I'm still working on my props that I hope to put up sale. And I was thinking about using parts of some images that are on a classical art website as bump maps (after I modify them in PS of course). Now, even though these images will be greatly altered, and then applied to a wood or stone surface so that they will be almost unrecognizable, I still thought it proper to ask the people at the site for permission. Unfortunately, repeated emails have gone unanswered. Would it be ok for me to take this non-response as consent, and proceed with making the props?

Ok it might be different where you live but what I learned in a course about creating websites was that it is okay to use other people's work as long as you don't take credit for it and it is clearly recognizable who the copyright holder really is (like when you write a essay in college and add a "source sheet" appendix where you list all the books you used). This same problem basically applies every time you quote a newspaper article or something and it is pretty common rule that you are allowed to do that as long as you tell the source. I'd say: As long as you don't take credit for the texture and mention where it came from all that could possibly happen to you is that you will be asked to remove it.

ehmmm noooo if the pictures are NOT yours do not take them. You do not have the copyright and do not know the terms of use. If you put them up for sale without permission from the copyright holder you will be in trouble for copyright infringement. Images on the web are NOT always public domain. Do not take them and just use them.

No response means you have no permission. Instead of using their work without permission, create your own image that will give a similar result.

It is said anything before 1900 is in public domain IF it has had public access. You can, for example, use the Mona Lisa. Music is a bit different since the music itself is not copyrightable but the performance is. Frankenstien maybe copyrighted since Shelling's family may posesses ownership to the original material through her estate. Hercules is not copyrighted but any figure that looks like the guy from TV is copyrighted. Also religious personnas are not copyrighted though maybe be zealously regulated by fanatic sects. There are requirements for items to fall into public domain and there are some items NOT in public domain even though they are before 1900. Peter Pan, for example, has an unlimited copyright on it. A painting by DaVinci in a private collection that has never been exposed to the public is considered copyrighted and owned. But the Mona Lisa is public domain since it is readily viewable in a museum and its image has been made public.

One thing to add is like Ratteler said. Mona Lisa may NOT be copyrighted but the medai by which Mona Lisa's image is transfered maybe. For example, I believe Bill Gates owns the copyright to displaying the Mona Lisa and most other classic works in electronic form. This means the Mona Lisa appearing as a JPG is copyrighted by Bill Gates.

Quote - what I learned in a course about creating websites was that it is okay to use other people's work as long as you don't take credit for it and it is clearly recognizable who the copyright holder really is

Not even close. International copyright law says you can not use somebody else's images without their permission. Unless somebody who owns the copyrights says (in writing) that you can use it, then you CAN NOT use it legally. > Quote - It is said anything before 1900 is in public domain IF it has had public access.

Nope. Photographs taken more than 75 years ago are in the public domain because they can only be copyrighted for 75 years. Unless they have been rephotographed, in which case the copy has another 75 years to go. Same for photos of art or anything else. Any photograph of the Mona Lisa is copyrighted by the photographer who took the picture. And it does not matter how heavilly you modify an image. If you started with somebody else's image, they own it, not you.

Attached Link: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

Mason, A couple of minor corrections... Frankenstein (the original novel) is indeed in the public domain. Also the "permanent" copyright on Peter Pan is limited to England. In Canada, USA, et al it has fallen into the public domain because of age. Snoopy101, I believe what your teacher was referring to was the "fair use" exception in copyright law which does allow you to use small portions of someone elses work w/o premission for purposes of parody, education, or news reporting. It is not an excuse for taking a work in its entirety & reusing it for your own purposes. regaltwo, Copyright law is not assumptive. Receiving no answer cannot be taken as tacit permission. The link above is to the US copyright office FAQ pages. It should answer any other copyright question you might have.

OK, daverj, I think I've got what you're saying. But let's say I run over to my university library and check out books with photo illustrations older than 75 years and scan the images in? I know that they won't be high quality or color, but that wouldn't matter for the bump map purpose. Would that be ok?

[One thing to add is like Ratteler said. Mona Lisa may NOT be copyrighted but the medai by which Mona Lisa's image is transfered maybe. For example, I believe Bill Gates owns the copyright to displaying the Mona Lisa and most other classic works in electronic form. This means the Mona Lisa appearing as a JPG is copyrighted by Bill Gates.] Nope. http://www.panix.com/~squigle/rarin/corel2.html http://www.funnystrange.com/copyright/bridgeman.htm From the second document: "The court determined that museum reproductions, whose purpose is to duplicate the original work as precisely as possible, do not involve enough originality to be copyrighted as a derivative work."

Daverj, the case in which you say that a photograph can be recopied extending the copyright is not the case under the ruling. A photograph that includes the Mona Lisa can be copyrighted. A photograph that duplicates the mona lisa can't be. For the photograph to be copyrightable, it must contain original content to be considered a derived work. If it is an attempt to reproduce (or preserve in a digital medium) a work, it does not have original content, and thus is entirely still in the public domain. A bumpmap created from a work in the public domain CAN be copyrighted, in theory, but it's less likely to hold up if it's done with Poser than if it's done by manually creating it like Dodger does his. Museums and other people cannot apply copyright to a work in the public domain simply by changing its medium. If that were the case, a copy of Treasure Island, which is public domain, could be copyrighted simply by putting it on the web. However, a recording of Treasure Island read aloud could be copyrighted, as the actor involved adds inflections to his speech and so on based on his creative interpretation of the book. As another example, the script to the movie 'Romeo + Juliet' that came out a few years back is public domain. The audio track is copyrighted. The visual imagery is copyrighted. You can make a movie of Romeo and Juliet with the exact same script and you cannot be successfully sued. But if you download a copy of Romeo and Juliet of Kazaa and you do not own a copy of the movie in some form then you are pirating it. The production company has not gained copyright to the script simply because they made a copyrightable movie out of it. The same thing happens with images. If a JPEG is a reproduction (or pushed as such) of a work that is in the public domain, then the JPEG is in the public domain whether the scanner likes it or not. If a JPEG is a deliberate modification of a public domain work, then the JPEG is copyright the person who created it.

Why can't life be simple?

I'd go with the trained person on this one ... thanks Cooler for the info and link

That's an interesting point about unlawfully invading privacy. I checked the U.S. Constitution, but I couldn't find any right to privacy in it. I don't admire the RIAA for targeting naive Kazaa, Morpheus or Limewire users, but those users shouldn't try to use a desire for privacy as a cover for piracy.

so basically, someone who would produce a replication of a no longer copyrigther work before prescription time would reroll the hourglass for another 75 years ? that is strange and sick. SO as long as you re-release something every 3/4 of century, it is untouchable :) or will they extend again the time period for the sake of disney ? :) as arule of thumb, do what i do, only use "free of rights" (means free of fights too, apsus) material. There are some websites dedicated into opengl/public domain/legally usable material.. Just stick to it or you have to do all your stuff from scratch question: when you take a picture of a female model, she sure should be copyrigthed to her parents, ney ? :)

Quote: "Same for photos of art or anything else. Any photograph of the Mona Lisa is copyrighted by the photographer who took the picture. And it does not matter how heavilly you modify an image. If you started with somebody else's image, they own it, not you." Endquote Isn't that a paradoxon ? For example I take a photograph of Mona Lisa then I own the copyright, next I put it in the internet and tell Billy "up yours" because I'm only displaying my own photograph of something, not his copyrighted "Mona Lisa Electronica".

another question a bit offtopic (or may be not) regarding use of external materials into derivative poserwork. Suppose i want to make some work that need to include/use a design, peice of art, etc, that is copyrigthed and owned by someoen else. More precise example: i want to make a serie of cloth textures featuring/advertising known games, or characters or rockbands... What will happen ? If i make either non commercial render or item with that on one hand, or making commercial renders and items on the other hand (i guess second situation is clear and obvious: i can't) Is the first situation related to the fair use, or is tolerated or something ? or do i need to bother owners of initial arts and brandmarks in mail they won't even read, not even talking about replying ? And also, do i need to ask the original artist or the enterprise which owns the rights of this artist's work ? I tell that cause i saw metal rock band tshirts in freebies long ago. Also about some kind of things, is Santa Claus copyrigthed/owned by someone ? (i guess so, and if it is not, sure someone is trying to make it his own already)

The all-american Santa Claus (the guy in the red suit) might be copyrighted by Coca Cola - the red colour of his suit is the Coca Cola company colour and he started out as a marketing figure. "Santa Claus" himself is a historical character, I think he used to be a bishop back in medieval times who brought gifts to the poor during christmas time, I doubt there's some kind of copyright on him.

well i want to ear who had registered each primary colors, just to be sure.. I am a texture maker so copyright infrigements on red, green and blue would be armaggedon :)

Ay, dios mio! Do they allow cameras in the Louvre now? I thought we had to bring in an easel and painting stuff if we wanted to copy La Gioconda. Plus which, the one on display is a copy, anyway, not the real thing, ain't it?

Ratteler, Copyrights held by corporations, (including work-for-hire, anonymous & pseudonymous works), fall into the PD the same way they do for any individual. The timespan is dependent on the date of creation. As an example, anything created on or after 1-1-78 falls become public domain either 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication (whichever is shorter) Most of the Coca-Cola stuff referred to in this thread, falls under trademark laws (logos, script, "the wave", bottle shape, etc), & with proper care can be renewed virtually forever.

Attached Link: http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

Rattler, reference the link you originally posed above... "When U.S. Works Pass Into The Public Domain"

Yes but trademarks are limited to applying to the trades for which they are registered.

well if i was to make items featuring logo and brandmark copyrigthed, wouln'dt it be considered advertising though ? or i need to ask each copyright owner ? i dont think they even read or reply to such mails, or with weeeeks of delay :(

Attached Link: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Riddokun, You need to seek permission before using copyrighted artwork or corporate logos. This from Brad Templetons "10 Big Myths of Copyright Explained"... " "#9. It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising." It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do."

Riddokun, Just as an addendum to the above. With the exception of Gibson guitars, every individual, company, corporation, or government office I've contacted for copyright permission has sent me an answer within 24 hours.