euripides

Copyright is an important issue if you ever want to display your deck in public, in a gallery or on the internet. Display can be regarded as 'advertising' your work, and even if you aren't actually selling it, can be viewed as breach of copyright.

This means, if you've used a photograph taken by someone else in the creation of your card, and display it on a public forum, you may be liable for breach of copyright.

The way to avoid this problem is to make sure that your source images are in the public domain.

Copyrighted material generally comes into the public domain 70 years after the death of the artist, but the estates of artists/photographers sometimes have this extended, so be careful and do your homework.

REPRODUCTIONS of artwork are copyrighted by the gallery or photographer who created the image. This has been disputed in an American court, but the case was dropped in order to prevent setting a precendent.

COPYRIGHT FREE material is available from various sources on the internet, such as FlickR.com and sxc.hu and various other royalty-free photography distributors. Sometimes the contributors to these resources apply restrictions, so again check the conditions on the specific image you wish to use.

YOU MAY NOT USE images you 'found' on the internet, in a magazine, newspaper, book or calendar. Just because it doesn't have a dirty great copyright sign plastered on it doesn't mean it is public domain. The internet is particularly problematic in this regard, with people 'borrowing' images and putting them on blogs - the images don't really belong to them. So your safest bet is to avoid them.

The 10% 'rule' is a myth. Even 'changing it a lot' or 'only using it as a reference' is a gray area. Here's a handy point of reference: if your picture and the source image were placed side by side, could I tell that you'd based your picture on the source image? If so, you're in danger of prosecution for breach of copyright, if your source image is copyrighted.

You might think that 'oh its just my little artwork, nobody will notice, nobody will care since I'm not making money'. This isn't the case. Some companies and individuals go to great lengths to protect their images, prosecuting individuals for small infringements. Sure, they are more concerned about people making big bucks out of counterfeit calendars and tshirts, but if they feel your use puts their work in a bad light (a Disney tarot, for instance) you need to make sure you give them no grounds to sue.

The particularly unfair aspect of all of this is that as an artist, if some big company rips off your work, it would cost you your life savings to pursue them in court. No justice.

Anyway, don't finish a fabulous tarot deck and discover that you can't share it with the world. Take your own reference photos, find 100%-certain public domain royalty free images, or go to the effort to write and request written permission from image owners.

To protect your own work, only publish low-res (72 DPI or less) small sized images, preferably adding a - © artistname year - watermark across it.

baba-prague

This is all very useful - thanks for posting it.

The only thing I'd say is that copyright can't currently be extended beyond 70 years from the death of the artist. The confusion comes from the fact that copyright used to be 50 years and some estates extended it to 70 when the law changed, and others didn't bother (as far as I can work out). This is where the "extension" issue comes into play in certain cases. It's actually a little more complicated than that, but you can read up on all this at, for example, Wikipedia.

What you do have to be aware of is that some artists' names have also been trademarked, so even when the image is out of copyright there can be issues about using the name. Again, this causes confusion when some "owners" claim they still have copyright of old work when in fact what they own is the name of the artist as a trademark. The third thing that causes confusion is that some image libraries own the rights on certain pictures. This does NOT mean that that picture can't be used, but it does mean that their particular reproduction/scan/photograph of that picture is owned. In other words, if I take a public domain image from an old (usually pre-1923) book, it's fine. But I can't use someone else's reproduction of that image, as that version is NOT public domain. Basically, this means that you can't just scan an old picture from a modern book - the publishers of that book own the particular reproduction in the book - regardless of whether the original image is public domain or not.

Some time back I got a very odd email demanding to know how we can copyright The Victorian Romantic Tarot when it's made of old engravings The point is that what we have copyright on is our version of those images (our scans, our colouring and collaging, our combining them to make a tarot deck). Obviously if anyone could find any of the original images they would be perfectly at liberty to use them, but they could not, for example, reproduce any cards from our deck without permission (except for academic purposes such as a review or article - then you are allowed to "quote" test or images to a small extent). As an aside, engravings are an odd matter - the copyright on them is with the engraver, not the original artist, the point being that they are a "derived work" not an exact reproduction.

All in all quite complicated. However, I totally agree that the basic message is that you can't just take something that you "find" in a magazine, book, or on the net - you do have to do some homework to check that the image is out of copyright. It's not always easy to be certain.

__________________
The Magic Realist Press

The Tarot of Prague
The Baroque Bohemian Cats' Tarot
The Fairytale Tarot
The Fantastic Menagerie Tarot
The Victorian Flower Oracle
The See of Logos, this year, next year, sometime...
The Victorian Romantic Tarot
The Bohemian Gothic Tarot

euripides

Thanks Baba. I was about to edit the post to reflect the information on copyright extension, but a quick google on the subject yielded even more conflicting information so I decided to leave it as is - the basic idea is correct enough for the purpose here.


I've noticed a couple of artists running into problems with copyright with other projects, and in my day job, I'm constantly getting queries about it (you'd think I'd be an expert by now! But no, facts and dates are not my thing, that's why I'm an artist!)

I'm just amazed by how much misinformation is out there - that 'if I change it ten percent...' one is particularly dangerous. I hope I've otherwise got it mostly right - I'd urge anyone who is about to create a card or deck to check the Wiki article (and cos I don't trust wiki, check your government pages on the subject too.)

Personally I have a few issues with copyright, as we don't exist in a vacuum and often collage or other use of an image is a way of expressing our ideas about that image, paying homage to it, or re-interpreting it. The copyright laws are really quite stifling as an artist; however I can also see the flipside - as an artist myself, I'd have issues with someone appropriating my work.

Interesting point about the copyrights of 'versions'. You get in a bit of a bind when museums ban photography and copyright the postcard! Theoretically the postcard image is a precise reproduction and therefore not copyrightable, but that theory has yet to stand up in court, so far as I know.

I think its important that artists on AT get the main point of the message: make sure any source photo you use is copyright free/public domain, however much you are going to alter it, or if you are going to use it as a drawing or painting reference.

Sigh... I don't see myself ever making that Battlestar Galactica Tarot.

Little Baron

Thanks Euro. Will delete everything

LB

temperlyne

I'm wondering... Since I don't have the luxery of being able to use real life models, I sometimes brows the net to find images of a certain pose. Am a breaking copyright rules by using these images as a reference for my paintings, even if the pose is set in a completely different composition etc? Is there such a thing as copyright on the human form in particular poses?

__________________
Painting my way through the Arcana

baba-prague

No! Fortunately copyright isn't as restrictive as all that. But you would break copyright if you actually used the photo (digitally for example) rather than just using it as a visual reference.

__________________
The Magic Realist Press

The Tarot of Prague
The Baroque Bohemian Cats' Tarot
The Fairytale Tarot
The Fantastic Menagerie Tarot
The Victorian Flower Oracle
The See of Logos, this year, next year, sometime...
The Victorian Romantic Tarot
The Bohemian Gothic Tarot

temperlyne

Thanks! With all that discussion going on about software patents I just wasn't sure and it woudn't have surprised me..

__________________
Painting my way through the Arcana

gregory

Benson and Hedges once tried to copyright the colour purple.... (as far as I know they failed, but you might like to use it with care.... )

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.

__________________
~ ~ I probably shouldn't be here. But this was the only universe which had a vacancy. ~ ~
(Granny from Hell)

Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

Patrick Williams

Let me follow up this point just a little. I used to do an awful lot of art photography (until I became sensitive to the chemistry). An attorney schooled in this told me that I should agressively pursue even the smallest infringment because, if I didn't, that might be used against me in court if and when I went after the big infringers. If the courts (in the US anyhow) see that you let the little fish go and only go after the big ones, then the assumption is that you're not really protecting your work, but trying to get your hands into somebody's 'deep pockets'. In other words, just doing it for the money, not to preserve your rights. So I was advised to stomp on even the smallest infringement with as heavy a boot as I would use for a major one.

Fortunately, I never had to test that in the courts. Anyhow, that's why (at least in the US) companies "go to great lengths to protect their images, prosecuting individuals for small infringements." If they don't, then they may not win when they go after the big fish.