A
Anonymous
Guest
There is so much being said about copyright that it made me wonder if puzzle makers (as an example) are breaching copyright when using pictures from a calendar or other such printed material ?
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
chrispuzzle
Established Member
Alan -
If you buy something, you generally have the right to sell the thing you bought. So if you bought an art print you could sell the art print second-hand on eBay. You couldn't make copies of it to sell, but you could sell the thing itself. By extension, you ought to be able to sell the print cut into puzzle pieces. This is, broadly, what's called the "Doctrine of First Use" where the image owner is paid for the primary, or 'first use' of the image but doesn't get a fresh royalty for the same physical object every time it is sold to someone else.
Likewise if you went out and bought a print and said "I want my print glued to plywood and cut into 250 interlocking pieces, Chris, and I'll pay you to do that for me" then again, no law is being broken. You are not hiring me to make a copy of a print. You are hiring me to cut up a print you already own.
However, if I make a digital picture of the print and put it on an Internet site, that's making a copy. So we'd have to be careful how we advertise puzzles.
I think "fair use" comes into play when posting examples of puzzle-cutting to an Internet site for discussion, since it is easy and natural to argue that the image is being used as part of a discussion on the art of crafting puzzles, an educational purpose which is very much in line with the doctrine of "fair use". The puzzle was legitimately made (I cut up an image I had legally bought) and then I photographed my work to fairly illustrate my description of it.
If I was putting a price tag on the image or suggesting that interested buyers contact me privately, that might start to undermine the "fair use" defence and I think if puzzle cutters are posting images on their sites it would be better to rely on an explicit agreement with the image owners concerned.
I am not a lawyer although I've done courses in copyright law in the past as a journalist. So my opinion shouldn't be relied on!
If you buy something, you generally have the right to sell the thing you bought. So if you bought an art print you could sell the art print second-hand on eBay. You couldn't make copies of it to sell, but you could sell the thing itself. By extension, you ought to be able to sell the print cut into puzzle pieces. This is, broadly, what's called the "Doctrine of First Use" where the image owner is paid for the primary, or 'first use' of the image but doesn't get a fresh royalty for the same physical object every time it is sold to someone else.
Likewise if you went out and bought a print and said "I want my print glued to plywood and cut into 250 interlocking pieces, Chris, and I'll pay you to do that for me" then again, no law is being broken. You are not hiring me to make a copy of a print. You are hiring me to cut up a print you already own.
However, if I make a digital picture of the print and put it on an Internet site, that's making a copy. So we'd have to be careful how we advertise puzzles.
I think "fair use" comes into play when posting examples of puzzle-cutting to an Internet site for discussion, since it is easy and natural to argue that the image is being used as part of a discussion on the art of crafting puzzles, an educational purpose which is very much in line with the doctrine of "fair use". The puzzle was legitimately made (I cut up an image I had legally bought) and then I photographed my work to fairly illustrate my description of it.
If I was putting a price tag on the image or suggesting that interested buyers contact me privately, that might start to undermine the "fair use" defence and I think if puzzle cutters are posting images on their sites it would be better to rely on an explicit agreement with the image owners concerned.
I am not a lawyer although I've done courses in copyright law in the past as a journalist. So my opinion shouldn't be relied on!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Thanks for that Chris. Your explanation has certainly broadened my very limited knowledge of copyright.
The whole thing is very complex and apart from those who blatantly infringe copyright, it's easy to see how some could easily and innocently fall foul of copyright laws.
The whole thing is very complex and apart from those who blatantly infringe copyright, it's easy to see how some could easily and innocently fall foul of copyright laws.
Carter Johnson
Established Member
I have been cutting pictures from calendars and other sources into puzzles for 15 years. It has been made very clear to me by responsible knowledgeable sources in law and in marketing that, if I ever sell my puzzles, I owe fees to (or must get permission from) the artist or photographer responsible for the original. All professional puzzle makers pay copyright fees to artists when their work is turned into puzzles and sold. That's the law, at least here in the U.S.!
And that's one of many reasons why I don't sell my puzzles!
Have phun.....Carter
And that's one of many reasons why I don't sell my puzzles!
Have phun.....Carter
chrispuzzle
Established Member
Carter,
Surely there are professional cutters who offer to make a custom puzzle out of a print the buyer sends to them?
Pete B. would be one: "Just about any traditional photograph or manufactured art print you send me will mount and cut well."
John Stokes is another: "Your picture may be a photograph, digital camera image, art print, scan file or digital art".
Surely there are professional cutters who offer to make a custom puzzle out of a print the buyer sends to them?
Pete B. would be one: "Just about any traditional photograph or manufactured art print you send me will mount and cut well."
John Stokes is another: "Your picture may be a photograph, digital camera image, art print, scan file or digital art".
Carter Johnson
Established Member
I didn't mean to come across as strict as it seemed. I was giving a legal opinion that was given to me. From that standpoint, no manufacturing of a puzzle from a commercial art work or photo should be done without acknowledging copyrights.
But...from a practical standpoint, the cutters can charge simply for their time, keeping the picture the client sends to him or her completely out of the equation. In a private transaction where the completed puzzle is not advertised or marketed, who's to know? or care?
Carter
But...from a practical standpoint, the cutters can charge simply for their time, keeping the picture the client sends to him or her completely out of the equation. In a private transaction where the completed puzzle is not advertised or marketed, who's to know? or care?
Carter
A
Anonymous
Guest
Shhhh, the jigsaw police may be listening. :lol:
chrispuzzle
Established Member
Obeone: Heh! The jigsaw police are more likely to complain about your edge. "What do you call this sonny? That's not an edge. An edge is straight. This edge is as bent as a four penny piece. You'd better come along to the toyshop with me, sonny..."
Carter: I'm relieved that we're on the same side of the puzzle after all! Yes, I got the impression if you are charging for your time and not advertising the picture or making copies then you ought to be safe enough.
The other side of copyright is the hassle involved in being sued. Many companies are notoriously aggressive about copyrights and trademarks and will sue you even if they are unlikely to win, forcing you to spend money on lawyers and causing great fear and anxiety. Organisations such as Disney or the Tolkien estate are ferocious in this respect. It might be your own Barbie doll and your own photograph of it but I bet Mattel will still come after you if you try and sell puzzles with a photograph of your Barbie doll in it.
I would not go near such commercially sensitive "brands" even if I thought I was in the right - I don't have deep enough pockets to argue the case.
Carter: I'm relieved that we're on the same side of the puzzle after all! Yes, I got the impression if you are charging for your time and not advertising the picture or making copies then you ought to be safe enough.
The other side of copyright is the hassle involved in being sued. Many companies are notoriously aggressive about copyrights and trademarks and will sue you even if they are unlikely to win, forcing you to spend money on lawyers and causing great fear and anxiety. Organisations such as Disney or the Tolkien estate are ferocious in this respect. It might be your own Barbie doll and your own photograph of it but I bet Mattel will still come after you if you try and sell puzzles with a photograph of your Barbie doll in it.
I would not go near such commercially sensitive "brands" even if I thought I was in the right - I don't have deep enough pockets to argue the case.
