5:02 *Addressing US Copyright Law:* To get *statutory damages* (from US$750 to US$30,000 and up to US$150,000 for willful infringement) and possibly attorney fees paid by the US-based copyright infringer, the infringed work has to be *“timely”* registered with the US Copyright Office (either registered before the infringement begins or registered within three-months of the work’s first-date of publication). Without a timely registration, US copyright owners can only pursue “actual damages” (typically the missed licensing fee or copies costs they would have charged the infringer AND the disgorged profits the infringer made, if any); attorney fees are not available when the copyright owner fails to timely register their works. As a general rule, US creative works not timely registered are, too often, not enforceable for money damages. The situation is likely different in Canada, as it has its own money damage infringement set up.
I touch on this a little in a video I've recorded but not yet uploaded - my main advice on this, even taking into account the 40% rule, or changing intent etc, avoid using material from religious groups, years ago (early 2000s), I made some collages from magazines by the Watchtower people, put them up on my then website, not even for sale and I received some rather severe takedown notices, and was advised to do it, these people do not mess around and have vast amounts of money to throw at this.
It's funny that seems to be the standard of what people are told 😂 but I do think it's a good rule of thumb. Oh jeez, that sounds terrible. Sorry that happened to you. I'm sure there is a tool that can search images on people's websites/ the internet on images you own.
Nicely done! I have done a great deal of research on this myself, since I am a photo and collage teacher, and you are so spot on that I am sharing it with my current class. My only argument is that watermarks are not all that powerful in protecting work. And, on a personal philosophical note, I am not overly possessive of my own work and am fine if any of it inspires someone to use it in their own work. Collage is a long historical conversation.
@slbarsness wrote, “My only argument is that watermarks are *NOT ALL THAT POWERFUL* [emphasis] in protecting work.” Watermarks, logos, copyright attribution, names, URLs, social media handles, metadata, and other *“Copyright Management Information” (CMI)* affixed to digital creative works can be quite easily removed with a variety of tools, including apps, AI, Photoshop, and other photo editing software. HOWEVER, and per 17 USC §§ 1202-1203 (part of the DMCA copyright act), US-based copyright infringers (violators) who KNOWINGLY remove, cover-up, or change CMI to hide their copyright infringing actions or induce others to infringed can be liable for the copyright owner’s actual damages & the infringer’s disgorged profits OR US$2,500 to US$25,000 in statutory damages PLUS attorney fees PLUS legal costs (at the court’s discretion). As well, INTENTIONALLY removing CMI can suggest WILLFUL copyright infringement to a federal judge. If the work was timely registered with the US Copyright Office (USCO), the infringer can face two causes of action: Copyright infringement (up to US$150,000) + a CMI violation (up to US$25K) = up to US$175,000 in statutory damages + attorney/legal fees (at the court’s discretion). By affixing CMI to posted works, copyright owners can statutorily defeat a defendant’s “innocent infringement” claim (re: the US-based infringer is claiming they didn’t know your work was copyright-protected). See 17 USC § 401(d): Evidentiary Weight of Notice. Affixing watermarks and including other CMI to your posted creative works can provide you with some legal protection, ESPECIALLY if you skip registering (protecting!) your work with the USCO. And there are a number of US copyright attorney/litigators who will take CMI cases on a contingency. I’ve posted a copyright attorney link that further addresses watermark removals - search the comments for my handle *“cnlicnli”* (skip quotes) to access its URLs. @slbarsness wrote, “And, on a personal philosophical note, I am not overly possessive of my own work and am fine if any of it inspires someone to use it in their own work.” Curious, if a number of third-party artists create “derivative” copies of your work and are successfully selling/licensing them for $350 or more, are you OK with that, or would you like to receive some of that “inspirational” licensing fee?
Leah, many thanks for being so generous in sharing your knowledge and your findings with us. Good luck in your career and may great success come your way.
Thanks for the video. Recommendations: One point of advice you gave was a little triggering. Timestamp: 05:00 Be careful how you use the word "Print, or Prints". You may not advertise any work for sale that uses the word(s) "Print, or Prints" useless it is legitimately a true "Print". Example: An "original" intaglio etching, a lithograph, a wood block print, or any other "hand pulled artist's print" A counter example would be, anything that is not the "original" artwork. If you have a collage made of scanned copies of magazines. The paper collage, or the digital version of your collage represents the "original" that you made. If you upload the digital image to a commercial printing company, that is not, nor will it ever be a "Print". Those can only legally be described as "reproductions" or "posters". You absolutely are not allowed to use the word "print" unless you pulled it from a "plate" yourself from a "printing press". You might be an Artist, but you are not a Printmaker. This was put into law to protect real Printmakers from charlatans that attempt to give "false value" to their "reproductions" by calling them "Prints" or even worse... "Numbered, limited edition prints." A copper etching plate can only be used so many times. After 50 prints or so being run through the printing press, the plate starts to warp, and starts to degrade the quality of the image. If your "posters" are printed through a computer printer, I can, and do; print thousands of reproductions all day long at my job at a major print on demand company. The posters I print all day long are not "original works". They are "reproductions", "copies", or "posters" and your add copy is required by law to state clearly that the works you have for sale are “not original works of art". I know this will absolutely irritate the artists that work only in the digital art world but... if you want to represent yourself as a Printmaker, you will need to get your hands dirty in the print shop. Words "Print" or “Prints” are exclusively for use by Printmakers only.
Thanks for trying to clarify, I have always shied away from using a huge stack of 80's magazines I own because of worries about copyright infringement (which, in the UK, is 'The life of the artist plus 100 years' - as far as I know. Then if the artist ( or photographer/writer/composer) leaves their copyrighted material in a will that can extend it to their family/heir by many decades too! I used to have lots of fun making digital art from old ephemera and bought some digital files from people on etsy... then realised that many were selling stuff that infringes UK copyright, totally scared me off. It's such a convoluted topic and I can totally understand the frustration on both sides as I've had my own original art (drawn, not collaged) stolen and used by an etsy T-Shirt shop: they actually bought a print from me, then scanned it and started selling it as their own, which was very upsetting obviously. There are so many people selling Disney Character art without a license and copyright abuse on etsy and Amazon that it makes the whole issue so clouded and puts off so many of us from sharing stuff online at all.
Wow that is an insane story, I am sorry that happened to you. Thank you for clarifying the UK rules. It shocks me all of the Disney stuff! I think it's just a matter of choosing your risk level as an artist. Thanks for your comment ❤️
I greatly appreciate your views of a humble society but unfortunately many aspects of today's lifestyle is changing and evolving dramatically taking away the humanely aspects.Thanks for all these information and for your efforts ....!!❤️🌹😊
I occasionally try to gather information about intellectual property rights, but I have a slightly different variation on this in regards to my own collage work. I recently started using image transfer to embed photos into my collage pieces. I use my own photos; however, I’m wondering about photos that contain someone else’s art as part of the photo. For example, I created a piece that uses layered collage papers and painting with a photo that contains part of a sculpture from a sculpture garden. Another project that I would like to do but have put off would make use of a photo of the outside of a museum with scaffolding and large canvas covering the outside of the building during a recent renovation. An artist created a work on the canvas that included a message in large letters stitched to look like enormous cross-stitching. I just loved it and the sentiment and want to embed it in a collage painting, including actually stitching the words, but then realized that I could be infringing on the artist’s intellectual property. Do you know of any information about using your own photographs if they contain all or part of another piece of art? I would love to hear your thoughts on this or if you can point me toward any information. Thanks.
I'd assume its similar to how on TV you see blurred out art if there isn't a sign off for permission. I think it would still be in the "grey zone" technically. Again, you need to decide how what your "risk tolerance" is and go from there.
People ask me questions regarding copyright all the time and I’ve never felt comfortable enough to answer either! Thanks for putting together this video and sharing your research. ♥️ I’ll be sure to direct any future inquiries here since you’ve done such a great job introducing copyright + the potential issues
Aww thank you so much, I appreciate you sharing it. That was definitely my intent. I hope it helps all collage artists feel more confident in what it is they are doing.
4:02 Maybe for some of the older issues, but If you’re photographing for National Geographic, it’s very likely that all your assignment images and their corresponding copyrights would belong to National Geographic. National Geographic is a CORPORATION (they might be darth)! *SADLY,* to get hired as a freelance photographer or writer, you’re going to have to sign a one-sided, work-for-hire contract or a copyright transfer agreement to see your name in print.
Thanks for this, have been waiting ever since you said you'd be putting this video together and you were so helpful. I have found a lot of the resources you offered to be great ones, hopefully lots of people will benefit from your effort of putting this all together. I want to research more on fair use because I really do love to create from found items that inspire from in magazines and books. I believe I change the images enough in my mind, but that seems to be such a sliding scale. Thanks again for sharing what you have learned and found to be useful!
Sueing for damages in this case usually means loss of income for the owner of the copyright. It does not mean the item was damaged. Damages refers to how the plaintiff was harmed. In this case it is loss of income. You should have paid for the rights to use xxx.
Hi! I’ve been journaling using pictures from Pinterest for years and would like to start sharing pictures on Instagram. but I often don’t know who made the illustration/photo that I’m using on a journaling spread. Am I allowed to use those pictures when sharing a journaling spread on Instagram?
@@flanzella but is it also okay to post pictures of those journaling pages? Even when the journal is only for personal use? I don’t make any money with this
Thanks for the video! And I think your work is more leaning to themed collages because its a emotion you feel about it, it’s not based on facts or something you can prove in my opinion but idk tbh HHaha
Very interesting and thank you for sharing. I don't use photos or books for my colllage , I only use paper that i print with different colours but sometimes i use some ideas from other collage artists . In which category that put me I wonder?
Is it fairly safe to assume (I know, that's a dangerous word, lol), if you make youtube videos for educational purposes, using magazine images for collage, and they are altered and combined with other images, that this would be considered fair use? This is something I struggle with as a video creator. So many people say they are using vintage resources as if to say those images are fair game. But knowing the law which, extends rights 70 years after the person's death, they are still copyrighted even if they were from the 1960s.
I have gathered it really depends on your "risk tolerance", similar to investing. As said in the video, if you are just doing it for educational purposes in videos, it's totally fine. It's really only if you are selling an artwork it becomes a "risk".
My question is about stencils. If you re using a stencil someone designed, and the rule is changing it by say 30%….im not quite certain what that means.
I love that you said, “if people didn’t see such a value on money, we wouldn’t have these laws in place…” For many years now we have been such a litigious country-ever since that woman spilled boiling coffee on herself after driving off from a fast food establishment. Now there are warnings on everything. People are getting afraid to just be themselves for fear of offending someone. I go by Don Miguel Ruiz’s book, The Four Agreements-Take nothing personally and you cannot be offended. Not everyone is out to be intentional thieves of someone else’s personal or copyright property. The love of money is corrupting absolutely. Thank you for this information and for taking the time to educate yourself so that you may pass it on-especially to us elder folk who enjoy sitting around cutting up paper and making collages. 🤗
There isn't much content out there for us so happy to provide more insights ☺️ overall most English speaking countries seem to have a lot of overlap though.
hey Leah! so in essence, are your findings that it’s okay to utilise photos and cuttings from magazines to create collages to display and/or sell? or have i missed the point? 🤔
What about apps like shuffles or landing? When you’re finding images off Pinterest and google. Is this considered personal use? Can you then share these collages on other social media? Such a grey subject!
Thanks so much! I'm just starting out and was struggling with this. What about text from magazines or books? You've mentioned photos and ads, but what about pages that have text?
Great question! So great, I think I may need to do some research before giving a straight answer 😂 copyright applies to literature the same as images usually. That said there are different categories of text. If it's a page of a book will people notice? Likely not. But if it's the focal point and a famous quote, then it could be a problem.
Thanks for the question. Up until this point, no I have not (unless unknowingly). I'm not a real fan of celebrities so it's easy for me to keep a healthy distance 😜
fair use is helpful but collage and law can def get very confusing if someone does sue over copyright and its so different in so many places it just gets confusing lol but def its worth looking for images that are in the public domain or take your own image to use so you dont have to deal with it. i looked into it when i was studying pop art and dada art since both could take and use images from other artists and have been sued for it so that made me want to use my own images even more
You’re so right! To limited your risk against copyright infringement claims, search for works in the Public Domain or works that are not copyrightable (among other things, simple shapes & familiar symbols are not copyrightable by themselves). US Copyright Office’s Circular 33 (“Things Not Protected by Copyright") has a lot of good information. If I post a link to it, RUclips may not post my comment. So, enter “US Copyright Office + Circular 33” in an Internet search to get the official link. If you find a work that’s copyright-protected, you can also ask for permission. It doesn’t hurt to reach out and ask for a gratis license.
Bonjour Leah ☺️🇨🇦 Thanks for sharing your expertise on copyright, it is very good to know in deed , I am also a artist of surealism collage ,I found your chanel on Rosie youtube 👍 now you have a new fan 😁 Btw I love your art 👌 (Sorry I am french m'y spelling isent very good )😡
Make your art , enjoy it without worrying about trade mark infringement. When selling just know it’s risky . I will say , avoid Disney ! But No ones coming after you for an add photo in an old newspaper .
Thank you for researching this & making this video.
5:02 *Addressing US Copyright Law:* To get *statutory damages* (from US$750 to US$30,000 and up to US$150,000 for willful infringement) and possibly attorney fees paid by the US-based copyright infringer, the infringed work has to be *“timely”* registered with the US Copyright Office (either registered before the infringement begins or registered within three-months of the work’s first-date of publication).
Without a timely registration, US copyright owners can only pursue “actual damages” (typically the missed licensing fee or copies costs they would have charged the infringer AND the disgorged profits the infringer made, if any); attorney fees are not available when the copyright owner fails to timely register their works.
As a general rule, US creative works not timely registered are, too often, not enforceable for money damages. The situation is likely different in Canada, as it has its own money damage infringement set up.
I touch on this a little in a video I've recorded but not yet uploaded - my main advice on this, even taking into account the 40% rule, or changing intent etc, avoid using material from religious groups, years ago (early 2000s), I made some collages from magazines by the Watchtower people, put them up on my then website, not even for sale and I received some rather severe takedown notices, and was advised to do it, these people do not mess around and have vast amounts of money to throw at this.
It's funny that seems to be the standard of what people are told 😂 but I do think it's a good rule of thumb. Oh jeez, that sounds terrible. Sorry that happened to you. I'm sure there is a tool that can search images on people's websites/ the internet on images you own.
@@flanzella it wasn't too bad, I wasn't too attached to those pieces, it's a lesson learned
Glad it wasn't one of your favourite ones then!
By the way that video is up now
It is my understanding that the “40% rule” is not actually part of the copyright law at all. Do you have different information?
Nicely done! I have done a great deal of research on this myself, since I am a photo and collage teacher, and you are so spot on that I am sharing it with my current class. My only argument is that watermarks are not all that powerful in protecting work. And, on a personal philosophical note, I am not overly possessive of my own work and am fine if any of it inspires someone to use it in their own work. Collage is a long historical conversation.
@slbarsness wrote, “My only argument is that watermarks are *NOT ALL THAT POWERFUL* [emphasis] in protecting work.”
Watermarks, logos, copyright attribution, names, URLs, social media handles, metadata, and other *“Copyright Management Information” (CMI)* affixed to digital creative works can be quite easily removed with a variety of tools, including apps, AI, Photoshop, and other photo editing software.
HOWEVER, and per 17 USC §§ 1202-1203 (part of the DMCA copyright act), US-based copyright infringers (violators) who KNOWINGLY remove, cover-up, or change CMI to hide their copyright infringing actions or induce others to infringed can be liable for the copyright owner’s actual damages & the infringer’s disgorged profits OR US$2,500 to US$25,000 in statutory damages PLUS attorney fees PLUS legal costs (at the court’s discretion).
As well, INTENTIONALLY removing CMI can suggest WILLFUL copyright infringement to a federal judge. If the work was timely registered with the US Copyright Office (USCO), the infringer can face two causes of action: Copyright infringement (up to US$150,000) + a CMI violation (up to US$25K) = up to US$175,000 in statutory damages + attorney/legal fees (at the court’s discretion).
By affixing CMI to posted works, copyright owners can statutorily defeat a defendant’s “innocent infringement” claim (re: the US-based infringer is claiming they didn’t know your work was copyright-protected). See 17 USC § 401(d): Evidentiary Weight of Notice.
Affixing watermarks and including other CMI to your posted creative works can provide you with some legal protection, ESPECIALLY if you skip registering (protecting!) your work with the USCO. And there are a number of US copyright attorney/litigators who will take CMI cases on a contingency.
I’ve posted a copyright attorney link that further addresses watermark removals - search the comments for my handle *“cnlicnli”* (skip quotes) to access its URLs.
@slbarsness wrote, “And, on a personal philosophical note, I am not overly possessive of my own work and am fine if any of it inspires someone to use it in their own work.”
Curious, if a number of third-party artists create “derivative” copies of your work and are successfully selling/licensing them for $350 or more, are you OK with that, or would you like to receive some of that “inspirational” licensing fee?
Leah, many thanks for being so generous in sharing your knowledge and your findings with us. Good luck in your career and may great success come your way.
Thank you so much! I'm glad you found this to be helpful!
Thank you for helping to clear up the murkiness of copyright infringement.
This is why I like drawing/painting/creating my own collage papers.
Thanks for the video. Recommendations: One point of advice you gave was a little triggering. Timestamp: 05:00 Be careful how you use the word "Print, or Prints". You may not advertise any work for sale that uses the word(s) "Print, or Prints" useless it is legitimately a true "Print". Example: An "original" intaglio etching, a lithograph, a wood block print, or any other "hand pulled artist's print" A counter example would be, anything that is not the "original" artwork. If you have a collage made of scanned copies of magazines. The paper collage, or the digital version of your collage represents the "original" that you made. If you upload the digital image to a commercial printing company, that is not, nor will it ever be a "Print". Those can only legally be described as "reproductions" or "posters". You absolutely are not allowed to use the word "print" unless you pulled it from a "plate" yourself from a "printing press". You might be an Artist, but you are not a Printmaker. This was put into law to protect real Printmakers from charlatans that attempt to give "false value" to their "reproductions" by calling them "Prints" or even worse... "Numbered, limited edition prints." A copper etching plate can only be used so many times. After 50 prints or so being run through the printing press, the plate starts to warp, and starts to degrade the quality of the image. If your "posters" are printed through a computer printer, I can, and do; print thousands of reproductions all day long at my job at a major print on demand company. The posters I print all day long are not "original works". They are "reproductions", "copies", or "posters" and your add copy is required by law to state clearly that the works you have for sale are “not original works of art". I know this will absolutely irritate the artists that work only in the digital art world but... if you want to represent yourself as a Printmaker, you will need to get your hands dirty in the print shop. Words "Print" or “Prints” are exclusively for use by Printmakers only.
Thanks for trying to clarify, I have always shied away from using a huge stack of 80's magazines I own because of worries about copyright infringement (which, in the UK, is 'The life of the artist plus 100 years' - as far as I know. Then if the artist ( or photographer/writer/composer) leaves their copyrighted material in a will that can extend it to their family/heir by many decades too! I used to have lots of fun making digital art from old ephemera and bought some digital files from people on etsy... then realised that many were selling stuff that infringes UK copyright, totally scared me off. It's such a convoluted topic and I can totally understand the frustration on both sides as I've had my own original art (drawn, not collaged) stolen and used by an etsy T-Shirt shop: they actually bought a print from me, then scanned it and started selling it as their own, which was very upsetting obviously. There are so many people selling Disney Character art without a license and copyright abuse on etsy and Amazon that it makes the whole issue so clouded and puts off so many of us from sharing stuff online at all.
Wow that is an insane story, I am sorry that happened to you. Thank you for clarifying the UK rules. It shocks me all of the Disney stuff!
I think it's just a matter of choosing your risk level as an artist. Thanks for your comment ❤️
I greatly appreciate your views of a humble society but unfortunately many aspects of today's lifestyle is changing and evolving dramatically taking away the humanely aspects.Thanks for all these information and for your efforts ....!!❤️🌹😊
You did a great job on this!! Thank you for the very valuable info. I am grateful to you.
Thank you! You've given me some stepping-off points to explore.
You are so articulate. Great stuff. Disregard my question about this on another post
I occasionally try to gather information about intellectual property rights, but I have a slightly different variation on this in regards to my own collage work. I recently started using image transfer to embed photos into my collage pieces. I use my own photos; however, I’m wondering about photos that contain someone else’s art as part of the photo. For example, I created a piece that uses layered collage papers and painting with a photo that contains part of a sculpture from a sculpture garden. Another project that I would like to do but have put off would make use of a photo of the outside of a museum with scaffolding and large canvas covering the outside of the building during a recent renovation. An artist created a work on the canvas that included a message in large letters stitched to look like enormous cross-stitching. I just loved it and the sentiment and want to embed it in a collage painting, including actually stitching the words, but then realized that I could be infringing on the artist’s intellectual property. Do you know of any information about using your own photographs if they contain all or part of another piece of art? I would love to hear your thoughts on this or if you can point me toward any information. Thanks.
I'd assume its similar to how on TV you see blurred out art if there isn't a sign off for permission. I think it would still be in the "grey zone" technically. Again, you need to decide how what your "risk tolerance" is and go from there.
People ask me questions regarding copyright all the time and I’ve never felt comfortable enough to answer either! Thanks for putting together this video and sharing your research. ♥️ I’ll be sure to direct any future inquiries here since you’ve done such a great job introducing copyright + the potential issues
Aww thank you so much, I appreciate you sharing it. That was definitely my intent. I hope it helps all collage artists feel more confident in what it is they are doing.
4:02 Maybe for some of the older issues, but If you’re photographing for National Geographic, it’s very likely that all your assignment images and their corresponding copyrights would belong to National Geographic.
National Geographic is a CORPORATION (they might be darth)! *SADLY,* to get hired as a freelance photographer or writer, you’re going to have to sign a one-sided, work-for-hire contract or a copyright transfer agreement to see your name in print.
It depends.
Thank you so much for sharing. I have a better understanding . It is so true about your statement it’s about the monetary value.
You are so welcome 😁 glad it was helpful!
Thank you!!! This is very helpful! and I appreciate you doing all that work to get the information and stuff.
Copyright is so troublesome.
Glad it was helpful! Yes, it's troublesome but I do feel if you're changing the images enough, it's unlikely you'd ever have an issue.
*nods*. I think you're right. (I'm in Canada too, by the way. )
Bravo! You've exceeded my expectations
Thanks for this, have been waiting ever since you said you'd be putting this video together and you were so helpful. I have found a lot of the resources you offered to be great ones, hopefully lots of people will benefit from your effort of putting this all together. I want to research more on fair use because I really do love to create from found items that inspire from in magazines and books. I believe I change the images enough in my mind, but that seems to be such a sliding scale. Thanks again for sharing what you have learned and found to be useful!
So glad you found the recourses helpful! Yes, even after a lot of research everything still looks fairly grey unfortunately.
Very informative. Thanks fir your dedication. ❤
Thanks for watching! Glad it was helpful 😁
Sueing for damages in this case usually means loss of income for the owner of the copyright. It does not mean the item was damaged. Damages refers to how the plaintiff was harmed. In this case it is loss of income. You should have paid for the rights to use xxx.
Hi! I’ve been journaling using pictures from Pinterest for years and would like to start sharing pictures on Instagram. but I often don’t know who made the illustration/photo that I’m using on a journaling spread. Am I allowed to use those pictures when sharing a journaling spread on Instagram?
Because I’m still very confused honestly
For personal use you are allowed to use any images 😄
@@flanzella but is it also okay to post pictures of those journaling pages? Even when the journal is only for personal use? I don’t make any money with this
@Ninkedepinke from my understanding yes, unless you are posting for a company.
@@flanzella okay thank you!!!
Thanks for the video! And I think your work is more leaning to themed collages because its a emotion you feel about it, it’s not based on facts or something you can prove in my opinion but idk tbh HHaha
Very interesting and thank you for sharing. I don't use photos or books for my colllage , I only use paper that i print with different colours but sometimes i use some ideas from other collage artists . In which category that put me I wonder?
Is it fairly safe to assume (I know, that's a dangerous word, lol), if you make youtube videos for educational purposes, using magazine images for collage, and they are altered and combined with other images, that this would be considered fair use? This is something I struggle with as a video creator. So many people say they are using vintage resources as if to say those images are fair game. But knowing the law which, extends rights 70 years after the person's death, they are still copyrighted even if they were from the 1960s.
I have gathered it really depends on your "risk tolerance", similar to investing. As said in the video, if you are just doing it for educational purposes in videos, it's totally fine. It's really only if you are selling an artwork it becomes a "risk".
My question is about stencils. If you re using a stencil someone designed, and the rule is changing it by say 30%….im not quite certain what that means.
I love that you said, “if people didn’t see such a value on money, we wouldn’t have these laws in place…” For many years now we have been such a litigious country-ever since that woman spilled boiling coffee on herself after driving off from a fast food establishment. Now there are warnings on everything. People are getting afraid to just be themselves for fear of offending someone. I go by Don Miguel Ruiz’s book, The Four Agreements-Take nothing personally and you cannot be offended. Not everyone is out to be intentional thieves of someone else’s personal or copyright property. The love of money is corrupting absolutely. Thank you for this information and for taking the time to educate yourself so that you may pass it on-especially to us elder folk who enjoy sitting around cutting up paper and making collages. 🤗
Could not agree more! Its agonizing!
So you'd be okay with artists repurposing the collages you've made?
Thank you so Much for this! Happy to know that you are Canadian! 😊
There isn't much content out there for us so happy to provide more insights ☺️ overall most English speaking countries seem to have a lot of overlap though.
hey Leah! so in essence, are your findings that it’s okay to utilise photos and cuttings from magazines to create collages to display and/or sell? or have i missed the point? 🤔
In conclusion it's a very grey area, it's going to be a risk. But that risk level is up to you 😁
What about apps like shuffles or landing? When you’re finding images off Pinterest and google. Is this considered personal use? Can you then share these collages on other social media?
Such a grey subject!
Thanks so much! I'm just starting out and was struggling with this. What about text from magazines or books? You've mentioned photos and ads, but what about pages that have text?
Great question! So great, I think I may need to do some research before giving a straight answer 😂 copyright applies to literature the same as images usually. That said there are different categories of text. If it's a page of a book will people notice? Likely not. But if it's the focal point and a famous quote, then it could be a problem.
Thanks for this video and all the details!!!
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you!
Thank You so much for this!!!!
You're so welcome! 😁
Thank you very much for sharing your info with us all. ❤
You are so welcome 😁
@@flanzella 👍🏼
So, does that mean you never use images from magazines of famous people?
Thanks for the question. Up until this point, no I have not (unless unknowingly). I'm not a real fan of celebrities so it's easy for me to keep a healthy distance 😜
fair use is helpful but collage and law can def get very confusing if someone does sue over copyright and its so different in so many places it just gets confusing lol but def its worth looking for images that are in the public domain or take your own image to use so you dont have to deal with it. i looked into it when i was studying pop art and dada art since both could take and use images from other artists and have been sued for it so that made me want to use my own images even more
It's definitely a grey area! Thanks for sharing.
You’re so right! To limited your risk against copyright infringement claims, search for works in the Public Domain or works that are not copyrightable (among other things, simple shapes & familiar symbols are not copyrightable by themselves). US Copyright Office’s Circular 33 (“Things Not Protected by Copyright") has a lot of good information. If I post a link to it, RUclips may not post my comment. So, enter “US Copyright Office + Circular 33” in an Internet search to get the official link.
If you find a work that’s copyright-protected, you can also ask for permission. It doesn’t hurt to reach out and ask for a gratis license.
Wow thanks 😮 helpful for sure.
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you!!!
No problem 😁
There are a stupid number of amazing photos that are in the public domain - I use picryl
Very helpful comment. Thank you 🙏
so if you make a collage and keep it for yourself you are ok ?
Yes! That is personal use.
Bonjour Leah ☺️🇨🇦 Thanks for sharing your expertise on copyright, it is very good to know in deed , I am also a artist of surealism collage ,I found your chanel on Rosie youtube 👍 now you have a new fan 😁 Btw I love your art 👌 (Sorry I am french m'y spelling isent very good )😡
You are so welcome! Welcome. I'm glad you found it helpful and your English is perfect no worries! ☺️
Make your art , enjoy it without worrying about trade mark infringement. When selling just know it’s risky . I will say , avoid Disney !
But No ones coming after you for an add photo in an old newspaper .
Background music is distracting.
This is such a wonderful discussion about a topic that is important for us all to consider. Thank you for sharing. ✂️📄🙌🌸💕