All Rights Reserved

[Koper]

Yes I hear you but I am not talking about making money from the music of others, I am talking about sound as a visual enhancement were the visuals are the sole focus. If the visuals aren't, then you call it a music video

[Mario Pende]

Its a straight copy rather than creating an image or representation of something as was the case in the original post

 

I agree with you, that is a straight copy, but so is some art picture, or cover of a magazine that you use, so...

Also what prevents you of puting picture of Mona Lisa in you 3d work...I mean thats also not vioaltion of rights?!

[Arnold Gallardo]

Only if its done under 'Fair Use' clause. This means it has to have socialy redeeming value such as satire,parody or any kind of social commentary aside from the 'educational value' from the re-use of such work. This is why you see copyrighted work being used in comedy skits and such a never on commercials unless it is paid for. A good rule of thumb is when in doubt about 'use', its probably NOT a good idea to use it.

 

Well using Mona Lisa might not violate that Artist's work but some museums have the work in their collection be under their rights use. What about the photographer who took the photo of the Mona Lisa, if you want you can really MAYBE only use your own photo of Mona Lisa even then the copyright use is not so clear?

[Sawyer]

I think alot of it is intent. Are you taking and distributing something that someone else is selling? Is what you are doing taking money away from someone else? Are taking credit or money for something someone else did? And (this is more abstract) can they prove it?

[John Dollus]

Good rule of thumb:

if money is involved, you need to obtain a license.

 

For instance, if the production is a personal demo reel you will be sending out in order to be hired by a company as a member of their staff, it would be okay (most places review demo reels with audio off anyway).

However, if you are creating a production for someone else and they are paying you for your creativity, expertise and time, you need to do the same for other artists you involve in the project whether they know it or not.

There are a few options for including specific audio within your production. Two of the most popular are royalty free buyout and needle drop licenses.

For buyout, you can reuse the track(s) as much as you want on as many different projects as you want. An example of a buyout library is http://www.musicbakery.com

For needle drop, you pay a license ($75 - +$1000) based on the specific use and audience exposure. For instance, a mass mailing to 5000 people will cost more than, say, a single presentation at a county meeting. An example would be http://www.nonstopmusic.com/ (license application online)

[Jim Mann]

Yes I hear you but I am not talking about making money from the music of others, I am talking about sound as a visual enhancement were the visuals are the sole focus. If the visuals aren't, then you call it a music video

 

Hmm...I don't see that you have any argument there. You are still using a copy of someone elses music without permission. TV ads are a great example of how to make heavy use of music to enhance the visual content, but they aren't a music video and the music owner gets paid. What you are talking about is on a much smaller scale but does that necessarily make a difference?

 

I agree with you, that is a straight copy, but so is some art picture, or cover of a magazine that you use, so...

Also what prevents you of puting picture of Mona Lisa in you 3d work...I mean thats also not vioaltion of rights?!

 

A few years ago, I did an image that featured a design on a bedsheet (yep, a picture on duvet cover). The interior designer had based this design on a rip-off of a piece of abstract art and changed the colour, nothing else. A few months later, the company that represented this artist spotted this image on my website and contacted me. They were very, very upset. In a nutshell, their view was that the design was stolen, their artist was missing out on income and that adjustment and re-use of the design were a bit of insult. I had to agree, explained that I was only responsible for putting together the image and put them in touch with the interior designer. In the case of the Mona Lisa, Mr Da Vinci isn't around to complain and neither are any traceable decendants so I don't think its quite the same issue (though I don't know what the rights involved might be).

 

I reckon Arnold Gallardo has it about right when he he says "when in doubt about 'use', its probably NOT a good idea to use it." I might add to that the question, how would we react if the circumstances were reversed?

 

Jim

[Koper]

Jim, you are right, I appologize

[3DIFX]

Mr. or Ms. Jebac (del82),

 

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT the site to be posting images from your porn library! I should have been warned by all of the xxx's in the file name (but, oh silly me!). You may have thought that it was funny, but I'm not laughing. I think posting it was very unprofessional, and I would think that you could have made your point without using an image that may have been offensive to others. I didn't look at the image for long, but I seriously doubt that it contained any architectural relevance (which goes against posting rules). I think that "that" image needs to be removed, not just because I am a conservative female (I'm sure there are some males here as well that would have preferred to skip that visual), but also because I believe that the image is a "dark stain" on an otherwise relevant and informative discussion. I know that this is an old thread, and I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but I hope that this kind of posting will not become a trend here at CGA.

 

Signed: A concerned mother who happens to be a professional in the industry of ArchViz who has a young daughter that is an aspiring artist herself (some of you may have son's that want to follow in your footsteps) that could have or may in the future stumble upon this thread under the assumption that CGA is a safe place to learn about Computer Graphics as it relates to Architecture.

[Mario Pende]

Sex is natural.

Sexual desire is an natural instintc.

I love my body.

Theres nothing to be ashemed off.

Its a free world!

[Jeff Mottle]

Sex is natural.

Sexual desire is an natural instintc.

I love my body.

Theres nothing to be ashemed off.

Its a free world!

 

 

Pende, While we are all happy you are comfortable in your own skin, this forum is not the place to be posting this type of content. These forums are viewed in professionals offices all over the world and content like this can not only result in us losing our web host, but can result in the site being banned by many corporate content filters. Consider this your final warning. Another post like this and you will be permanently banned.

 

In fact, you owe this community an appology and the members you have offended or we will remove your account.

[Mario Pende]

All apologies.

 

p.s. This content was uploaded on site called http://www.pozadine.net and it was free to use.

Houndreds of artist use pictures from there in their daily work.

Im sorry to see many have lost that artistc feel.

[Jeff Mottle]

All apologies.

 

p.s. This content was uploaded on site called www.pozadine.net and it was free to use.

Houndreds of artist use pictures from there in their daily work.

Im sorry to see many have lost that artistc feel.

 

This has nothing to do with artistic feeling or artistic interpretation. It has everything to do with the forum rules and the fact that in most corporate environments this type of imagery is not permitted. Never mind the fact it has nothing to do with architecture or CG.

 

I'm not frowning upon the content itself, as I'm far from conservative when it comes to anything like that, but on these forums, wich have a large international following, there is zero tollerance for blatent posting of what many would consider pornographic material.

[AJLynn]

I think you owe Jeff another apology. It's not about artistic feel - it's a practical issue. It's a forum for professionals, and a lot of people read these posts at their offices. Please don't post a link to content that is inappropriate for viewing at most offices. It's rude and unprofessional.

 

BTW, there are a lot of images on that site that are property of other magazines, and I doubt they got permission from the owners, so yes it is violating rights both in that way and in the way that many people would interpret such a post.

[Mario Pende]

The pictures was posted 3 weeks ago.

Look, I realy dont have any intent to argue here with anyone, expecialy since you all probaly behaved, accordingly to mrs. Velarie Herris "unprofessionaly", and probably had a little smile when you saw "IT".

Anyway I use this kind of content daily in my work but if its against the rules of this forum, apologies and yes please remove it.

But why wasnt it removed much, much earlier, if we are strickly by the book?

[3DIFX]

Nobody is asking you to argue, only to apologize and not to post that type of content again. That is not so hard to do.

 

As to the timing: Better late than never. Just because it was posted 3 weeks ago that doesn't mean that everyone had seen it at that time. The point is to alert you and others of your "mistake" so that you don't do it again in the future.

 

p.s. If you were to work in a professional office environment and apply that image as a background or screen saver on your computer, you would soon see how "free" the world really is. But since you say that you use that type of content daily in your "work", I guess that is not a problem for you. I don't want to come across as argumentative either, so if your apology is sincere, I for one accept.

 

Mrs. Valarie Harris

[Mario Pende]

p.s. If you were to work in a professional office environment and apply that image as a background or screen saver on your computer, you would soon see how "free" the world really is.

 

Im very sorry to hear this:(

If you live in enviroment with this kind of restrictions I can imagine how hard is it for you.

Here, we practice sex at work all the time.

Keeps the body and mind fresh and ready.

Please, this is geting off topic now.

 

Question, do you fing puting Playboy magazine cover in your work as violation of rights?

I attached the cover on my magazine 3D model?

[AJLynn]

[Removed because I misread the post I was replying to ]

[Jeff Mottle]

Question, do you fing puting Playboy magazine cover in your work as violation of rights?

I attached the cover on my magazine 3D model?

 

While the likelyhood of them finding out is small, without their permission it is a violation of their copyright. If your rendeing was very high profie and you were using their image in yours to help sell a product (presumably architecture) I'm sure you'd probably find yourself with a lawsuit or at the very least a cease and desist letter.

[Mario Pende]

Sorry, I dont think the picture posted goes in category of porn.

Lot of postcard, when you go on summer holiday vacations have egsactly the same pictures, I mean the theme is the same.

But can some answer my previos question abouth 3d magazine texture?

[Arnold Gallardo]

We covered this already. Without an explicit 'rights transfer' and permission for 'use', this would be in VIOLATION of copyrights UNLESS what you are doing has some kind of 'social commentary' meaning satire,parody or farce. Other than that it needs to be 'newsworthy' in the context of 'Editorial piece' which is 'educational'. These are all called 'Fair use'. If you work does not fall inot this then you got a problem and you cannot use it. Playboy enforces their work very strongly as well as most major corporations.

 

Another issue we haven't yet talked about is IF the photographer allowed you to use his work, will there be a identifiable person's LIKENESS? HE will then need to produce a 'MODEL RELEASE' for that image. This one falls under privacy laws and 'defamation' as well as 'illegal use of likenss'. Things of this nature are ALWAYS NEVER clear if in doubt you should consult a copyright/trademark lawyer.

[Mario Pende]

Thank you Arnold:-)

[Sawyer]

Arnold what you re saying makes sence but would you be in trouble if you took a picture of a living room and it had a national mag in it? The picture you took gets featured you make a couple bucks. That doesn't seem like an issue to me. It would seem to me to be an issue of prominence. If I take the latest issue of Allure (wife reads) and it has a image of Scarlett Johansen on it, I use that image of the cover of Allure as reasonable clutter in a room. That seems fine to me. If I place that image too prominently it may look like SJ is selling the room or is somehow associated with my product and then I would run into many issues.

If you cannot use a mag image then you could not use anything right? Books cds, wine lables. Maybe that seems logical to a degree with 3d work where everything gets manipulated but it seems that we should be able to apply the same laws that phootgraphers use and I find it hard to believe that professional photographers never use any real product that has a copyright on it.

But using that logic to apply to music doesn't work does it? If I have bg light music in a scene from the Beattles I would be forced to purchase rights to the music just the same as if it were a soundtrack item. So its clear I have no idea.

[Arnold Gallardo]

Ok if you took a picture of a living room and it was a famous 'interior design' then you can have problems about it. Any 'expression of an idea in tangible form' is copyrightable.

 

NOW to answer your question let's say that the picture you took with the interior shot WITh the magazine cover visible becomes a selling point for your picture. This means people started buying your photograph because of that magazine over in it. This mean your use of it does not fall in 'social commentary or eductaion or newsworthy' category but purely commercial. This means you got paid for it. Then you got a problem ONCE somebody complains. This is why 'product placements' are PAID as well as this is why sometimes you see certain labels/corporate identities obscured or erased or PIXELATED. In this instances they just took the photo or video but didn't ask for a permission for 'use' even if the visibility for those logos/images are "INCIDENTAL". The 'BURDEN OF PROOF' really in in the person who did the INFRINGEMENT not on the one who got their work violated. Do you really want to have this problem in the future in everything that you work on?

 

You have a point on 'prominennce' since that's one of the criterias used. You know if you are in a public space anybody can take a photo of you as long as it is NOT prominent and is the SOLE recognizable person in the shot. However this is something that's hard to itemize in court, it always depends on the case specially on the image/video and ultimately USE of the copyrighted material.

 

Finally remember that if you used somebody's copyrighted work and used that in ANOTHER work that's considered 'DERIVATIVE WORK' and that is covered by the orignal copyright. HOW much of a 'derivative' it is will depend on the litigation and presentation of facts. Professional photographers always use permissions when it comes to corporate identities and any kind of copyright work. In most cases what they show the copyright isnt their anymore, they were just allowed to have 'exhibition rights' meaning 'rights for public display only' specially if the client either commissioned the work or bought the right outright.

 

FInally I am not a lawyer just had to learn these things on my own. if you are really in doubt I would consult a copyright lawyer. It is much better to be SAFE than SORRY.

 

Ultimately copyright HAS to be ENFORCED if you want to RETAIN it. If you don't and the work becoems SO wide spread and widely used, it will become PUBLIC DOMAIN so that means anybody can use it even if originally that has a copyright. You see this everywhere now from the YELLOW CIRCLE SMILY FACE to the "RED LOVE" text to the PEACE sign. In the music side they ARE enforcing it

[Sawyer]

But what about books. This would mean (I am not arguing with you just for fun I really want this to be clear) that I would need to blur out my book case (right)? MY cd case, all dvds, milk cartons, it seems to me that there needs to be a clear level of intent. If the intent is to take a picture of the inside of a room or to use a nationally known product (or image) to help seel your product. Those are 2 different intentions. If we use time mag (which is better because of the distinct cover) then in theory the cover wouldn't need to be legable all you would need to see is a red border. I am just wonder if this is the level of scrutiny photographers use to publish.

[Arnold Gallardo]

Technically the only people that can get away with something that is recognizable in an image is when it is used EDITORIALLY. If you look closely any commercial photography or videography (FILM SPECIALLY) either has 'generic' background elements (meaning props and yes props were made for this very reason as well) or that they used actual product but are very hard to decypher to make a claim against. Anything recognizable is a PRODUCT PLACEMENT and it was used with permission if not with PAY.

 

Next time you watch a commercial or look at a print advertising scrutinize the background elements and see if they are generic or not. SOme will not be and most of the time these are 'street' shots which means they are PUBLIC DOMAIN however if there is a big billboard with surely recognizable product or corporate identy like the Coca-Cola logo or even the Nike one, those are either blurred or replaced altogether.

 

Now compare this with editorial or newsworthy footage or a still photojournalistic work. They show things as they are 'IN SITU' with no changes.

 

I hope this clarifies this issue for you.