The law and photography

[E8A4Nwbp]

Apologies if this enquiry seems trivial. I just want to avoid making my own assumption when acknowledging copyright law

Could I take a photo of a physical possession and use the image as part of a commercial project?

For example, could I photocopy a gridded page from an exercise book and use the image as a background in a mobile app (a mobile app which users pay for). Or would I have to contact the manufacturer of the book?

[againtry]

The fact that you own the otherwise blank page is more or less irrelevant.

Copyright if it exists refers to intellectual property and aspects such as artistic value which may or may not have been transferred to you when you bought the exercise book. You own the physical property only.

You’d probably get away with it anyway because unless the page is uniquely identifiable you won’t get caught, and it probably doesn’t have any artistic value.

The book also probably doesn’t have a copyright notice, registered or not, and is unlikely to be global copyrighted.

Aside from that any complainant would have to establish and quantify their loss, which probably wouldn’t be much. They would have to show that their terms and conditions of sale exclude any photographic or commercial use of their product.

[helios]

Could I take a photo of a physical possession and use the image as part of a commercial project?

For example, could I photocopy a gridded page from an exercise book and use the image as a background in a mobile app

It's a pretty terrible example. They're two entirely different questions.

If you photograph any random object, like a rock, or a dog, or a pizza, you own the copyright to that photograph and can do whatever you want with it.

If you scan a page from a book, you're making a copy of a piece of intellectual property. If the property is not in public domain, according to the simplest principles of copyright law you can't do anything with it without permission from the rights holder (and you would need to get permission from the publisher, not from the manufacturer). Depending on where you are, you may be able to use it in some ways without asking for permission, depending on what's on the page and how you use it.


God, I fucking hate copyright.

[E8A4Nwbp]

If you photograph any random object, like a rock, or a dog, or a pizza, you own the copyright to that photograph and can do whatever you want with it.

I see. In my case, I planned to take a photograph of the top surface of a table to use as a texture. Does the company which sold the table have the right to interfere with my usage of the image as a texture?

In regards to paper, MS word hopefully could be a useful alternative

[helios]

You don't say what the table is like, but I assume it's just a wooden table.
No. The pattern of the exposed wood grain is not copyrightable because it's produced by a random process. Nobody intended for the wood on the table to end up in that particular configuration, and it would be basically impossible to produce another table in the same configuration.

[jonnin]

not sure if the fair use laws matter here or not, but you can copy a tiny bit of books or other intellectual property and use it if you give proper credit somewhere.

[againtry]

Fair use is relevant.

(US) Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.

In a general sense but not exclusively fair use applies to non-commercial use.

The pattern of the exposed wood grain is not copyrightable because it's produced by a random process.

I wouldn't run off to court thinking that proposition is a winner.

God, I fucking hate copyright.

Nonsense beliefs aside, is that how Nektra operate?

[E8A4Nwbp]

If an image requires attribution if used for "editorial purposes, does this mean I must provide attribution if I crop, rotate or/and remove the background from the image?

[againtry]

Attribution is a courtesy and protects against claims of plagiarism which may or may not be criminal or being the subject of compensation. A breach of copyright is not necessarily circumvented by attribution, while permission from the owner does.

Hating copyright with or without a supreme being or copulatory qualifications does not solve anything either.

Cropping or transforming an image might make the decisions difficult but there are no guarantees.

The first-mentioned otherwise blank squared paper would hardly make any sort of sensible or reasonable case for requiring attribution or even for a successful breach of copyright case.

[helios]

It means you must attribute the author if you use it in a written publication.

[againtry]

Attribution doesn’t just apply to written material and publication has nothing to do with it.

[E8A4Nwbp]

It means you must attribute the author if you use it in a written publication.

Thank you

[againtry]

You can 'attribute' as much as you like but without the owners permission to publish, by whatever means, their work outside fair use, which you have to establish, you are in strife if the owner decides to exercise their rights over their property.

[E8A4Nwbp]

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

[zapshe]

Who cares? As long as you're not profiting, claiming it's yours, or otherwise publishing it, there's not much anyone can do about you what copywrite material you use.

[againtry]

Who cares?

Adding incitement to commit a crime, which brings a jail sentence, to charges of defamation against a lecture and the associated compensation, damages and costs is likely to make caring a lifetime occupation.

[E8A4Nwbp]

EDIT: Understood

And I do not endorse the labeling.

[zapshe]

I don't suppose you acquire sophisticated vocabulary from a particular source that you would not mind sharing?

Hilarious!

[helios]

I wasn't going to say anything, but yeah. That really says it all, doesn't it?

[againtry]

@Astra,
No particular place but definitely not from the intellectual squalor the uncreative and trite voiceover-man and misanthropic nektra-gibbon get their primeval grunts and gibbering from as they swing through the trees.