[Andy-M]

You're right, it might not be considered visual art. Depending on which elements are taken. If a photo is ripped, that's visual arts. I'd consider any photoshop work as well since it can be printed (and photographers accept Photoshop as an extension to darkroom work). And graphics and photos are the most commonly ripped elements.

We'll define it as "electronic publication" to keep things general. In that case...

Section 102 of the US Copyright Act

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works;

(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7) sound recordings; and

(8) architectural works.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Everything mentioned in Section 102 is covered in Section 160 of the US Copyright Act.

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

You're bringing up the issue of "trend" vs "copy". A style is different from actual elements being copied. Though there may be a coincidence that two people can come up with the same diagonal pattern with very similar colors, the chances of two people coming up with the exact same graphic pixel-for-pixel is near impossible (though the possibility exists, the chances are so slim that statistically speaking, it'll be impossible for a coincidence).

Think of it as a fashion trend. For example, a celebrity starts wearing faded out DKNY jeans, model #1234. Everyone then starts wearing faded out jeans. That's a trend. But if everyone wore the exact same cut, model, and matched everything alike, that's copying. (of course not subjected to copyright rules )

Copyright laws protect the actual content from being reproduced. It does not protect trends otherwise it would suppress creativity. Copying a style is one thing, copying graphical elements is another.

You're right. We have to pick our battles carefully or it gets out of hand.

[Darth-Awesome]

Thats all I'm saying man.

Pixel for pixel rips are awful, and shamefull, and if an overall design is too sinilar aswell, then yes its a copyright issue, but

I'm starting to see things being ripped apart for vague similarities. And thats when I know things are getting out of hand.

Template Monster is a great example of rippers, but I've seen people claim template monster ripped them and the designs aren't similar at all. Then they'll zoom in on some insignificant stuff like a drop shadow on a scroll bar. Thats rediculis.

The worst rip I've seen however was about 2 years ago. Someone ripped 2A V3 EXACTLY and didn't bother to change the CSS on the scroll bars and if you viewed source it said copyright 2A 2003 LOL

[Iqtidar]

This was some cool information, every designer should read this thread.

[unmarked_c]

Web Design is hardly an artform, not with the millions of unoriginal individuals who design websites.

[pips]

Very useful info! Good work all...

[hooman03]

i didn't want to start a new thread, so i'm asking my question here. would i be considered to be infringing copyright laws/rules, if i were to take an image from a site without permission, but then vectorize it with photoshop or trace over it with flash, and call it my own work? i mean, the final product would not contain the original image, it would only be tracings of that image or that image in vector form.

the reason i ask is because, if this were so (if i was breaking a rule by doing so) then the only way i could edit images with photoshop would be by taking my own pictures, or paying lots of money to gain rights to nice pics, like on www.gettyimages.com. true, i know about sites like www.sxc.hu, where you can download free images, but they don't have such a broad selection.

also, if anyone here is about to flame me for asking such a "stupid question," don't. it's not as stupid as you think. take a look at www.idigitalemotion.com>>enter the visual>>work. in his "work" section, he's taken a picture from a sports illustrated pictorial and made some fancy additions using adobe photoshop. i know that's from SI because i have that issue, and i don't see any reference to SI on his site. i honestly don't think he bought ownership to the image because that would cost too much. and i really doubt that he took that picture himself. another example of this is the wa007 site at http://www.webagent007.com. if you look at the bottom, to the right of the calendar, you'll see two images that he flaunts as his "arsenal" neither of which belong to him (i'm assuming he's a solo freelancer). unfortunately, he no longer has the exact example i wanted to allude to, which was a picture of a playmate that he simply took out of playboy, and just added a tattoo to the girl, using photoshop.

how is it that i see such stealing going on? my intention is to use images, but to create vectors from them. am i allowed to do that? or is it wrong, and if so, should these other guys be confronted?

i have many more examples, but these two were the most obvious, imo.

[MEDIAGENES]

Tell you what got a brain teaser for you all to test the new scaling off...

New Site : http://beta.search.msn.com/

Original : http://www.google.com/

This will be interesting...

[Shane]

hooman03

To answer your questions those are all definitely examples of copyright infringement. If any of the original artists, photographers or even the women in the pictures wanted to sue, they would be fully within their rights to sue. It is a risk those individuals/companies are taking by using those images without contacting the original artists.

[hooman03]

ok, thanks for clarifying that PixelRanger.

i guess i'll use sxc as much as i can. for now, i'm off to taking some pictures with my digital camera...

[Shane]

Using your own imagery not only saves you lots of headaches with paying for images..but it also gives you further involvement in a project and a further sense of pride in all of the things you can deliver to a client. My digital photos are making it into more and more of my projects. The Ford Superduty project had environmental imagery that was shot by myself. Its a rush.

[Andy-M]

Good replies by PixelRanger.

The argument about vectorizing a photograph and claiming that it is your own is the same argument of "if I use someone's artwork and just change it enough so it's not recognizable and incorporate it into a design, is it still illegal?"

You are technically using someone else's work without paying for it or giving credit where credit is due. Still considered ripping.

If you must sample, sample from artwork that you've done in the past from scratch. You own the rights to those since you are the creator.

[Mike]

Originally posted by DavidNetk
I like the scale!
I think it should be added to the FAQ section

People have their different opinions on this, but I think It would be good if a scale (I think PixelRanger's is well balanced) could be put in a thread on its own and made sticky. That would make it clear and simple.

What do others think?

[Goten]

*bump

everyone need to read this thread again...

[dacshund]

relbenezon

[princeratt]

I liked copycat scale Level 1 2 3 4 5

[kristine1]

this level thing makes it pretty easy!