Hey Hugh, why didn't you tell us your XS is a pop culture icon?

As a photographer and amateur graphic designer, could an image found on photobucket, or even on XS650.com, be used in a non-profit for personal use format?

Lets say I want to host an alley-cat for all my fixed gear hipster friends, and they want shirts. I charge them for the shirt with someone elses image on it "received" from photobucket, but I'm not making profit on the deal.

Is the distribution of the image, not mine, an infringement?

Posted via Mobile
 
As a photographer and amateur graphic designer, could an image found on photobucket, or even on XS650.com, be used in a non-profit for personal use format?

Lets say I want to host an alley-cat for all my fixed gear hipster friends, and they want shirts. I charge them for the shirt with someone elses image on it "received" from photobucket, but I'm not making profit on the deal.

Is the distribution of the image, not mine, an infringement?

Posted via Mobile

I would say yes....
Think of it this way. You design the the XS650 way back in 1968, and an engineering magazine publishes an article on your revolutionary design. No along comes a charity and sees this article and gives all the third world countries copies and instructions on how to make your design for free. Now you can't sell your design to Yamaha and make any return on your work, investment in equipment etc.

Or you could say I take your photo in a studio portrait sitting and then up load it to facebook, photobucket etc. Someone wants to do a poster for a gay rights event where they are raising money for aids research. They like your face and stick it on the Poster. How would you feel about the use of that image now??

So there are to points to consider, someone invested a lot of time, effort and money to create it.....Why should you use it for free without permission.

Second the artist and the content or subjects reputation is at stake and may not want to be associated with whatever you are using it for...Becomes some sort of endorsement.

The above are extreme scenarios to try and highlight the basis of some of the issues.
 
What if I take the same image and modify it to the point where it is difficult to compare it to the original?

Say, some sort of surrealist art?

Posted via Mobile
 
That could possibly work as long as the image isn't a recognizable person. For example I could draw Ms Monroe and everyone would know it. If you make your altered image become generic. And in a new form ie illustration of photo. But you couldn't just create a collage from original photos.
 
Levi Strauss did this same thing with the Wizard Sleeze bike that cam out of the Ardcore Choppers camp.

Paul Teutal Jr. did it a while back, and So did Johnny Chop out in Australia, not only did they use his name and open the shop two years after Johnny "Chop" Vasko's death, but they also bought Johnny Chop's old web address. I hate people like this who are shady. Only thing worse, is the Johnny Chop in Australia is still open, claiming they are the original Johnny Chop (Which is some jerkoff named Paul). By the way, Johnny Chop copyrighted hie name and logo under Johnny Chop Industries.
 
As a photographer and amateur graphic designer, could an image found on photobucket, or even on XS650.com, be used in a non-profit for personal use format?

Lets say I want to host an alley-cat for all my fixed gear hipster friends, and they want shirts. I charge them for the shirt with someone elses image on it "received" from photobucket, but I'm not making profit on the deal.

Is the distribution of the image, not mine, an infringement?

Posted via Mobile

I set up an alley cat at the non profit bike shop I used to run. We used a Google Image for our spoke cards and such. I think if you keep it local, and don't make money it's one thing. When it's at a big box store, it's another.

Not all fixed gear riders are hipsters, and hipsters rarely show up at races.
 
Curious....was this ever resolved??

Last year I came across a website selling movie posters-- including one for my feature film, which hadn't been released. When I found it I literally started shaking because they were selling our posters for upwards of $30 a pop. It was blatant infringement and took 2 cease-and-desist letters before they finally removed it. We don't know if they ever sold any. Complained to FBI, they sent me to the MPAA who didn't even respond...which is funny because I'm sure many other posters were stolen. (It is one of the largest movie poster stores online.) And that was just a poster-- I can hardly imagine what trouble it will be to keep all the pirates at bay whenever our movie goes DVD :doh:

Always gotta be on your toes.... :thumbsup:
 
HUgh...,

Well, what do you want? A few pennies for each shirt or the great advertising that you are getting for free? :thumbsup: I would estimate it would take 6 lawyers to actually chase these people down the street....:wtf:
 
HUgh...,

Well, what do you want? A few pennies for each shirt or the great advertising that you are getting for free? :thumbsup: I would estimate it would take 6 lawyers to actually chase these people down the street....:wtf:

I let the photographer take care of this ordeal, she owns the rights to the images. Not me, I just own the bike :laugh: I haven't heard anything further. If it had my name/company name on the image, I would consider it free advertising :thumbsup:
 
The extint of my knowledge comes from beginning law classes and a few cases that my dad has been involved in with people stealing art from products his business designed. I do know however that you would have to prove that they stole the pic of the web and that it was the EXACT image. Any changes, even those unnoticeable to anyone other that the person who made the tweak, is enough to skirt the issue. Could possibly be different when referring to something other than artwork (not that I don't view it as a work of art) but I assume it is similar. Bad ass bike though. I'd be pretty stoked if mine could be on a shirt:thumbsup:
 
.... I do know however that you would have to prove that they stole the pic of the web and that it was the EXACT image. Any changes, even those unnoticeable to anyone other that the person who made the tweak, is enough to skirt the issue.....

This is completely untrue.
 
A little help for your photographer. Correct, Copyright because an easy law for lawyers to skirt around. It used to be you had to change 60% of an image for it to be yours. About 10 years back this was brought into the equation.

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized under the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property rights include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions. The term intellectual property is used to describe many very different, unrelated legal concepts.

Here is a good article on fair use for social media.

http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/

I knew a fellow photog that had an image taken online. It was by a Japanese Company. It ends up the Japanese company had nothing to do with it. The hired a design firm and they used the image without authorization. When the photog contacted the company they checked into the situation. The owner of the Japanese company flew to the US and apologized to the photograph in person and paid him his usual fee plus a little extra because of the circumstance.

Good Luck
 
Back
Top