Using other people's work on your website and facebook pages

Fair use is a legal defence to get out of being sued, it is not an open book to take what you want.
Regardless if the artist (known as the author for legal purpose.) still wants somthing taken down fair use or not you kind of have too.

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.

this is a generalization, as in it apply in variations to 99% of the time.
Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.
Parody is more likley to be pulled up, legally and lose.

basically as soon as you add any potentual for commercial profit it is no longer fair use e.g. if you were not a face painter writting a blog about face painting and how you had seen some cool work and grabed a few pictures you could get away with fair use. If however the artist asked you to take it down, you would still have to you would be exempt from any legal ramifications - such as being sued.

If you are a face painter, writting a blog you would have to ask. As you could have clients or other face painters reading your page. you may go into teaching for example and if you client came from work you didn;t do that would be profiting from anothers work and have ramifications on the industry. Most blogs are ok but for the sake of nitpicking I point this out.

The interpriataion is legally called Transformative in the US because it was too many ins and outs to write down. They wanted to leave it open to interpritation to let the judges decide. because there are many ins and outs, but to really sum up

commercial in any way = bad. Non comercial = OK but you still have to do as asked.

Fair use is not a right to take, it is a legal defence such as insanity, self defence to a situation. Fair use just can get you out of being sued. Not non compliance.

In Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and the UK (commonwealth or former comonwealth) - we have fair dealing which is even tighter than fair use.

as a newbie...
i'm working on my website with my little daughter. i have some design ideas which are from youtube tutorials. i have a few favorite facepainters whom design amazed me and i wanted to try it. but i always cite who made the design what i painted. i would never use others' picture as my work.
i think the best way to protect your pictures is to use a watermark.
if you upload the photo to your facebook and share with the public, people will share it because they like it. the pinterest is for shearing things that you like. but it is better than fb as it will always lead to your site or blog...

Right on Sue!
I am studying for the ICNHA right now, the very first thing out of the box to study today for this certification was copyright. Bazinga. The whole fair use issue is pretty cut and dried for henna artists, at least how I read it. The only course of action to protect oneself when working in our kind of industry is, prior to copying anothers work ask permission, and credit the original artist. I do not give a rats behind about my designs being used by anyone outside my market. But, take (use) my picutes (of my children) and post them to your commercial website, and I care, and it is clearly neither "fair use" nor a newbie error.

I was defending newbies...I don't think that there is anything about newbies that make them more prone to doing something unethical and dishonest than painters with years of experience. When it comes to "using" someone elses photo on your website for commerical purposes without permission or credit to the owner of that photo, everybody knows that is wrong, independently of being a face painter.

The lesser known "derivitive" copies verses "trivial simularities," in design, that is something that the community educates new community members about, and you can classify this education in any way that floats your boat. Art students have always copied the great masters style and works to learn. It is part of the process. It really matters not unless the orginal artist decides to sue you for how you used that design, and then, if you are to claim "fair use" you first must admit that you copied the design, like self defense or insanity, you admit you did it first. The issue then becomes your right to use that work product for criticsim, education, or parody.

The reality, most artists in this industry don't care if you paint thier puppy design on little Suzie at a birthday party, even stroke per stroke. If you copy a photo on pinterest, you credit the painter, and note that you have posted it for educational puposes because you want to paint like that someday, fair use...if you lift photos from someone's face book, copy it, and then do a youtube video of "your design" not so much. But, like Sue said, they can ask you to take it down, and you could fight, but why?

For most of us work a day face painters, the higher the standard for face painting becomes, the better the services the public can expect generally, the better off we all are, the more we can all charge, the bigger the demand for all of us. Good painting raises us all up when we police our own work product and our industry has integrety and collective skill. That is the purpose of these kinds of forums. It is in all of our best interests to make all face painters better. and see that other face painters do not mislead the public by "using" photos that do not belong to them, and even worse, putting a stop to those who "use" photos that they cannot recreate themselves which brings us all down in the long run.

Which leads me to a final thought. Lori Hurely made a terrific impression on me at Kidvention, and I want to give her credit for this idea . The other professional face painters in my area are not my competition. The really cruddy painters who are unethical enough to steal photos of faces they did not paint, and can't reproduce, those who are frauds without integrety are my competition. The good, solid, honest face painters in my area are my colleges and assoicates. I count on them to raise me up, just as they count on me, and so it is for the community as a whole.

Shelley Bellefontaine wrote:Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk dictionary definition:The act or crime of thieving.Theft is the general term for the crime of stealing.

Then when you flip the page to steal.one of the definitions is "to take from another without right,authority or permission." I honestly think it sums it up nicely. This person took without my permission a picture of my work and put in on her website to advertise her business.I do not think it is just my definition of stealing , or that I am just making things up! Would I have a good court case? I don't know, !!

I don't know how else to explain this to you. This is the definition of theft under the Canadian criminal code:

322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;
(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.

There has to be an intent to deprive the owner of the property. That didn't happen in your case, you still have the photos and can use them. Your copyright has been infringed, which is no less wrong, but not the same thing. If you go to a Canadian court and say you have been the victim of theft, they will throw your case out. If you go to an American court and say you've been a victim of theft, they will throw your case out.

Recently, Erica had a woman to her house for a belly painting. While she was there, the woman took Erica's new iPad Mini. THAT was a theft -- the woman wrongfully took Erica's iPad mini and, as a result, Erica can no longer use it. Can you see that your situation is different from Erica's?

It's not a question of arguing just to argue. It's a question of words having meanings. It's also a question of liability -- accusing someone of a crime they haven't committed is defamation (libel and/or slander). If they turn around and sue you, you will not have a defense because you are not telling the truth. Good luck telling the judge how copyright infringement is very, very wrong and everyone should know that. It's not a justification. Maybe you don't care and that's your choice, but others should know the facts before following your example.

elantaura wrote: Regardless if the artist (known as the author for legal purpose.) still wants somthing taken down fair use or not you kind of have too.

...

basically as soon as you add any potentual for commercial profit it is no longer fair use e.g. if you were not a face painter writting a blog about face painting and how you had seen some cool work and grabed a few pictures you could get away with fair use. If however the artist asked you to take it down, you would still have to you would be exempt from any legal ramifications - such as being sued.

...

commercial in any way = bad. Non comercial = OK but you still have to do as asked.

I am admittedly, not up on Australian law. However, with respect to the situation in the U.S., are you familiar with a site called Regretsy? For those of you who aren't, it's a site that pokes fun at professional crafters -- usually the ones posting on Etsy. Sometimes April (the site owner) makes fun of the quality of the items offered, sometimes she mocks the ridiculous prices or presentation, other times she points out that they're not handcrafted at all, but imported from China. In every case, she uses the original photos. Every so often, the seller/owner comes along and demands that April take the photos down and threatens to sue her. And she doesn't and they don't, probably because no lawyer would take the case.

Regretsy makes a profit, through advertising and selling items. What they are doing is perfectly legal. Are they misrepresenting others' work as their own? No. But they are allowed to use the photos of others to generate income, so these broad sweeping statements people keep making are just not accurate.

Oh for crying out loud. Who cares what the bloody wording is on the definition or the criminal code.

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Copyright theft is still theft. Using a photo without permission is theft.

Read this link about using photos on the internet:

http://www.roniloren.com/blog/2012/7/20/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-for-using-pics-on-your-blog.html#disqus_thread

JennyNixe wrote:
...



I am admittedly, not up on Australian law. However, with respect to the situation in the U.S., are you familiar with a site called Regretsy? For those of you who aren't, it's a site that pokes fun at professional crafters -- usually the ones posting on Etsy. Sometimes April (the site owner) makes fun of the quality of the items offered, sometimes she mocks the ridiculous prices or presentation, other times she points out that they're not handcrafted at all, but imported from China. In every case, she uses the original photos. Every so often, the seller/owner comes along and demands that April take the photos down and threatens to sue her. And she doesn't and they don't, probably because no lawyer would take the case.

Regretsy makes a profit, through advertising and selling items. What they are doing is perfectly legal. Are they misrepresenting others' work as their own? No. But they are allowed to use the photos of others to generate income, so these broad sweeping statements people keep making are just not accurate.

That would be the parody clause that I mentioned... Think weird al yankovic who dose get sued somtime sucessfull somtimes not. Satire caries less weight that self parody legally.
Other factors that help him win is he credits his source and... usually boosts sales of anything he copied for a parody, why he wins more often that not... This would be a reason for the Transformative clause for example.

Because, Shannon, accusing people of crimes they didn't commit is defamation. If you say that someone is a thief and they have not committed theft, they can sue you. And you can complain all you want that they infringed your copyright, it won't change the fact that you defamed them. Essentially what you're arguing is that two wrongs make a right. And we all know they don't.

As far as the blog you posted, the issue was that the author was just using a copyrighted image to accompany her blog posts. The images were illustrative of the topic and, by using them, she avoided having to buy or take her own photos. If I post someone else's photo on my site and comment about the photo (like "I love this mask!"), the issue is far murkier. Comment is fair use.

You also are forgeting model consent, parental rights in our case it isn't a block of wood.
I paint my own children and get a written realese of the few photos I do get. You can get pictures taken down just for not having the persons in the pictures consent. I can prove they consent to me using it - not anyone else. I paint my own kids simply as Parental rights will get it taken down faster.

My aspie (that is, autistic kid) came home from school today and said that she can not do her homework until it was dark because her teacher told her to do her homework "tonight." She is technically correct. Hair, spilt, litteral, again, sigh. If I ever sue somebody in Canada for taking my photos, I will be sure to use the exact words necessary to prevail. I will pass on the news to the ICNHA that they are wrong!

martha one of my ADHD kids came home from school and told me they no longer had to attend. when I said what? why? confused they told me the teacher said... They already new it all!!
A different spin again on the hair splitting aspect.

elantaura wrote:That would be the parody clause that I mentioned... Think weird al yankovic who dose get sued somtime sucessfull somtimes not. Satire caries less weight that self parody legally.
Other factors that help him win is he credits his source and... usually boosts sales of anything he copied for a parody, why he wins more often that not... This would be a reason for the Transformative clause for example.

Sorry, stepping in here because this made me go

Could you tell me when Weird Al was sued? There was once a confusion with Coolio over "Amish Paradise" where Al's studio led him to believe parody permission had already been granted, but even then there was no legal dispute, or at least as far as I thought.

I'm just interested in this because I'm a fan, and was sure he'd never been sued over his music, so I'm surprised to find out I'm wrong.

JennyNixe wrote:
As far as the blog you posted, the issue was that the author was just using a copyrighted image to accompany her blog posts. The images were illustrative of the topic and, by using them, she avoided having to buy or take her own photos. If I post someone else's photo on my site and comment about the photo (like "I love this mask!"), the issue is far murkier. Comment is fair use.

So how is this different from someone taking a photo to use on their website as an "example"?

If I post photos of my work that I took and own, and someone uses them without my permission I inform them of my copyrights and that they do not have permission and give them a time frame to remove them. If they don't, then I report them to their ISP, FB, whomever is the governing entity of that forum or site.

I've had someone use my photos in their resume - they had printed or attached MY photos to their job application - the person doing the hiring recognized my watermark (yes, they used watermarked photos) and they contacted me to see if this person had worked for me. Nope. That I would call theft, fraud and misrepresentation. Wouldn't you?

No, if you parody something it is cool. You can make fun of people and use their stuff. That is how balloon artists get away with making elmo..it is a parody, that is how we get away with painting that spider guy...If you are doing a critique, you can post too. You still have to cite it. If you are doing Fan Fiction, say, you want to write about Dr Spock and Captian Kirk, an original story, you still need permssion from Paramount, which owns the rights (I just read that while studying for my henna certification test) However, if you just want to make fun of them, you do not have to ask. Permission is generally granted for these things, because it promotes the franchise. That was kind of the point of everything I read, to just ask because most of the time, the answer is yes anyway, and it is not that hard to do. Which is kind of the point here too, why not just ask, why not just follow the rule, right or wrong, techincality or not, what ever the law, if it keeps those who care about such things in your industry happy, just do it. Credit them, maybe they care. I don't happen to, but some do. NBD. In terms of Henna, I think most people who draw pattern books give you permission to use them on your clients, but they would probably get pissy if you redrew that pattern and published your own book. There is a section of this on the test...so, if you want to be certified, you have to at least know what they think the rules are and answer the questions correctly.

Sue, that is so familiar, you have no idea! I think I have had the very same convo with my aspie. We live the litteral lifestyle here, for sure. Every so often I use 350 instead of 360 for some of the balloons she uses...I know better not to ask her if she needs fuchia 350's because the fuchia she uses is a 360...she will answer "no" even if she is totally out...get to our gigs, and no fuchia bunnies. My bad...Oiy.

Martha, I'm not sure why you're comparing me to your disabled child. I'm an adult who doesn't have an ASD, but did have a successful career as an attorney. When I talk about people suing for defamation, it's because I've actually seen it happen. My understanding of ICNHA is that it's an international peer review organization of henna artists, not a legal body. In fact, actually, they say that on their website.

I appreciate that someone misrepresented your photos as their own and that's understandably upsetting. However, it's hardly the crime of the century and it doesn't entitle you to be ugly to anyone who disagrees with or has more accurate information than you.

Kammy -he wasn't sued because he withdrew had sucsessfull notices that his lawyers have said no too.

He had an issue with atlantic records over James blunt your beatifull. He had the artist permission before he went ahead. then got a notice of some sort of atlantic records (last min kind of thing after all the work was done) after consulting with his legal team. And record label. there case would have been sucsessfull, So a valid legal notice. if he made profit. he released it for free (no profit was ok somehow) thats was for your pitiful.

He never had a problem with James blunt the whole time he was OK with him doing it. But you will notice in White and Nerdy he is wreaking Atlantic Records' Wikipedia page. (not james blunt as they never had a problem) - that is one I know about.

Mabye sued is wrong how about legitimate and credable intention to sue that papers were served, on and he chose to withdraw as the legal team and his record label said there was a strong likleyhood that atlantic would win. (even with blunt the artist saying OK)

He always gets consent but somtimes as you can see it may not be the artist but the record company who has issues. hes a bit more carefull now. He also learned lessons early on from a radio station host, he worked for if that means anything to you? and his legal battles. I don't know what that means but I watched it in an interview on TV when I was a teen

Shannon Fennell wrote:

So how is this different from someone taking a photo to use on their website as an "example"?

Because if you are commenting, criticizing or parodying someone else's work, it can fall under fair use. Maybe Canada's different, but that's the law here.

Shannon Fennell wrote: I've had someone use my photos in their resume - they had printed or attached MY photos to their job application - the person doing the hiring recognized my watermark (yes, they used watermarked photos) and they contacted me to see if this person had worked for me. Nope. That I would call theft, fraud and misrepresentation. Wouldn't you?

You can CALL the sky red; it doesn't make it so. With the information here, it's NOT theft and it's probably not yet fraud. It IS misrepresentation and it IS wrong.

Let's try this another way -- why don't you call the person who used your photos a murderer? Because to your knowledge, he hasn't committed a murder, right? He may have taken your photos, he may be a terrible person, but as far as you know, he has not deliberately and with malice caused the death of another human being. In exactly the same way, he is not a thief. He has not deprived you of your use of your photos, which is an element of theft. And, if you go around telling people he is a thief and a fraudster, he can win a defamation case against you.

I don't understand why it's so important to people that they be able to call names. All you have to do is say what happened, and we're all going to be sympathetic. "This person stole my photos" is just as compelling as "this person is a thief."

With all due respect to your career, when you raise the question in your Direct (autism, that is) the respondent may then persue that line of questioning! EH? That may be a bit off the track technical... You have to admit, you have gone a little far over a single word, and, need I remind you of the words "murderer" and "hysteical woman" or the vaccination phobic spew of redicuolosness above? I thought your mention of autism was funny once the ridgitgy of the conversation about a semantic tidbit in comparison to the banter I deal with all the time. Disagree if you like, please, I disagree with Shelley about newbies. NBD. Who said that the ICNHA is a legal body? Certainly not me. Crime of the century? Holy cow. Um where is that there Kettle? Pot?

a face painting mom wrote:With all due respect to your career, when you raise the question in your Direct (autism, that is) the respondent may then persue that line of questioning! EH? That may be a bit off the track technical... You have to admit, you have gone a little far over a single word, and, need I remind you of the words "murderer" and "hysteical woman" or the vaccination phobic spew of redicuolosness above? I thought your mention of autism was funny once the ridgitgy of the conversation about a semantic tidbit in comparison to the banter I deal with all the time. Disagree if you like, please, I disagree with Shelley about newbies. NBD. Who said that the ICNHA is a legal body? Certainly not me. Crime of the century? Holy cow. Um where is that there Kettle? Pot?

I don't really understand what you're saying here. I am sure I didn't call you a murderer and I didn't bring up autism.

I think it's safe to say that we disagree.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=374856172622664&set=a.371698562938425.87342.371692546272360&type=1&theater

Hope this link is public.

who was that then?

I did ask rhetorically why you didn't people you were murderED, instead of just having your photos stolen. If you were murderED, you'd be the victim of the murder, not the perpetrator. Obviously, this is another one of those picky semantic things that only lawyers and autistic children care about.

Could be. The hysterical woman part and the stupid people who think vaccinations cause autism...a bit much too, even for lawyers and autistic people. I have no idea what you are talking about with the person on Facebook having a picture "used". If you are referenceing what happend to me a few weeks ago, you are the one who is vastly missiniformed and have no idea what happened there, none. I will not rehash that filth again, but you have no facts correct, what so ever.

No Martha, I wasn't talking about your situation when I referred to the woman on FB. This was something else altogether.

I also didn't say something about "stupid people who think vaccinations cause autism." I made a comment, in passing, about the anti-vaccination movement being made up of people I considered hysterical and uninformed. I didn't know you belonged to it. I have a problem with them because my niece almost died from pertussis she got from an unvaccinated child, but I certainly wouldn't have brought the issue up here. It was just meant to be a funny aside.

I had no idea that you had a child with autism until you brought it up earlier today. I certainly would never make fun of anyone for that. I did not intend to be hateful to you and I'm sorry my random comments turned out so personal.

Not a problem Jenny, it was a bit off the wall and a perplexing randomly placed thought, as were the others, and they did not come off as funny at all. Making tangetial comments like that are going to bite you in the butt occassionally. You never know as much about people as you think you do when you size them up without any background, no matter how superior you may be. I have two kids on the spectrum, and one neuro-typical and they are all vaccinated, my ASD girls are the last two kids on earth who should have purtussis, autistic and coughing for 100 days is no way to be. I know people who beleive firmly that thier child's autism was caused by the MMR vaccination and their children are not vaccinated. One is my closest, dearest friend in all the world. She is an attorney. Her husband is an attorney, her father is an attorney. We disagree. No murder...no exaggeration...no the crime of the centruy...no hysteria...no stupidity, simple respectuful disagreement. There is nothing hysterical about her, or her husband, or her father and they all squarely disagree with something I beleive firmly.

I respectfully disagree with you. I am not persuaded by your argument, it was really more of a rant than an argument (meaning a carefully thought out line of deductive reasoning meant to convince another of your opinion, not a fight.) It did not follow the kind of logic I learned at Oklahoma State (Ride em)

Now, go out to Braums and have a cherry limeaide for those of us who can't get them where they live.