Do I just let it go (copyright)

oblivion

oblivion

Suspended / Banned
Messages
235
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Hard to know where to start here so I'll try my best to explain, then you will see my dilemma.

So a Facebook page has used a picture that I created on Photoshop. They are using it as their cover photo and I can tell it's already been adapted with additional things placed on top. This site has since had over a million hits and rising and comments all over the place regarding said picture.

Ok it's nice to see how far it managed to get (especially when no sod contacted me to ask my permission to use it) but clearly took it from my page as this was the only place I posted it originally.

But....and it's a big BUT....

The picture (which I will not post...sorry) was created, not taken by me.
All I can say is I searched for the UK flag and copied one available online. I then searched for another picture and copied that to blend together and added some mapping blending techniques to wrap the new picture around the flag.

My point being is that I never took the pictures in the first place and I certainly do not own the copyright to the UK flag. Hmmm, I wonder who does? The monarchy?

So when someone creates a picture using the above method (the flag being available to the world to use) do I no longer have a say in the picture I created to say "hold on a minute pal" I made that !

Hence I titled the post "should I just let it go" and have a nice smug every time I see someone using it
 
As above really , so to confirm .....you lifted an image and edited it then they lifted an image and edited it ?
 
You are concerned about someone infringing your copyright with an image that you infringed two other peoples work?

The Scottish have a phrase for that: "Get away to [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]."
 
If you use non-copyright images to create a new image, you own the copyright in the new image.
 
Is this the one that's going round FB at the moment with the Union Flag upside down?
 
The flag was a freely available picture to use but I was curious over the flag having an original copyright?

The other picture too I believe was also a freely available picture but I'm damned if I can find it again to verify it. As far as I know neither picture used stated it was not to be used so it looks like the flag falls under fair use policy. It appears my other picture falls under this category too as that was a free picture to use.
 
oblivion said:
As far as I know neither picture used stated it was not to be used so it looks like the flag falls under fair use policy. It appears my other picture falls under this category too as that was a free picture to use.
Click to expand...
There is no need to state that a picture is not to be used for it to be copyright. Indeed, you should assume any picture is copyright unless there is a clear notice to the contrary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
oblivion said:
The flag was a freely available picture to use but I was curious over the flag having an original copyright?
Click to expand...
It is too old to be copyright but it is an official royal flag. There is virtually no restriction to its use on land but at sea must only be flown by the Royal Navy.
 
Valid point made. I do know the flag was freely available to use and at the time I figured that if the majority of businesses use it in their branding then I could too use it to create a design

I'm just glad to see lots of people now using my design with no knowledge how it came to be
 
It don't think it matters whether the two originals you used were pictures of flags or pictures of giraffes - what were the specific terms under which they were made available? 'Freely available' is too vague.
 
oblivion said:
The flag was a freely available picture to use but I was curious over the flag having an original copyright?

The other picture too I believe was also a freely available picture but I'm damned if I can find it again to verify it. As far as I know neither picture used stated it was not to be used so it looks like the flag falls under fair use policy. It appears my other picture falls under this category too as that was a free picture to use.
Click to expand...

There is no fair use law in the UK.
Many Picture that are free to use fall under the creative commons agreement. and and not free to use commercially.
 
So you made a derivative image from 2 other images.......these other images may or may not have been available to use in the manner you used them. As mentioned above AFAIK unless there is an explicit permission associated with any online image for someone to use it, then any use is not permitted.

The fact that others have now also manipulated your derivative means they are equally in the wrong.... but heh this is the internet, the 21stC wild west.

Edit ~ the phrase "can of worms" comes to mind!
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
There is no fair use law in the UK.
Many Picture that are free to use fall under the creative commons agreement. and and not free to use commercially.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting that info from exactly? Gov.uk displays the following regarding copyright laws that changed recently

The law has changed to allow people to make some limited, reasonable use of creative content protected by copyright, for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche, without having to obtain the permission of the rights holder.
 
oblivion said:
Where are you getting that info from exactly? Gov.uk displays the following regarding copyright laws that changed recently

The law has changed to allow people to make some limited, reasonable use of creative content protected by copyright, for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche, without having to obtain the permission of the rights holder.
Click to expand...

Please can you post a link to that info so that it can read in context?

Edit - I was typing whilst you posted that PDF link
 
Last edited:
you should be careful when considering whether you can rely on an exception, and if in doubt you should seek legal advice. Copyright infringement is against the law.
Click to expand...
(From that PDF.)

So, the OP might be in breach of copyright as could the person/organization he feels is in breach of his copyright. IF he has very deep pockets and plenty of time to spare, he could try chasing it but I wouldn't bother if it was me.
 
I'm not going to lose sleep over it anyway as a) I made it originally back in Nov 2015 and b) it's been copied by a high ranking Met officer

A good insight though into new legislation laws
 
Regarding your OP, what exactly is your dilemma? What would be your preferred outcome to this?
These are genuine questions, I'm curious as to what you wish from this?
 
blakester said:
Regarding your OP, what exactly is your dilemma? What would be your preferred outcome to this?
These are genuine questions, I'm curious as to what you wish from this?
Click to expand...

It was merely just a case that it appears the site admin is passing it off as his own creation (relevant to the site) whereas he could have asked me direct could he use it. But the more I think about it having read the latest legislation it becomes the same ordeal for him having copied it from me and adapted it for his own use rather than for any commercial gain. As another poster mentioned if I had buckets of money and nothing to do I could have challenged the creation idea around it but we live in a world that resolved around money and I don't have plenty of that to splash around

I was just looking into the expression and thoughts of others over similar issues.

I read with interest on another site where the photographer stated he didn't mind anyone using his pictures for anything as ultimately if someone really wanted to establish the true creator of it then it should come back to him. He saw it as free advertisement
 
john.margetts said:
If you use non-copyright images to create a new image, you own the copyright in the new image.
Click to expand...

Yes, but to be clear, the OP only owns copyright of the new elements in the new combination image. Copyright of the two original works on which it is based remain with the original copyright holders* so in this case there would appear to be three copyright holders included in the final image. None can use the final image without permission of the other two. And nobody else can use it without permission from all three.

Multiple copyright ownership is very common. For example (and this happens all the time) if a freelance writer submits an article to a magazine, and the magazine uses three images from different amateur photographers to illustrate it, the published magazine pages would include five different copyrights - the writer, three photographers, and the magazine itself that owns rights to the overall presentation of layout and graphics etc.

Copyright laws exist primarily to protect the commercial and business interests in intellectual property, they're not really concerned with a bit of self-righteous indignation because one of your images got used without asking. They can be, but unless a sum of money can be attributed to it, or some other kind of tangible loss, it'll be an uphill struggle and the best you can expect is an order to stop. But given the vagaries Fair Dealing, it could also be an expensive waste of time.

To take the magazine example above, if you were to photocopy the magazine pages and post them up on a few web forums, you would be in immediate hot water from the magazine publishers who would obviously claim loss of magazine sales. The three amateur photographers would probably get nothing (as they've lost nothing) and the writer probably the same, unless they could prove lost income, perhaps from further sales of the same article to other magazines.

*Unless you can be certain (can prove) that those rights are void. The new 2014 Exceptions document looks like a minefield, especially the guidelines on Fair Dealing. FWIW, it sounds like the OP has taken big chunks of the original works that would not qualify as Fair Dealing. He might get away with it just for personal creative use, but any commercial use would be an infringement.
 
Last edited:
oblivion said:
The flag was a freely available picture to use but I was curious over the flag having an original copyright?

The other picture too I believe was also a freely available picture but I'm damned if I can find it again to verify it. As far as I know neither picture used stated it was not to be used so it looks like the flag falls under fair use policy. It appears my other picture falls under this category too as that was a free picture to use.
Click to expand...

Well...

Long time ago, a person may have designed and created the Union Flag, therefore in doing so, owns the copyright for making a design. Not much different from if you casually draw a small picture on a scrap of paper, and you automatically own the copyright for your own doddle.

However the person who designed the flag, must have been commissioned to do so, for general use for everyone, the Royal Family, the Royal Navy, the British Army, HM Government, officials, business, the media, us the public, to copy and use. Therefore the designer can't keep copyright and make money every time someone copy the flag, because the Government who commissioned him to design the flag intend for it to be used by officials and the public. It kind of becomes a public domain.

You can create a works of art, by any means, like a photograph, drawing, painting, doddle, whatever, of the Union Flag, and you're not breaking copyright.

The only laws you should worry about in related to flags are mostly on what you can or can't do with it.
 
Major Eazy said:
However the person who designed the flag, must have been commissioned to do so, for general use for everyone, the Royal Family, the Royal Navy, the British Army, HM Government, officials, business, the media, us the public, to copy and use. Therefore the designer can't keep copyright and make money every time someone copy the flag, because the Government who commissioned him to design the flag intend for it to be used by officials and the public. It kind of becomes a public domain.
Click to expand...

It doesn't become public domain, it becomes Crown Copyright.
 
sk66 said:
So, you're concerned that someone else did the same thing you did?
Click to expand...

we all see versions of iconic shots...and go out deliberately to get 'our one'
its tough but unless you really feel you were the 'author'..then its not yours.
cheers
geof
 
oblivion said:
So a Facebook page has used a picture that I created on Photoshop. They are using it as their cover photo and I can tell it's already been adapted with additional things placed on top. This site has since had over a million hits and rising and comments all over the place regarding said picture.
Click to expand...

Did you post it on facebook?
QUOTE
  1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
  2. ..
  3. ..
  4. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
END-QUOTE
Source: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
 
TLR-330 said:
Did you post it on facebook?
QUOTE
  1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
  2. ..
  3. ..
  4. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
END-QUOTE
Source: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
Click to expand...
I don't know what you think that means, it's been discussed as nauseum.
It simply means Facebook have the right to publish content you've posted. But that when they do they will ensure its associated with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top