Pirated outputs from internet art

Rozmataz

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Posts
2,773
Loc
Fingerlakes Region of NYS
I'm not sure if I should even worry about this. But I had a person walk in the shop yesterday asking pricing on Plakit for some small outputs that he had taken off the internet.

He admittedly said they were pictures of artists works (I have not seen them) that he wanted to frame/plakit.

Where do we fall, as framers, on handling pirated items? Since he is not doing them to sell - is there even a copyright issue?

Just curious...

Roz
 
I don't know about that. Money is money, and I don't think I'd chase someone out of my shop for trying to frame pirated art - that’s between them and their own conscience. It's an interesting issue, though, and I haven't given it a lot of thought (haven't had to deal with it yet). On the other hand, I'm a big music fan, and I refuse to burn CD's for my friends of music I like - I'll push a band I think is good, but suggest they buy it, but with one caveat, because I tend to listen to more obscure musicians: Long dead artists (Robert Johnson, assuming he is actually dead, and not still running from that **** Hound) and rich artists who charge outrageous amounts for their tickets and only play big venues (Clapton) I will, in fact, burn on occasion. Hmm, sounds like I'm as morally corrupts as the next wank - I'm going to have to think this through a bit more...

Canton Joe (using Carolyn's minutes)
 
I'd do it but I wouldn't label it as something I had done in case he sells it off and people think it originated from me. People frame magazine cut outs all the time... what's the difference. There are plenty of ways that individuals can protect their works/images on the internet such as digital watermarking and so on... maybe they'll learn. If he's willing to pay for custom framing I say take his money. On the other hand if it was a professional copy of a full sized print and just smelled of being an out and out attempt at forgery I'd likely send him packing. I'm not completely without morals.
 
I say frame it and don't put your sticker on the back.

thumbsup.gif
 
Jerry no harm ment .However if you wouldn't put your sticker on the back,does that imply that you wouldn't want anyone to know who Framed it?

If so why would you take the chance? If it got to a Litigation what would you say?"I dun know nutting"LOL

I'll bet what you really mean is if it isn't worth putting your sticker on it isn't worth doing.
BUDDY
 
Are these pictures he downloaded for his own use? Do they have imprints on them indicating the artist doesn't want anyone to have the image without purchasing it?

As framers it is our job to make beautiful art more beautiful and since it doesn't live in our homes it's not our responsibility to choose the ethics by which our customers live. If you have an ethical problem framing something then you should tell the customer why you feel that way. If it is an obvious infringement of copyright you could let the artist know that this is occuring via email and leave it at that. There is an artist who lives in our area who is nationally published and comes in our store for matting jobs frequently and has told us about his legal battles with people selling his artwork on street corners of large cities. Seems someone was able to get his prints resized and copied cheaply by some unscrupulous business. But he won and that's what counts.
 
DavisonMom,

It is obvious that you are not familiar with the term "accessory after that fact"

In our industry and the photo industry there have been many decisions in favor of a photographer where the processor paid dearly for framing calander art and or copywrited duplicate photographs.
Kmart 4-5 years ago was fined more that $500,000 for allowing customers to digitally copy copywrited photos on the self serve equipment in their stores.
 
I'm quite familiar with the ethics of framing something for resale. If it is a copyright infringement you don't do it! Duh!

The question was whether we should frame something for a customer's own use that was of questionable origin. I say that is up to the customer's conscience.
 
When dealing w/ copyrighted materials, you have to be very careful - In our business, we use extra diligence when someone brings in a photo or artwork to be copied - - - I am tired of being the "copyright enforcement officer" - - - Customers get ****ed off when we refuse to do it!

That said, if someone brings in ANYTHING to be framed, I will frame it and I will put my sticker on it! To my way of thinking you aren't breaking any copyright laws - Like Buddy says:
"I dun know nutting"
 
Framing a picture or plaking a picture has NOTHING to do with copywrite laws.

Unless it might be dealing with T Kinkade.

Bev Doverylittle fought this battle and lost. She was selling her book. Some entrapenurial spirits were buying her books, cutting them up and selling them in frames. They 1) Never copied the pictures and 2) Sold the frames with Dolittle pictures placed in them. 3) NEVER infered that these were one of the 129,897/9,073,886,978 prints that she was supposed to be signing and numbering as Limited Editions.

As for ripping pictures from the internet.... the jury is still out whether pictures on the internet, unless watermarked as copywriten in such and such country or countries.... is concidered "public domain".

I just wouldn't put my sticker on the back because, if he is selling them at a Flea Market, it is up to him to advertize, not me. I'm just contract labor at that point.

As oppossed to "contract labor" as in a "hit on someone".
smileyshot22.gif
faintthud.gif


Now if it is a photo of an North American Indian Arrowhead that predates the introduction of Alchol, and you glue it down instead of sew it.... then all bets are off. You go directly to jail, do not collect $200 and your feet will still stink on Thursday.
thumbsup.gif
:D
 
Despite the case Baer sited( Bev Dolittle) of which I am not at all familiar and haven't browsed the net about. I am somewaht familiar with another more local artist( Patty Bannister) who brought smoke on a group of local framers. I may not have all the details but you may wish to browse the record files about that case's outcome.

I have mentioned it before ,but at the risk of being redundant ,I'll state what I was told by an attorney versed in the Copyright law at that time.
Most cases do end up with a "Cease and Desist Order". So you might want to take a chance .( If they don't feel it is benefical[ one private infingement isn't worth the Legal fees] they may not even litigate). However If you happen to be one of a bunch of unrelated individuals who took the same risk ,they may feel the need to stop the copying.
The law as I understand it doesn't only prohibit profits from RESALE of copyrighted material but even the LOSS OF REVENUE from the same. By this I mean if the Author/ Artist can Prove that the use of advertisement slicks ,pages from a catalog ,etc. prevented them from selling their Registered work they can and may file suit, even if you just give enough of their work away to cause a big enough financial loss.However if you make money from related sales (framing) while giveing the copies away, they are even more likely to sue for the failure to obtain their permission ( Liscenceing) and win.
Also if flagrant enough and the author isn't able the Copyrighting Agency can sue for them ,and the fines are substanial and may even include imprisonment. But it is a roll of the dice,so you may want to take a chance. But I was always told not to gamble with things I don't want to loose,and this is just my understanding. So maybe it would be wiser to consult someone WELL versed in Copyright Law ,like maybe an attorney before rolling the dice.
BUDDY
PS A local Pirate was just arrested for produceing Copied CDs that were thrown off of Floats at Mardi Gras time .They were also offering them for sale too. Nice advertiseing gimmick ,but not at all smart.LOL
 
Added to the mix is the difficulty of discovering the violation.

I am aware of two times my work has been reproduced without permission, but there are probably many more.

One case was at an eastern college, during pledge week, some wag printed hundreds of copies of my drawing "Initiation into the brotherhood" and plastered them all over campus (anoymously, of course). A concerened individual e-mailed me about it, and I thanked them. However, I was merely amused. The prints were not high quality, or reusable. As far as I was concerned, it was free advertizing.

The other instance was a newsletter in California that ran one of my line drawings on their cover. Again, I only knew about it because someone recognized it, and e-mailed me. They were a small press magazine that only pays in copies for work. I sent them a letter saying they needed to run an ad for me, or I would sue their little new age assets. They ran the ad. End of episode.

If the customer in question was wanting to Plakit a printout of one of my works, my reaction would most likely be the laugh myself silly and say, go ahead.
Someone that cheap is never going to buy a print from me, and if Plakit is his idea of how to frame one, I don't want him to have one anyway.

Now, if he brings in a dozen or so... then I would be concerned. But, just one is not a threat. Once you see the "print" you may have a better idea how the artist would feel about it if they saw it. If it worries you, e-mail the artist.
 
Ok, now I have read the entire thread. It leaves me with even more questions.

I have some Steve Hanks cards and a calendar. I would like to use some scrap matboard and foam core, shrinkwrap them and put them on eBay for sale. From what I read, this would not be a copyright infringement (Doolittle case as stated above?). I am not too worried about making a dime on the pictures, but it would be nice to get a $$ for the mats, etc.
 
A few years ago, a artist named Nagel took a bunch of people to court over framing pictures form his book and in California he won I believe.
 
It's my understanding that if you change the art work in anyway other than the artist original intent, you have infringed upon their copyright. I get letters at times stating that to take a print and make it into a canvas reprodution would put you in violation of their copyright. This may or may not include framing calendar prints without the artist or publishers approval. Very similar to taking a vendors print catalog and framing up the small prints, you have purchased the catalog, now are you intitled to frame any of the small prints in the catalog, no copies, just the small prints?........

Many artist sell the rights to their prints for calendars, some do not care if you frame and sell them, many calendars are made just for the fact that you may take a favorite months print and have it framed, it helps sell the calendars.

Here in Alabama, we have a local artist, nationally know for his sport prints, and the last few years he has published and sold calendars with some of his most popular prints, and has sold out each year. Many had a 13th bonus print, all suitable for framing. It has, until this year created a huge cottage industry of framed sport prints at very reasonable prices, this year he did 12 water color prints of famous games, but he let a letter at the top swoop down onto the print, ruining all prints for framing purposes. The dealer cost was 12.50 retailing for 25. I just got a letter from him offering a special as low as 3.25 ea in quantity, for the calendar. So sometimes it behooves the artist to allow prints to be framed, it can be very profitable for them.

Ck the legal status thru one of the publishers of art, they would probably be able to tell you their rights.

Another local artist painted a Alabama print featuring local landmarks, and included a image of Tiger Woods, he was sued by Tigers legal team, and Tiger lost under the right to freedom of expression. It is my understanding that artist can and do, paint many images of local college teams, along with logos and players and do not have to pay any royalty fees, or get permission to publish their art for distribution, under the freedon of expression quaranteed under the constitution.
 
It is also my understanding that if someone purchases a calendar, or some other form of legitimate art, or any other item, then it becomes their property and they can do with it as they choose, frame it, mount it, do what ever, as long as they are not reproducing the item for sale, but using it solely for their own personal use.
 
If I recall, the sucessful lawsuit was not because of people reselling pages from the book, but because the seller was calling them "lithographs", which was technically correct (most commercial printing is photo-lithography) but deceptive.

The canvas transfer lawsuit arose because the seller was making LOTS of them, and the artist was publishing canvas prints as well. So, the person who was taking inexpensive prints and transfering them to canvas was cutting into the artist's business.

As an artist, I would not be worried about someone who was buying my notecards and framing them for resale. I make my money, and they make theirs. The customer for the framed art would probably not buy a large, limited edition print from me anyway.

If someone buys a notecard, and wants to mount it on a plaque, transfer it to canvas, or glue it on their car, I don't care, it does me no harm. If they decal it onto a T-shirt, I DO care, because I also sell my art on T-shirts. If someone wants my art on a t-shirt, they should buy it in that form.

If someone was printing my images off the internet and re-selling them, THAT would p me off. Not just because I wasn't making my money, but because my prints are better quality than that, and I would not like to see poor reproductions going around.


So, my advice would be, if someone wants you to change the form of a printed image, take a quick check to see if the image is available in the altered form. If so, suggest the customer just buy it as it was meant to be, instead of trying to re-create it.
 
I have seen copyright infringement often. Just this week customer brought in a photo of a print by Lee Tetter, you could see the original matting in the photo. Of course I framed it.
A local restaurant chain regularly brings in art when they open a new store, all of their art is color photocopies of calendars (talk about cheap). I have also framed offensive material such as Nazi artwork, KKK material etc... Just because I don't like the art or know how the customer acquired the art doesn't mean I won't frame it.

I know of a gallery that purchased hundred's of Norman Rockwell books for the sole purpose of cutting them up and framing.

As far as music and software, I download all the time for my personal use. If it is good I go out and buy a legitimate copy, if it is crap I delete it, and I am thrilled that I didn't purchase the product. I have purchased software and music that I would not normally purchase just because I had a chance to use It first... for this reason music and software sharing (newsgroups, Kazaa, WinMx.. etc) is not always bad for the publisher.

I also rent movie's on DVD from Blockbuster and NetFlix and copy them using my DVD burner and some software called Clone DVD along with Any DVD both from Elaborate Bytes at www.elby.ch (I bet they will get a lot of traffic from this post) I feel this is no different than recording a movie to my VCR from HBO or ShowTime or my wife recording her soaps to our TiVo.
 
We watermark our images that some may deem suitable for framing. Simply to deter people like you mentioned. The quality of an internet print would be so poor it doesn't matter how good the framing was it would not be worthy of the frame. You really can't stop people from doing it whatever precautions you take. I'd say take there money and say thanks. If they return with more then I would make an issue of it and protect yourself by saying no.
 
Back
Top