Avatar - Copyright

F

Fishidiot

Active member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
9,960
While I certainly don't mean to create a stir - I would like to suggest that members of this forum who use artwork as their personal avatar ought to change their avatar. There are avatars in use that are the copyrighted artwork of artists, both living and dead. These paintings, while they make a nice avatar, are easily recognizable as the work of well known artists and are intellectual property. While using this art for an avatar on this site really does no harm, it is still illegal and unethical without permission of the artist or his/her estate. Of course the same goes for photos: if you didn't take it (and don't have permission from the photographer who did) you should not use it. Again, I don't want to ruffle any feathers as I am sure no harm was meant and the artists probably would not mind - but we should be mindful of this issue. If you have permission to use the art - my apologies - ignore this post.
 
Not to create a stir, but if the artist wouldn't mind, why would anyone else?
 
frankly, I think Fishidiot is venting. I've been to his site (and of course we're taking for granted that this is the same person posting as is on the site. I believe it is) He has made his point and as a videographer, who creates that kind of media, I understand his motive. What I don't understand is why after making his point, did he then go soft and make it ok to do this. Either, as an artist you strongly believe in your right as creator to individual ownership of that property or you don't.

By the way the work on your site is very nice. Just curious, was it the member using the trout stamp artwork that motivated your original post?

I don't think this is a ruffle the feathers issue. Like many things we discuss on here its open to interpretation. While I agree with the sentiment, I was wondering why Jack didn't provide a more professional opinion.
 
Tom, my opinion was semi-professional, actually. Exclusive rights in original works (copyrights) yield to two concepts, and though neither of them might apply strictly here, both are implicated in spirit. Those concepts are "fair use" and "permission." An important concept of fair use is where the work is exhibited or published, and that's what we are discussing here, without commercial benefit. Similarly, if the author of the work would not likely object to its use as an avatar on the PAFF site, implicit permission might be presumed. I am certain if the actual author sent an objection to anyone using his/her work as an avatar, they would promptly cease and desist. Until that time, I think it is much ado about nothing.
 
Gentlemen,
Thanks for the input on this. Jack's opinion obviously carries a lot of weight on this - much more so than mine. To be sure my knowledge of the vagaries of art law, and fair use concepts in particular, are limited. Certainly, any artist or writer who puts his or her stuff on the internet must understand that, with that work in the public domain, there must arise some risk that others can and will utilize it to their own benefit (or profit). Using an artist's work as an avatar on this site must be considered a very small infraction since they're not trying to profit financially from it. I do however believe that with this kind of situation involving intellectual property - one ought to err on the side of caution and secure permission. Consider this: Were you to post a photo you took on the photos section of this site and some time later someone you didn't know started using that exact photo as his avatar ... my guess would be you wouldn't be too happy.
Tomgamber: Thanks for the kind words.
 
fi-- as I implied, there may be a technical infringement, but the harm is so minimal, that it is unlikely to be worth suit over. If your art is used in an Avatar, or a picture you posted, as you suggested, a PM to the "infringer" will probably rectify the situation. I doubt anyone would persist in using someone else's art if they know there is an objection from the author.
 
Hope this clears things up a little more. It was taken from:
U.S. Copyright Office
http://www.copyright.gov/

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances.

Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained.

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
 
catching up on post sorry if this is a dead issue. being an artist i dont see the harm. art is a form of expression. you by a painting or picture beacuse it gives you pleasure to look at or it express yourself (or a piece of you). people hang up pictures in their houses for this reason or to express to visitors about who you are. isnt that what the avatar is? so as long as you are not profiting....who cares?
 
Fishidiot wrote:
While I certainly don't mean to create a stir - I would like to suggest that members of this forum who use artwork as their personal avatar ought to change their avatar. There are avatars in use that are the copyrighted artwork of artists, both living and dead. These paintings, while they make a nice avatar, are easily recognizable as the work of well known artists and are intellectual property. While using this art for an avatar on this site really does no harm, it is still illegal and unethical without permission of the artist or his/her estate.

You could be talking about me, since my screen name and avatar is a rip-off on Ned Smith. I doubt the phrase ‘gone for the day’ is copy written so I’m probably safe there. The avatar is the cover from Ned’s book, “Gone for the Day” that I lifted from Amazon and cropped. I own the book but didn’t think my old, faded copy would scan well.

I’ve long admired the guy’s artwork and a 150x150 avatar doesn’t do it any justice, just thought it looked a lot better then a picture of me fishing. If you want to see more, perhaps buy some or make a tax deductible contribution, got to: http://www.nedsmithcenter.org/

You can turn me in to the Ned Smith foundation if you want, but I’m not making any money out of it. But thanks for the opportunity to promote his legacy. :)
 
Back
Top