Indian

[sasf430]

Not that I know of, this image has been knocking around for years. The best book I have seen for Indian images is the American Heritage book from around 1972 Time Life...

The picture you took hasn't been around for long. I put it on my website about 2 years ago. I'll have to block images being downloaded. My mistake.

Dave Hanks

Sorry Dave, I was talking about Chief Joseph not the arrowhead or scroll work around the picture, that is what i thought you were talking about.

[DXF]

That's the same thing it says in my book! I got it several years back. LOL

Larry

Wow this started a sh*^ storm. And I have never even cut the picture of Joseph or the arrow head. I tried once but threw it out. Too much detail and to thin, I think, it warped to much to use...

Yes you did, thank you. I fixed my mistake. I have cut several pieces with Chief Joseph in them without any problems.

Dave Hanks

[azfabshop]

Yea I'm not tryin to pick on anyone, I just don't understand how the books author can lay copyright claim to an image of the Chief any more than if he copyed an HD emblem and stated the same thing? I understand the outline and the work converting the image is his but I don't think the actual image of the Chief is?

[DXF]

That's the same thing it says in my book! I got it several years back. LOL

Larry

Wow this started a sh*^ storm. And I have never even cut the picture of Joseph or the arrow head. I tried once but threw it out. Too much detail and to thin, I think, it warped to much to use...

Yes you did, Thank You. Got the mistake fixed. I've cut several pieces with Chief Joseph with no problems.

Dave Hanks

[SignTorch Vector Art]

I just don't understand how the books author can lay copyright claim to an image of the Chief any more than if he copyed an HD emblem and stated the same thing?

the indian photo is obviously pre-copyright or out of copyright, but even if it were a modern copyrighted photo, the subject matter itself is not copyrightable by the photographer, he cannnot copyright something he did not create

the indian drawing is a new creative/transformative work, not a copy, and since it does not compete with or devalue the photographers investment/interest in the work, the artist definitely has copyright on his own work and can argue fair use if the photographer objects, or it could be copyrighted as a derivative work with the photographer's permission for all we know

a harley logo is a creative work, that someone created, but it is more than a copyright, it is a trademark, a symbol that represents the identity and quality and products of a famous brand, reproducing the logo is countefieting, reproducing the indian for cutting is advancing art and science, which is what copyright is designed to both accomodate and promote

the cutter whose photo of whose work was used without permission in a competitive market space is covered by copyright over his own photograph, and has legal standing to object to anyone else using his work without his permission, regardless of the copyright status of the subject matter, it's his photo, no one except possibly upstream copyright holders can argue otherwise, no one else should be using it without permission

there is a huge difference in the nature and purpose and status of the indian image and a harley emblem

[DXF]

I just don't understand how the books author can lay copyright claim to an image of the Chief any more than if he copyed an HD emblem and stated the same thing?

the indian photo is obviously pre-copyright or out of copyright, but even if it were a modern copyrighted photo, the subject matter itself is not copyrightable by the photographer, he cannnot copyright something he did not create

the indian drawing is a new creative/transformative work, not a copy, and since it does not compete with or devalue the photographers investment/interest in the work, the artist definitely has copyright on his own work and can argue fair use if the photographer objects, or it could be copyrighted as a derivative work with the photographer's permission for all we know

a harley logo is a creative work, that someone created, but it is more than a copyright, it is a trademark, a symbol that represents the identity and quality and products of a famous brand, reproducing the logo is countefieting, reproducing the indian for cutting is advancing art and science, which is what copyright is designed to both accomodate and promote

the cutter whose photo of whose work was used without permission in a competitive market space is covered by copyright over his own photograph, and has legal standing to object to anyone else using his work without his permission, regardless of the copyright status of the subject matter, it's his photo, no one except possibly upstream copyright holders can argue otherwise, no one else should be using it without permission

there is a huge difference in the nature and purpose and status of the indian image and a harley emblem

Thank you!
Dave Hanks

[azfabshop]

OK I see what you're saying. It's why we can cut an image of a softtail or other HD bike from a photo and not be sued but add the logo or claim the photo and different story. I guess if I photo Mickey Mouse, the photo is my property, I'm not sayin Mickey is. Thanks that makes a lot more sense but can I profit from the sale of that photo? I understand the indian predates copyright. sorry I should just let it go just something none of us want to get caught up in.

[SignTorch Vector Art]

photos are different from other creative formats because they can capture public displays of existing works (like mickey mouse), and nature itself, with the press of a button, without directly infringing or taking away from the original work, and copyright gives the photographer the exclusive right to control publication of the photo, even if it is a photo of you, you don't own any rights to it, the photographer does

yet, the photographer cannot just take a picture of some artwork or other intellectual property and start reproducing that art, because that right belongs exclusively to the copyright owner of the original

there are exceptions like statues and buildings, a 2D photograph or drawing of a 3D statue or building is not very likely to infringe the designers rights,

but mostly, yes a photographer can profit from the sale of his work, only if it somehow infringes some other work could there be a copyright problem

as for motorcycles, copyright only applies to fixed creative expression, so you can create a photo or drawing of a motorcycle without infringing the maker's rights

someone once said "art is not created in a vacuum", which means that all (or most) art is based on existing work in some way or another no matter what, and copyright law simply does it's best to protect creators of original useful works of art from exploitation while also promoting the use and advancement of existing art as much as possible.

[sasf430]

photos are different from other creative formats because they can capture public displays of existing works (like mickey mouse), and nature itself, with the press of a button, without directly infringing or taking away from the original work, and copyright gives the photographer the exclusive right to control publication of the photo, even if it is a photo of you, you don't own any rights to it, the photographer does

yet, the photographer cannot just take a picture of some artwork or other intellectual property and start reproducing that art, because that right belongs exclusively to the copyright owner of the original

there are exceptions like statues and buildings, a 2D photograph or drawing of a 3D statue or building is not very likely to infringe the designers rights,

but mostly, yes a photographer can profit from the sale of his work, only if it somehow infringes some other work could there be a copyright problem

as for motorcycles, copyright only applies to fixed creative expression, so you can create a photo or drawing of a motorcycle without infringing the maker's rights

someone once said "art is not created in a vacuum", which means that all (or most) art is based on existing work in some way or another no matter what, and copyright law simply does it's best to protect creators of original useful works of art from exploitation while also promoting the use and advancement of existing art as much as possible.

Very well said, imagine a world that the others think they live in, it would be very dull, and nothing would ever progress...

[azfabshop]

Thanks for that information! I really hate to be a copyright police on others but I wouldn't want to step into that trap myself if I can help it!

[sasf430]

Imagine the violations on Kokopelli?..I wonder who owns the copyrights on that one????

[Mountain Home]

Imagine the violations on Kokopelli?..I wonder who owns the copyrights on that one????

I do, so now if everybody who has ever used any variation of that image will please send me $100 we'll all be happy.
OK maybe I'm the only one who will be happy

[SignTorch Vector Art]

someone else once said

it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it

cave men probably hee-hawed over similar kokopelli jokes back in the stone age

it probably was really funny back then...

however primitive...

[Russ K]

I once drew a file from a picture of celtic rock art and was subsequently told that I couldn't copy the image because it was copyrighted. I explained that the image was over 600 years old and that the rock artist was a personal friend of mine and had given me permission to use the image. I honestly think my explanation was lost on the guy..........................Go figure...........................Russ K

[rwehavinfunyet]

ok so just wondering..... what if you take a logo and make changes to it? Can you still be sued?

[DXF]

Where is Dumb Old Bob when you need him? If anything this post has opened a discussion on copyright laws although we have yet to hear from a copyright Attorney. I don't claim copyrights on anything and never have and I don't believe ignorance of copyright law makes anyone stupid, they just don't know the facts. I joined this site to share a few files and download a few. Thanks

Dave Hanks

[SignTorch Vector Art]

ok so just wondering..... what if you take a logo and make changes to it? Can you still be sued?

theoretically, yes, you can be sued by anyone for almost anything

are you likely to be sued over low level trademark abuse, usually not, if you comply with the complainant

but really all they have to do is file one sheet of paper and it turns into a 10 thousand dollar problem with much more on the line, which if you weren't prepared for, could be traumatic

we have yet to hear from a copyright Attorney...

I always keep a clean pair of underwear handy just in case one comes calling.....