A Word About Copyright

Well, I did find a way around it: my nephew wanted to use some shots I'd taken in a series on tattoos (back in the '80's) in a school paper. I said "Sure ... but you have to put copyright 1986 Patrick Williams under each picture and then list me in the bibliography with the words 'photographs used with permission of the copyright holder'."

Folks, if you're doing a project where you want to use someone else's copyrighted work, ask them first and credit them when they approve. I'd bet most artists would be okay with any 'fair use' if you can demonstrate that a) you're not doing this to make any money and b) you're going to do everything you can to protect their rights as well. Showing that level of respect, not imitation, is the sincerest form of flattery.

... and it is not only pictures of course ...

The Tolkien estate has covered a huge amount of stuff regarding Tolkien - right to the names of the characters, places, titles, chapters .. etc - Tolkiens books were reproduced in the States and got through some copyright laws in the '60's - that eventually, books which were under license to be printed in the Staes during that time, have a message from Tolkien on the back cover, asking for the respect of readers to support living authors and buy only books marked with his consent note on them - these were the authorized versions.

There used to be a clown called Gandalf, and the Toliken lawyers and estate sued the guy for using the name - he had to change it, or get an agreement to use the name under license - which he eventually did (both), but that was for one instance - even with the fonts - I am a calligrapher and recently was talking to the gentleman who did the fonts in the LoTR's movie, they are different to his own version from the movie, and he cannot use the 'Movie' fonts he was contracted to do. Bilbo's handwriting, the Elvish lettering, the 'Language' of Tolkien - all copyright - images from the movie belong to one company - the book rights to another - everything is copyright and licensed ...and world wide.

An instance recently, saw one card having to be pulled from our Oracle project, while another card was allowed to be used - one gave permission for the use of the photograph (with conditions), the other although it had no copyright symbol - was the precarious one - even without copyright being attached - it is copyrighted somewhere and this is such a shame, taking into consideration all the work put into something like this but it had to be reconsidered because if it goes up on AT it has to be taken down.

Thankyou for the thread euri!
Blessings Elven x

Guess that may well put pay to my Middle earth tarot idea then...

Sidhe-Ra said:

Guess that may well put pay to my Middle earth tarot idea then...

Click to expand...

I very much doubt if you could call it that. But you could give it a more generic name perhaps?

gregory said:

The other real nasty is that what you think you own, you may not. At work we commissioned a photographer to do some pictures for a publication. And of course they appeared in there.

Two years later we reused one of them - and were hit with a bill for HUNDREDS of pounds. So even if you think you have a contract - check it carefully.

Click to expand...

This one I know about as a graphic designer...

In order for a company commissioning a work from an external artist/photographer/designer to own copyright - they must 'purchase' it contractually from the artist who originates the image. Otherwise - all photos or images made or taken by the artist are automatically retained in copyright by the artist. Hence, most contracts come with 'usage' agreements. If the designer is an employee - often a company will ensure that anything produced on their site with their equipment, copyright is retained by them.

The changing of an image by 10% problem euripides mentioned is actually covered by something called 'moral rights' that extend beyond copyright - essentially disallowing someone to modify your image without your permission. This is also useful to help maintain the integrity of an artist's work. Hacks (usually hired to save money and are often not qualified) can really corrupt the visual of a work that is known to be done by a certain artist/designer and this protects the designer from damage to their reputations when the changes are done poorly and may reflect on them - and hence their ability to sell the skills.... etc...

That was what he led us to believe we had done at the time. That was why we were so mad.
I think he did it on purpose - that's why I flag it as a warning.

If it isn't on paper stating that copyright is being legally transferred to the purchaser - then it is not..... And we wonder why we need so many lawyers??

We know that. Now. And I still think he did it on purpose. His loss - we never used him again.

Sidhe-Ra said:

Guess that may well put pay to my Middle earth tarot idea then...

Click to expand...

I was talking to someone ages back regarding LoTR & copyright issues .. and USGames have one out - a LOTR tarot deck and game - but there may be another problem - I'm not sure weather then that brings USGames into the picture as well regarding copyright and use of the names etc - they use the names, but they have bought license to do so as - the LOTR Tarot specifically states - in the copyright -'The Lord of the Rings, its characters, places and all fanciful names are trademark properties of the Tolkien Estate' - which is also Saentz. So not only is there copyright cover everything, but also trademark on names for each character and everything else. I think they might have had some trouble in the past with 'copyright' issues LOL!

There was one which I think has been pulled up on by New Line - the movie one, and there is a LOTR Oracle - commissioned by USGames. The LoTR stuff is now so -out there - and there's so much money and legal wrangling happening - the rights to the LOTR movie license go back to the holder in 2009 - as even the rights are leased out ... and the same for the Hobbit - even the 'Children of Hurin' which isnt even on the shelves yet ... comes out April I think ... its a minefield.
Its like you wont see many pictures of Christopher Lee in the Movie compilation stuff - Sauruman the Wise - Christopher Lee has his own personal copyright on his own image - which is another issue LOL!!

You could check though Sidhe-Ra, there must be someone who could give you some advice on it.

New Line still has problems. They'd saved a LOT of the stuff from the movie intending to have a museum built for it but couldn't get approval for that from the Tolkien estate, so it's all warehoused. They wanted to show the clothing, the interior walls of the Rohan, the horse tack, swords, etc.

While Middle Earth may be considered 'out', Sidhe-Ra, you can still do dwarves, elves, etc. as generic beings---they do exist in all sorts of European culture and myth after all. They just can't LOOK like they connect with the Tolkien universe. Unless that was the whole point of what you were working on. In that case..... um.... dunno.