Um, FYI

[cleolinda]

Attn: Etsy people: If you are selling anything--say, pins or buttons--made with pictures from movies, that's copyright infringement. As in, it's (let's say) Summit Entertainment's right to decide who gets to make money off images from (let's say) Twilight. It's one thing if you're going to do Twilight-"themed" jewelry; it's another to actually use movie stills. If you don't specifically have their permission, they could very easily come after you. And all they would really have to do is search "Twilight buttons," which is what I did after someone told me about it.

How is this different from icons on LJ or "flair" on Facebook? It's different because you're making money off it. I'm not going to rat anyone out, but... it's a bad idea. And I don't know about Etsy, but I know on CafePress that sellers have to agree in the terms of service not to sell anything they don't have the rights to, so the same goes for them, too.

And who knows--maybe they're too busy rushing out sequels on a five-dollar budget to go after you. But I know other movie studios have done it, and some of them are testier about it than others. If you want to roll those dice, be my guest. Just don't ask me to contribute.

ETA: Hm. A lawyer weighs in.

Comments

[bleakwinters.livejournal.com]

There are people who genuinely think this is a good idea and no one will hunt them down? o_O Wow, that's like the dude who tried selling HP fanfic on Lulu.

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

I hadn't heard about that, and yet I am not surprised. I had heard about this escapade (http://wiki.fandomwank.com/index.php/Buy_My_Non-Commercial%2C_Self-Published_Fanfic!), though.

[stormarrow.livejournal.com]

People do it on ebay too. I saw a lot of Sweeney Todd stuff from the movie in diy jewelry.

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

I think themed jewelry is great and all, and even if you somehow use movie stills for something you keep for yourself and don't make money on, fine. The Twilight stuff, for example, can be really twee, but there's nothing legally iffy with a bracelet full of apple charms, you know?

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Ugh, yeah, I spotted a few of those when I've looked through the jewelry section and I'm like, "Seriously? Are you really that stupid?"

Funnily enough, there is some nicely made jewelry inspired by the books/movies that's less "I just put a movie still on a pendant!" and more "I made art the love story inspired!". Some of it I only saw the thumbnail for and thought, "Oh, that's pretty!" and brought it up to look closer and, "Ha, your version of Renesmee's promise ring, very creepyfunny. But still pretty, damn it."

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I actually like non-infringing book/movie jewelry. Any book or movie--I like seeing how different people interpret Galadriel's ring, although I still like the movie ring the best. And I saw a "Galadriel's phial" pendant the other day that was really pretty--wait, here it is. (http://unrealfind.amazonwebstore.com/Phial-of-Galadriel-Filigree-Necklace-Brass/M/B001L4OIKW.htm)

[ladyvorkosigan.livejournal.com]

"Ha, your version of Renesmee's promise ring, very creepyfunny. But still pretty, damn it."

Hah, I still hold that that stupid promise ring (or was it a bracelet?) was the creepiest thing in the books, bar none. Ick!

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

ZOMG CENSORSHIP OPPRESSION FIRST AMENDMENT ELEVENTY FLAAAIIILLL!!!

*ahem* The stupid, we will always have with us.

Linkspam fodder

[blinkliz.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you've already heard about this, but Joaquin Phoenix went on Letterman last night to promote Two Lovers, and he gave one of the most bizarre interviews ever: refusing to really talk, except to confirm his departure from acting.... So insane.

Anyway, here are some of the better articles/videos:

Joaquin Phoenix, Letterman make remarkable TV (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/02/joaquin_phoenix_letterman_ston.html)

Joaquin Phoenix on Letterman: Real or hoax, that was good TV (http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/02/joaquin-phoenix.html)

Letterman: Joaquin Phoenix weirder than Farrah (http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-joaquin-phoenix-letterman-090212-story,0,6955108.story)

Peace.

Re: Linkspam fodder

[http://users.livejournal.com/_ravengirl/]

I saw that when I was flipping channels last night.. so bizarre.. and the audience was laughing like it was all a joke.. and then there Letterman started talking about his cuticle mishap and Joaquin continued to just look creepy and silent and beardy the whole time... sooo... strange...

[mellymell.livejournal.com]

Hell, CafePress took down our homebrew club's merch because someone used the Hee Haw donkey on our logo (we're the Antioch Sud Suckers aka ASS). After a redesign with an original donkey, we're all good now. So even if you, say, used a piece of something that's copyrighted, they'll still come after you and at the very least, remove it from your store and at the very worst, probably sue you.

[goblin-dae.livejournal.com]

Someone tried something similar on Facebook recently - an RPG app called Hammerfall (which was advertised as free to play, but the devs made money off of it by charging players for points that let them do extra stuff), and used a few thousand pieces of artwork from artist's online portfolios. They cleverly chose an awful lot of images that were the work of professional illustrators and were already copyrighted to Wizards of the Coast, NCSoft, etc. When it was finally spotted by one of the artists and brought up, well...

DEV: Uh, we're not stupid. We totally have permission to use all the artwork.
ACTUAL ARTISTS: Why, no. No, you do not!

Basically it was take down all the illegal artwork or GTFO Facebook + Lawsuit!

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

They also stole a bunch of artwork from DeviantArt artists as well.

It was all over DA.

[zen-child.livejournal.com]

The best Twilight-related thing I have ever seen on Etsy was a necklace that was a little rectangle that said "I ♥" with tiny little fork charms hanging from it. Like, I love Forks. It was brilliant. With no infringement in sight.

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

See, that's darling. I would almost buy that just for the cleverness alone.

[moriahbard.livejournal.com]

We were just talking about copyright in one of my classes, and we discussed buttons as an example! People seriously need to be careful.

Perhaps this educational YouTube video we watched in class would help them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2MZi0tmzo0

I like it mostly because it uses Disney clips as examples, but it's instructive, too.

[pinkfinity.livejournal.com]

This isn't necessarily so, at least it isn't necessarily so across the United States.

If you purchase magazines or books or CDs or DVDs, you can do anything you want to with the physical item you purchased, other than make a copy of it. This means that you can take the cover of a copy of Breaking Dawn and laminate it, sparkle-ize it, and turn it into a wallet. You can melt and bend the DVD into a bracelet. Or you can get copies of a tie-in magazine and make decoupage earrings, bracelets, jewelry boxes, etc. You can pull the pages out of a copy of the book - purchased new or used! - and paper machie them into an ipod case, or take the photos you took of Robert at the premiere and print out a zillion copies and put them in frames and sell them because you own the copyright to those photos.

The Powers That Be may try to claim trademark infringement but there are specific cases, including last summer's Tiffany v eBay (http://www.eff.org/cases/tiffany-v-ebay)case, which put at least some onus on the auction/sale site to ensure that the complaints are specific, even if they don't have to determine the validity. And yes, eBay's VERO program is hard to fight (YouTube's DMCA program is less cumbersome and more fairly applied, IMHO), but what a private business doesn't allow does not mean that something is copyright or trademark infringement.

The above only applies in the US, and is not actually legal advice, just some thoughts.

[aestasbeyond.livejournal.com]

True, with your purchased copy, you CAN do whatever you want.

But you cannot turn a profit off it. That is where copyright infringement comes into play.

Secondly, the movie is not out one DVD yet, so either way, anyone selling jewelry with screenshots on it can not have bought their own copy in the first place. Not that it matters, because they still cannot sell it for a profit.

[lyrangalia]

The quantity of Swarovski crystals being abused by Twilight jewelry makers on Etsy makes me want to cry.

Sing it, sister...

[msfledermaus.livejournal.com]

I've seen *tons* of Twilight stills on Etsy in just about every format available, from buttons to keychains. I'm still really entertained by the Twilight-themed knitted and crocheted stuff--not as likely to be sued as the other stuff, though...

And the real kicker is the spinning-themed Twilight stuff. You know you're reaching into every niche you can when every black, white and red wool-combo for spinning is named after Twilight characters...

[nicolars.livejournal.com]

I'm always astonished at the amount of copyright infringment I see going on at Etsy. I love the site, but I am surprised they don't have some more safeguards in place against that sort of thing.

[sucrelefey.livejournal.com]

I'm told for many online hosts to be able to use the safe harbour exemption in a dispute for covering their own ass, they can not play enforcement cop idependantly before hand. I suspect things are a tricky quagmire there.

[fairies-exist.livejournal.com]

that icon makes me laugh whenever i see it.

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

Hee! I had to go back and check which icon you meant (I was checking from my email). I love Alice.

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

And yet, there's THOUSANDS of sellers on Etsy who still sell things made with images from many movies.}:/

You'd think they'd learn.

[profbutters.livejournal.com]

I'm not positive that intent to make money is the issue, either. I'm not intending to make money if I distribute copies of an article for one of my classes, but even if it's for educational use and not for profit, it's still considered an infringement. The law on this is *weird.* Evidently you're ok if you use a percentage of the book or movie (and it's a tiny amount) for one version of the course, but if you ever repeat the course, you have got to pay user fees (and what's really the bad part, go through all the bullcrap of permissions, etc.) That's even true if the book is so out of print it's not funny. Nobody ever teaches a course just one time. There's some kind of weird thing, too, where you can put up an electronic version, but students can't download and print it for their own personal study use. GAH.

Sorry to sound a bit peeved by this, but it seems silly when accounting professors demand brand-new editions of their own textbooks to be bought every other year. And those suckers are expensive.

It's at times like these that I'm glad I teach Shakespeare, who is not going to demand permissions fees for anything.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

The law is vague and case-specific. For educational uses, see

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter7/7-b.html#1

and also the whole section:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

There's also a law called the TEACH Act, which is the online stuff, but it was badly written and isn't very usable:

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM01610.pdf

xkcd 14

[http://users.livejournal.com/ktk____________/]

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Although your warning is a reasonable one, it leaves out some crucial information.

In the US the fair use doctrine (Section 107 of the US Copyright Statute) permits use of copyrighted material without permission in certain circumstances, which are not strictly defined and which are very case-specific. Someone who wants to use a still from (say) Twilight to create a new creative work and sell it may be infringing the Twilight copyrights (Summit & Smeyer) but may not be, if the use is fair. The fact that the new item will make money for the new creator is one *possible* factor in determining that the use is not fair (and therefore an infringement) but is not necessarily determinative.

Among the questions that a court would ask, in determining whether a use is fair or not, would be:

a) Is the income that was generated by the new object directly competitive with things the copyright holder was making or might have made and that would generate income for the copyright holder? In other words, is the new object earning money that rightfully belongs to the rightsholder? Or is it something new enough and different enough to not be draining the rightsholder's ability to earn money from the creation?

b)In using the film still, has the work been transformed into a new work, or is it merely derivative of the original? ("Transformative" vs. "Derivative" is usually the most important test, rather than money-earning vs. not-money-earning).

For really good summaries and explanations of fair use, see:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

This site is a reliable tool for people who want to figure out if what they're doing is legal or not. The Stanford Fair Use Center, which is associated with this site, is run by the lawyer who is working with Shepherd Fairey on his fair use claim regarding his use of a copyrighted photo of Barack Obama to create the famous "HOPE" poster.

It's just my opinion, but I think Fairey has a rock-solid case for fair use: his use of the photo transformed the photo, and did not repeat the photo's original purpose or market. His reworking of the image is not something the original photographer or AP could have done. If the court decides that Fairey's use is fair (heh), then he can earn all the $$ he wants, sell the poster on Etsy, and it's entirely legal.

Sorry to go on so long, but I think the Disney's and other Big Hollywood bizniz interests have gotten us all spooked about how horribly illegal we all supposedly are every time we write a fanfic or make a mashup on Youtube or create some doodad for sale on Etsy. It's not necessarily true, but it's a brilliant chilling-effect ploy. See also http://www.chillingeffects.org/

All of this is not to say that it's easy or fine to use movie stills. One has to think about it, assess the particular use, and sometimes get advice from a lawyer.

[elizardbits.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I'd find it pretty damn ironic if anyone officially associated with Twilight had anything to say about infringement after the whole Twilight (http://www.thescentedlife.com/smelling-like-bella-twilight-perfume/) vs. Nina Ricci (http://www.amazon.com/Nina-Ricci-Women-Toilette-Spray/dp/B000JESUWM) perfume bottle stupidity (http://nowsmellthis.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2009/1/14/4057109.html). Just sayin'.

also, having to search the Hot Topic website just now made me experience soul-soiling existential darkness, jsyk. and not in the fab & trendy way they obviously intended. *shudder*

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

Heeeeee, point.

[havocs-roman.livejournal.com]

My long gone Law classes (no, no lawyer here) touched on US law very, very briefly, but over here (Portugal and, I believe, most of the European Union), this is how it goes--in keeping with the Twilight theme:

-- if you don't hold the/any rights to Twilight, you cannot use any of its copyright material for anything that might turn a profit, as unlikely as the profit might be.

-- however, as long as it's for personal (and, of course, non-lucrative) use, you can do whatever you like to the Twilight material that you own (including burning a copy of the DVD, as long as you can prove: 1) that you haven't/won't ever make a profit from its existence; 2) that it hasn't/won't be enjoyed by others who don't own a copy of the original, which technically includes the members of your household);

-- exception 1: fair use is case-specific and can include, for instance, showing a minute of the film to an audience for, er, educational or informational purposes; it does not, ever, include showing them the whole film unless you hold a broadcasting licence and the film's rights, let alone selling any movie-related material unless you hold a selling licence, in which case it is no longer fair use, it is commerce.

-- exception 2: you can profit from your own satire of Twilight because satires are seen as commentary rather than derivative work. That is: unless it metas on the original, don't come up with a story about how Edward and Bella deal with the next twenty kids.

-- reselling whatever material you own is a legal no-no. A hard to prove no-no, unless you're caught in the act (and even then it's often tricky), but still, legally, a no-no, unless you have a selling licence and hand in a contract-bound part of your profit.

-- twisting a DVD into a bracelet or some such falls out of the category above because you aren't really selling Twilight material--you're recycling the hard copy that carries it (and which you paid for: you own the hard copy, the DVD, and not the material in it, the film) into something entirely different; you're not selling Twilight, you're selling a bracelet out of recycled material.

-- DVD-turned-bracelet and poster-turned-purse are two very different things. With the bracelet, you're not profiting from allowing anyone the experience of Twilight at the studio's expense--no one can see a movie in a bracelet. By taking an image from a poster and pasting it onto a purse of your making, the image does not cease to exist, it is still the reason people are buying the purse, and you are making a profit from studio-owned material. In short: turning a Twilight poster into papier machê for, say, a non-descript profile of Someguy? Sure. Doing it for a papier machê likeness of Robert Pattinson? Only if you like court rooms.

-- the creator and (sometimes *or*) his/her associates own the likenesses of the characters; Summit also owns the likenesses of the actors-as-characters, so seriously: if you put RPattinson's face on a T-Shirt and sell it he can technically hunt you down for it (but probably won't bother, because you can claim you handed them out for free and there are different boundaries for "public" people); if you put Robert-as-Edward's face on a T-Shirt and sell ten million of those, Summit will probably hunt you down for it; that's the reason you can't sell fan art--you don't own the likenesses, they do. Just as Nina Ricci owns the apple design that Twilight ripped off.

*flop*