copyright question

I have a weird copyright question and don’t even know how to frame it to get a google search result anywhere near pertaining to what I want to know.

If I want to create a cross stitch pattern of say, a movie poster, and sell the PDF of the cross stitch pattern, is that a copyright violation? The only place the image would appear would be in the listing, you wouldn’t be able to buy a file of the artwork, just a chart covered in symbols which if you follow the instructions you end up with a cross stitch that looks like the artwork. 

You’d get something that looks like this. This is what I’d actually be selling, and that fact would be very clear. People do this all the time, they’re all over etsy, I’m not really trying to start a business so much as just posting the patterns I make if people want them. I don’t want to use artwork of various struggling artists (though I did approach one artist and ask if she’d consider selling her own work in this format so I could buy it, but not for me to sell, just in case she sees this). So basically I want to know how far I can go in my image searches. Like anciently dead artists are fine I’m sure, but what about like Andy Warhol? What about movies made in the last decade? Idk and idk how to find out.


This video was on youtube … it was not even two weeks and it was removed Please copy fast as this will not be long before the copyright is gone Question: -“How do you guys want us to know about Buck Tick if they snapped the videos?” -“How do we want this new generation of fans to meet the band?” ***When you find rare videos from the band share those you’ve never seen Everyone who finds in my files that I know has been removed by copyright I will post But copy fast because they will remove for sure ok ;) ****posted on YouTube quickly copy OK

Soooo… this week’s Wolfstar Introvert Prompt:  “Remus is having a terrible week. The only thing keeping him going is coffee, that and the new barista who’s dead set on getting Remus to display a genuine smile.”

I don’t have any inclination to work on a new coffee shop AU. But the one I have written loosely (and I do mean loosely!) fits the prompt. So for those who like them, here’s ‘Starbucks Lovers’.

Keep reading
[Undertale] - Home (amella Remix) - Animation
Asgore's Theme is on its way!! It needs some tweaks :3 I've seen this animation on Youtube and .. oh BOY IS IT AWESOME. I just had to do a song for it. I wan...

Because the credit/copyright question, so the original video should be deleted, there amella has remix music so will not have problem~ if you still not watch the animation, you can support to amella’s remix one~ it is very wonderful  

(…)The issue is not between innocence and knowledge (or between the
natural and the cultural) but between a total approach to art which attempts to relate it to every aspect of experience and the esoteric approach of a few specialized experts who are the clerks of the nostalgia of a ruling class in decline. (In decline, not before the proletariat, but before the new power of the corporation and the state.)
The real question is: to whom does the meaning of the art of the past properly belong? To those who can apply it to their own lives, or to a cultural hierarchy of relic specialists?
The visual arts have always existed within a certain preserve; originally this preserve was magical or sacred. But it was also physical : it was the place, the cave, the building, in which, or for which, the work was made. The experience of art, which at first was the experience of ritual, was set apart from the rest of life - precisely in order to be able to exercise power over it. Later the preserve of art became a social one. It entered the culture of the ruling class, whilst physically it was set apart and isolated in their palaces and houses. During all this history the authority of art was inseparable from the particular authority of the preserve.
What the modern means of reproduction have done is to destroy the authority of art and to remove it - or, rather, to remove its images which they reproduce - from any preserve. For the first time ever, images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free. They surround us in the same way as a language surrounds us. They have entered the mainstream of life over which they no longer, in themselves, have power.(…) 
The art of the past no longer exists as it once did. Its authority is lost. In its place there is a language of images. What matters now is who uses that language for what purpose. This touches upon questions of copyright for reproduction, the ownership of art presses and publishers, the total policy of public art galleries and museums. As usually presented, these are narrow professional matters. One of the aims of this essay has been to show that what is really at stake is much larger. A people or a class which is cut off from its own past is far less free to choose and to act as a people or class than one that has been able to situate itself in history. This is why - and this is the only reason why - the entire art of the past has now become a political issue.(…)

John Berger, “Ways of Seeing”, p. 32-33, Penguin

anonymous asked:

To answer your question about copyright infringement- Toby may have utilized and gave you the option in a game to choose between violence and non-violence, but that choice is hardly a new concept. In fact, it is one of the oldest, as far as humans go. For instance, Beyond: Two Souls repeatedly gives you the option to make people's lives hell or leave them alone. Provided that you do not downright copy the "Mercy" and "Fight" system, you should be perfectly okay.

Oh, I completly forgott Beyond two Souls. There seem to actually be a ton of games with that kind of choice.
Thanks for the help friendo!

Concept: Mafia Go

An app developed by Reborn for Tsuna to catch new, potential famigilia members. It detects strong flame potentials in the vicinity and once detected, Tsuna has to throw clams at the person. Actual clams at them

Still a work in progress since Reborn is hoping that the scientists can have the clams open up and capture the victim.

Tsuna heavily disagrees with this “game” and questions the copyright infringement, to which Reborn says “I can do what I want.”

anonymous asked:

can you pls explain what's going on right now??? where are all those snippets coming from, what exactly has leaked and why are you only posting bbm baby? thanks!

I totally understand your confusion, I’m confused too! Here’s a list of all the recently leaked songs:

* = snippet
I’ve also linked to all the Lana Del Rey Wikia links available that give information about one of the songs. 

This post will be updated as soon as there are new leaks! I won’t be posting any snippets. I have also removed “BBM Baby” as I don’t want any trouble with copyright infringement.

A Debate About 'Adaptations' of Works in the Public Domain
  • My Aunt: I'm reading a great book right now! It's a Sherlock Holmes adaptation, but written by a modern author.
  • Me: So it's a fanfic.
  • My Aunt: Nono, it's for sale. I bought it.
  • Me: So it's a published fanfic.
  • My Aunt: Well... it's what would happen if Moriarty survived Reichenbach Falls.
  • Me: So it's an alternate universe fanfic.
  • My Aunt: It's from Moriarty's perspective, so...
  • Me: So it's a POV-switch fanfic.
  • My Aunt: It's actually an audiobook?
  • Me: So it's a podfic.
  • My Aunt: ... yes, I suppose it's a fanfic!
  • Me: (ノ´ヮ´)ノ*:・゚✧
Common Questions

I tend to get a lot of questions about copyright and the legality of mentioning certain things in a story. When I get one question, I usually start getting a lot more and most of them are the same questions over and over again.

Can I use the title or name of X in my story?

Titles cannot be copyrighted, so yes.

Can I mention real people in my story?

As long as it’s not slander or libel, yes.

Can I mention real places and brands in my story?

As long as it’s not slander or libel, yes. 

Can I use song lyrics in my story?

Only if you wrote them or those lyrics are in the public domain. This applies to quotes from other material as well. In the US, the majority of works created before 1923 are in the public domain.

Can I mention another writer’s characters in my story?

If these characters remain fictional characters, yes. For example, you cannot talk about Harry Potter in your story as if he’s a real person within your story’s universe. Your superhero characters cannot interact with Marvel characters unless you’re writing for Marvel and have permission.

Can I mention other books in my story?

See the first answer.

Can I publish fan fiction?

With the exception of a new program through Amazon (and there are a bunch of requirements, from my understanding, to get fan fiction published through that), no.

Can I get sued for writing fan fiction?

Yes, but the likelihood of that happening is almost none if you just post it online. Making money off fan fiction can get you in a heap of trouble.

Can I use real people as characters?

As long as they’re dead.

I’ve seen some people publish books in a universe they did not create. How do I go about publishing a (for example) Star Wars novel?

You have to be an established author to get a chance of adding on to an established universe. Even then, you don’t come up with the idea. You’ll be approached on the subject. You must be the chosen one.


It’s not so much that history is happening in the Second Circuit, it’s that Judge Lanvin, writing for the court, has explained “The Law of Fair Use” clearly and comprehensively, whle acknowledging that it can happen even when the use is for commercial purposes. 

If you want to read the whole thing, here’s the case - in sum,  Google’s digital copy of the copyrighted works in question provides a “search function, is a transformative use [and] augments public knowledge [but is not] a substantial substitute for matter protected by the Plaintiffs’s copyright interests in the original works or derivatives of them.”

What’s important for everyone, and particularly relevant for transmedia creatives, fandomers and anyone who’s been inspired by something else and gone on to create a follow-on work? 


While authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public, whose access to knowledge copyright seeks to advance by providing rewards for authorship.

[The crucial question re Fair Use is ] how to define the boundary limit of the original author’s exclusive rights in order to best serve the overall objectives of the copyright law to expand public learning while protecting the incentives of authors to create for the public good.

As the US Congress regularly and continually examines changing our copyright laws, these are two things that are very important to keep repeating. 

Since we’ve had discussions here about what “transformative works” actually are, and how they differ from “derivative” works, the Court’s explanation is very handy: "The word “transformative” cannot be taken to literally as a sufficient key to understanding the elements of fair use. It … does not mean that any and all changes to original text will necessarily support a finding of fair use . … Derivative works generally involve transformations in the nature of changes of form. …“

A further frequent topic here has been whether fair use can ever exist when the follow-on user (like Google Books was here) is a commercial entity and/or making a profit with the follow-on work. The court said that while a commercial motivation can weigh against a secondary user, “we see no reason why Google’s overall profit motive should prevail as a reason for denying fair use over a highly convincing transformative purpose.” Whether a follow-on use is commercial or adjacent thereto is less important than the harm the secondary use can cause to the market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work. 

If there is no (actual or potential) harm and the copied material is used for for new, transformative purposes, Fair Use is likely. 

Even where there is a loss of a sale - or even multiple sales - of the copyrighted work that fact “does not suffice to make the copy an  effectively competing substitute that would tilt the weighty fourth factor in favor of the rights holder in the original. There must be a meaningful or significant effect “upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

(Note: if someone can tell me where the Schuyler Sisters pic comes from so we can credit, we’d really appreciate it!)

Copyright & You
External image

We often get questions around copyright. Can I use this song lyric in my story? Am I going to get sued out of existence if my character quotes a movie? 

First, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. The below is general information that pertains to the United States. If you have more questions or live outside of the United States, please contact a legal professional in your area.

Now, to the answer. I’m lucky to have a friend who’s not only a great beta reader, but also a patent attorney. He explained it to me like this. If you’re writing a fanfic you want to post it on the internet, make no money from it, and include a little blurb about the rights of those songs/quotes/whatever belonging to their respective owners, the likelihood of you getting a cease and desist is slim. Part of the reason is the copyright holder has to show that you somehow impacted their bottom line negatively. Many authors and entertainment franchises realize if their works become popular, people will write fanfic. It’s part and parcel of having a fandom and it’s rare the legal teams get involved. There are exceptions to this; Anne Rice comes to mind. 

If you want to publish this, whether it’s self-published or through an agent/publisher, the simple answer is you can not use any lyrics without purchasing the rights. Song lyrics have their copyright rigorously enforced, so if you use them without purchasing the rights to do so you will hear from a legal team. For quotes from movies or tv shows, you’ll have to confer with an attorney as some instances may fall under fair use.  Purchasing rights can be a long and expensive process, and publishers won’t offset the costs. While there are online guides about purchasing rights, this may be an instance where it’s better to err on the side of caution and consult a legal professional.

David Beckham Gets A New Tattoo To Commemorate His And Victoria Beckham’s Wedding Day And Treble Football Win

David Beckham is no stranger to getting a tattoo or 30, but his latest inking may be one of our favourites yet.


Copyright [Instagram]

Becks has gone and got a little ‘99′ tattooed on his little finger on his right hand, and the meaning behind it is pretty special.

Nope, it‘s got nothing to do with a love for the flake that comes with a Mr Whippy. 

Instead, ‘99′ actually refers to 1999, the year he married Victoria Beckham AND the year he helped Manchester United win their historic Treble - the Premier League, FA Cup and UEFA Champions League.

Copyright [Instagram]

Lovely idea, right?

Sharing the photo of his tattoo on Instagram, the 40-year-old wrote: “99 was a good year for me …“

You can say that again!

Copyright [Getty]

Earlier this month, David, whose favourite tattoos are the ones he has for his children (n’awww), posted a loving tribute to his wonderful wife on their 16th wedding anniversary.

Thanking her for giving him a fab family, he wrote: “16 years ago today was our special day… 16 years on we have our beautiful children… Thank you for giving me our amazing little ones …. Happy anniversary.”

16 years and we STILL haven’t been adopted into their family - what’s going on, guys?!

Copyright [Instagram]

The question is: Will David get any MORE tattoos? And if so, what’s he going to get?

Can we request ‘YAHOO CELEBRITY UK’ in big letters, please?


-he was on #Dantheman ?!
-i’m so done with this guy jesus christ.
-how do you feel in one word?
-the make up video
-lipstick on the bed/carpet
-the tweets
-“me and phil share every interest”
-mothers day
-> aw he went to dinner with his mum
-he’s eaten before the liveshow
-nawh he’s proud that so many of us joined in with the red nose day thing!
-his grandma :D
-New Muse song
-New Kedrick album
-NZ x-factor thing
-his obessesion with Kanye West.
-the MCR Thing
-cheeky selfpromo
-nawh Phil really likes instrumental music
-The Walking Dead
-danisnotonfire video by the end of the week (probably friday)
-new merch soon (early april)
-music again
-uhmn he mentioned Troyler?! :D
-his hair
-Nickelodeon :DD omfg!
-> “need to copyright that shit”.
Question: what’s happening on the 21st of march?
Answer: *mumbles* i may upload a video..(idk i think he said that…correct me if i’m wrong!!)
-he stayed longer :)
-phil was outside and busy
-Game Of Thrones

MENTIONED PHIL: ||||| ||||| |||

(Please hear me out! Omg)

-PLEASE DON’T MENTION PHAN IN THE CHAT !! Dan may get uncomfortable again..and you don’t want that, right?

-Okay..good..anyways..this was a fun younow!! But it also was an emotional roller coaster jfc!! It was funny and hilarious and stuff but then he started talking about instrumental music and stuff and got kind of serious and idk how to feel now. I’m not sure and I don’t want to alarm anyone cause I might be completely wrong but HEAR ME OUT OKAY?
->this younow got me thinking…don’t worry Dan was very happy in the show and everything is fine between Dan and Phil. They are not fighting or anything as some people thought but I feel like something is going on behind the scenes…idk maybe they’re just busy but I feel like these little shits may be planning something or idk. Dan often starts to read out a question and then just mumbles because it could give something away? And he can get really awkward when he reads the chat. I’m sure some people would say “the question was just inappropriate” but idk. Could be..could be…. It’s just a feeling. Tell me how you feel please? Am I going crazy or is there anyone who feels the same way???
Please don’t hate me! :/ (I know my English is not perfect..)
I love you guys!! (My ask box is open..feel free to talk to me!!)


Finished my first full-color comic! I had a lot of fun with this.

Explanation: our school was commissioned to make advertisements for Airstream and our school would get one of their travel trailers in return. So we were given “assignments” in which we were supposed to promote the company. (I should add that the company doesn’t like to pay for advertising, even when their biggest marketing problem is that people don’t know the trailers are still being produced.) Airstream wanted us make designs that would appeal to people our age, pushing the idea that we are all “potential airstream owners” although they were aware that this was a financial impossibility. On top of all this, there was no agreement that any of the students would get paid if Airstream chose to use their work… there wasn’t even a discussion about it apparently, until we raised a little hell.

It’s really cool to see how students and certain administrators worked hard to produce great artwork that Airstream couldn’t use for promotion: incorporating other copyrighted things, things of “questionable taste,” and things that flat-out had absolutely nothing to do with aluminum travel trailers. As for me, I made this comic.. hope this backstory can help you enjoy it more!!!

So to recap

- Nat has been stripped from her status as a strong female character because she, a human, has feelings for another human.

- The Twins are no longer important or victims of atrocious acts of war because their heritage was changed to fit to the time period in question, copyright laws, and constructs of a cinematic story arc as it pertains to Stark weaponry as well as to serve for a REASON for their hatred and hostility.

- Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, and Dollhouse, is now a racist and a misogynist. This is due to the points listed previously.


- Tumblrminded folk continue to destroy everything they touch and be proud of themselves whilst doing it.

- We head towards a grave over-correction in our culture. Because….

- Intelligence is being sacrificed while, simultaneously, information is abounding. People have great access to a wealth of information, yet few practice the discipline of researching the sources, seeking objective truths, thinking for themselves or considering all the aspects.

In short, knowledge is a weapon. And without conscience discernment, responsibility, and reasoning it is a damn dangerous one.