I mean how cool would it be if someone painted second life landscapes? Or portraits of Second Life avatars? And I'm sure the community would desire it more... find it more valuable then just a simply copied work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it is a terrific idea...if I had the talent. At the moment, I can only paint cartoon/anime pics so maybe if I gain the talent I would TOTALLY do that so thank you so much for the suggestion

 

 

@Dres: haha thanks! Oh! I infringe because I don't have the creativity to create such artwork so I just use my technique of what I have of it and copy premade pictures IRL. I'm trying my best to gain better experience and hope to bring that into SL but I just needed to know this for future use :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Suspiria Finucane wrote:


LepreKhaun wrote:


Madeline Blackbart wrote:


LepreKhaun wrote:


Madeline Blackbart wrote:


Candii9 wrote:

-1

I'm sorry you feel the facts deserve a minus point.

-2 for now claiming your opinion is a "fact".

 

 

So your saying that copyright laws are not fact? So they don't exist? Pretty sure they are infact fact. And that taking someone else work without permission is in fact against the law. Unless you would like to prove to me that this "opinion" is some how NOT a fact?

 

I'd also like to give YOU a -50 for not know about copyright laws.

Of course
copyright laws
 are a fact. However, our individual interpretations of them are our
opinions
about that fact.

-3 for missing the point entirely.

Oh, I get the point of these kinds of threads entirely, having seen a good number of them over the years. I just feel playing King/Queen of the Ethical Hill  is somewhat childish and immature is all.

 

My observation of human behavior makes me believe that no amount of ranting and raving, hair pulling and chest pounding, and general posturing is going to change anyone's ethics. And, with a number of years on debate teams behind me, I regard the argument of "if you don't agree with my opinion then you must be denying the facts under discussion" or "my opinion is going to be the fact of discussion" as erroneous. The truth of it is, no matter how passionately one believes, no matter how emphatically they state their position, no matter how "good" the position may be within some ethical context- an opinion is merely an opinion. No more no less.

 

Now, I gave my opinion (I would pay particular attention to the last line of that link, "If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.") very early in this thread, way back in the 4th message down, after stating a fact. But, participants in these kinds of free-for-all ethical pile-ups are rarely concerned with facts. No, their opinions and the drama based bickering is all-important. Fine, have at it. Some get a lot of amusement value out of it, usually the starter of the fray if no one else. And if it gives you a warm, cuddly feeling for having fought the good fight afterwards, by all means, carry on.

 

Just don't try to disparage those that choose not to roll around in the dirt with you or are willing to point out fallacies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


LepreKhaun wrote: A lot


 

 I was attempting to reply to Madeline Blackbart in a continuation, hence -3 and not -51 ;)   My bad for clicking the wrong post at 3 AM.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an artist who has at one time gotten art 'stolen' (the person reproduced a scene I had drawn with multiple characters and merely drew their own characters in, keeping body types and generally the expressions the same as my original) I can say that this is a HUGE offence.

 

My advice to you if you are unable to create poses and things from scratch is do what someone else suggested, and redraw a picture someone took of their own avatar in your style. This way they are giving you the 'rights' to copy the pose/lighting/whatever and there isn't anyone to be offended.

 

Do NOT find pictures on google and act like they are for public consumption, because they AREN'T. If you must, go to deviantart and go to the stock images and find some poses there for reference.

Looking at RL will only help you. Looking at other people's art with their own styles which may skew anatomy will only hinder you. For example, when I draw young males, I like to give them wider hips than necessary - this is a stylistic choice that is not true to RL anatomy. And if you copy from anime drawings you're gonna be in for a surprise when you figure out how the human body works!

Practice until you learn how to do things on your own. We all have to start somewhere, and art theft is NOT a place to start.

Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...