Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
helix7

Public domain, expired copyrights, and stock vectors...

25 posts in this topic

Seems like there are a good amount of images here on SS that likely came from source material in the public domain. Old illustrations from books, maps, etc. Or at least the material was old enough to assume it's in the public domain.

 

It got me wondering if some of this stuff is really public domain, how you would know an old image is usable, and if anyone here would use it. The "official" rule here seems to be that we create whatever we upload, and own the rights to it. Obviously that's not an entirely concrete rule as public domain photos are used in stock images all the time, and public domain maps are source material for every vector map in microstock.

 

How about illustrations? If you had a really old book or something, is it safe to assume that if it's more than 100 years old it can be used as source material for stock?

 

Anyone here using old public domain stuff in their vector work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are many contributors here who use very old books or printed materials to create the vectors from them and they are very successful sellers.. I personally would feel odd using some other author art even though he is hundred years old. But since the images are approved by Shutterstock, I think its up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I wonder about one thing, lets say two Shutterstock contributors own the same old book and both of them, not knowing about each other, copy the same old illustration from it.. Then they both submit it, at different times. The one who submitted it first will probably complain that the second one "copied" it from him and have Shutterstock take some actions against it.. While in fact, both of them copied from some old author.. so the contributor who was fast enough to submit it first gains the new copyright to that illustration? weird..

 

poor hundred years old authors who cant defend themselves at Shutter forums :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...The one who submitted it first will probably complain that the second one "copied" it from him and have Shutterstock take some actions against it...

 

That's one of the things that worries me. Using public domain images may not be against the rules, but it does open you up to added risk of accusations of copying, potentially getting your account suspended, etc. What's to stop someone from wanting to prevent competition and sending an email to SS saying that you copied their image?

 

I also wonder if SS might ever change their stance on public domain works. A while back there was a popular phohoshop filter widely used that was allowed legally to be used to create stock images. But then SS changed their policy on that filter and deleted tons of images from the collection.

 

Seems risky to use public domain stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a very "grey" area. I dont understand how can Shutterstock protect the copyright of a vector which is an exact copy of some very old illustration taken from a publicly accessible book.

 

It may be a rare and very old book but unless you are the only one who owns it, you cant guarantee that someone, somewhere, will not do exactly the same thing. And who has the copyright to this vector then?

 

Because if the source image is public, anyone can copy it. It doesnt need to be another Shutterstock contributor, it may be anyone who owns the same book or finds the scan of the book on internet. Then you have two "creators", two basically the same vectors and the clash of copyrights here, how can this be protected by Shutterstock, thats beyond my understanding.. and yet, they accepted such images without wink of an eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes the image is not a direct copy of a public domain image. Also, reviewers don't know everything in the world.

 

Consider this one.

 

stock-vector-the-frog-prince-inspired-by-illustrations-in-antique-children-s-books-82179601.jpg

 

Is this a copy of public domain material? What if the colors were changed, using a bright white background, and more intense colors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly - the reviewers cant be a walking-talking encyclopedia of public images so they cannot know everything.

 

They will accept what they think looks good - whether it is a unique artistic creation of contributor or a mere copy of some illustration from an old book. They think business and vintage sells.

 

So I think its up to every contributor to judge whats right and what is on the edge and could bring him to troubles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You assume no two people's vectorizing of a public domain image will be exactly the same. That said, I wouldn't want to get involved with public domain images either. But don't listen to me because I like doing things the hard way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends, it can look pretty much the same if both own the same old book with beautiful old illustrations, go for the exact copy look and are talented enough to make it..

 

I just dont know how fiercely would Shutterstock protect the copyrights of such vector if a very similar or almost the same illustration was found elsewhere on the web or in printed material.

 

But I guess Shutter knows better, its their site after all, they know the ropes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends, it can look pretty much the same if both own the same old book with beautiful old illustrations, go for the exact copy look and are talented enough to make it..

 

I just dont know how fiercely would Shutterstock protect the copyrights of such vector if a very similar or almost the same illustration was found elsewhere on the web or in printed material.

 

But I guess Shutter knows better, its their site after all, they know the ropes.

look up stopwatch or wrist watch under illustrations. You'll find different contributors with the same or similar images. I had raised that up before, but I came to the conclusion that so long as the original version is public domain, the site won't mind. Replicating copyrighted images is the main issue. I remember seeing traced images of coloring books on another site and the contributor had been selling them regularly. I emailed support on that site when I found they were under copyright and the contributor was deleted from the site.

 

I'm a firm believer in quality and rareness, the site would benefit from having unique work vs having multiple duplications of older or public domain images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember the link but US law for copyrights said that over 120year from publications you can use the source and trace it, but shuttestock require you to upload the SOURCE file for your illustration (the scanned page of source and title of the book).

 

In certain cases you can also use images after 70 year s after the day of publications.

 

However if you read the law it's almost clear.

 

Over 120.. you're 99,9% sure that it could be done.

 

BUT.. if you always UPLOAD the source against the veector no-one could accuse you to copyright, because if it's accepted then it's reviewer rensposability. But You have to PROVIDE the source for you trace. that's it :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit I didnt have this type of public domain images on my mind. I even dont know what all falls under public domain category as I must say I never looked for it.

 

A stopwatch would not bother me. I rather thought of the beautiful illustrations in old books, e.g. from 17th century, maps, animals, plants, all hand-drawn.. As there was an original question, how old a book must be that using its illustrations as a model for vector is "safe". In my opinion, no matter how old the book is, its just stealing the art.

 

But people do it, here and elsewhere.. To me its just questionable - if the source is accesible to more people, how the copyright for such vector should be protected then (even if two people cant make 100% same vector from the same source).

 

However, as to the public domain images, there is a clear sentence right in the Content Editor - "Do not upload public domain images, public domain vectors, or anything that you yourself didn't create or photograph."

 

Its cunning that its not mentioned there "do not upload vectors drawn exactly according public domain images" :) So - contributors take their risks as long as the money is worth it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, as to the public domain images, there is a clear sentence right in the Content Editor - "Do not upload public domain images, public domain vectors, or anything that you yourself didn't create or photograph."

 

I think that by uploading the SOURCE files you're safe. Before upload one of the only 2 or 3 set I have from a 120 years old book (birds, ships and other animals)I have contacted SS support and they said that it's ok to upload but along with the source page in the property release....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it seems Shutter knows how to handle it and they know the US laws (although there may be different laws in other countries, as we sell world-wide).

 

I still wouldnt do it but it seems its ok for those who dare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with half a brain, who is reviving vintage images as vectors, should be able to figure out that someone with the same book could do the same thing.

 

So there are three options.

 

1. Use the public domain image as a starting point for a new image.

 

2. Copy the public domain image, understanding that you will not be able to protect your image if someone else uses the same source. Hope nobody else does.

 

3. Use the image, and sell it with full disclosure of where you got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.. And people who own both halves of brain and some basic morals could do another thing - ignore public domain images, ignore art of old masters who spent long weeks drawing it three hundred years ago and just create your own original vectors.. wouldnt that be the easiest solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.. And people who own both halves of brain and some basic morals could do another thing - ignore public domain images, ignore art of old masters who spent long weeks drawing it three hundred years ago and just create your own original vectors.. wouldnt that be the easiest solution?

 

This could be a way of think and it is correct BUT: this is not a traditional gallery art, this is a BUSINESS and business mean improved gain and profits and if the the law allow the use of old masterpieces then there's nothing wrong in use it for this purpose.

 

Think about Dante's Divine Comedy. thousand miles of copiees has been created starting from the original and editors sell it everywhere because after "some" years books are public domain. That's different environment but same concept: "use old masterpieces to create new products to sell" and off course you're not claiming the copyright because you upload source file along with the eps.

 

So if thing are done following the rules to me there's nothing wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit I didnt know that the source scanned illustration must be submitted along with the vector - which means there is different level of copyright protection provided by Shutterstock. Originally I thought that all vectors sold at Shutterstock are given the same kind of protection, now it makes some sense though Im still curious how this would be handled in real situation, if someone complained about "similarity" of two vectors traced from the same source. But hopefully people have enough wisdom not to do it, no matter how big portion of brain they possess :)

 

I fully understand your points about business-like character of this site but the idea of scanning an old illustration made by someone else, then turning it to a vector and selling as your own (even though with somewhat reduced copyrights) does not sound right to me. Its true its just a way of thinking and as you said - the law allows it.

 

Still, I would like to see more contributors here creating original illustrations. It surely requires great skills to make an exact copy of someone elses art, then why not to use these skills in more original way :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes if the law says it is ok, and it is, the copyright expires. And if SS admits these images I don't see anything wrong with it. Artists have copied each other all the time. I don't think contributors who use public domain images as source are going to report anyones elses vector made from the same book, that would be ridicolous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was wrong questioning the possible clash of copyrights between more people selling the vector copied from the same old illustration. I accept it and sorry for that.

 

Questioning the ethic side of copying someone elses art probably doesnt belong here either (still I couldnt help writing my opinion).

 

So to answer exactly the original question why this thread was created - if any of you has the link to the particular US law which applies to tracing (or copying) public domain images and then selling them in microstock photobanks - please share it here with those who are interested and would like to jump on the safe train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I somehow look at that the other way round, as I work as a graphic designer as well:

What would we designers do, if noone would sell that kind of things? Vintage graphics are used all the time and it's almost impossible to imitate them, on one hand because of certain techniques which were used back then, on the other hand because you simply wouldn't know much about how certain products actually looked like in certain periods without those graphics. Just try to buy a pair of shoes, a hat or canned food from, say, the end of the 19th century! Anyone? ;)

So, graphic designers *need* those vintage resources. They can't always illustrate those things themselves, otherwise they'd have to charge their clients for literally weeks of work - impossible. They often can't even buy the *original* old books or catalogs, because they're too rare or way too expensive.

And: Noone would ever tell a graphic designer, it wasn't *their* design, just because they used something, they didn't create entirely on their own, right?

Ok, there's a difference between *using* such and *selling* it (although it's both "commercial use"). But that's exactly what companies like Dover Publications or Pepin Press do: They spend money on vintage material, improve and print it and then re-sell it. Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with that, as long as it is legal.

What David said: We're not doing *art* in here, but provide graphic designers (and others) with source material.

 

Actually, I do understand everyone else's point of view as well, esp. as far as all legal questions are concerned. Personally, I use that kind of material and most probably will keep using it as long as the agencies agree.

I *always* do as much research on my sources as necessary in order to make sure, that I'm legally on the safe side, and submit all of my sourcefiles along with the vectors.

Plus, I only use very rare originals - I don't trace them from design resource books.

No "moral" doubts here at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that's exactly what companies like Dover Publications or Pepin Press do: They spend money on vintage material, improve and print it and then re-sell it. Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with that, as long as it is legal.

What David said: We're not doing *art* in here, but provide graphic designers (and others) with source material.

 

 

You are correct, though those vintage originals are almost always public domain or have the rights sold... not to mention that in order to use anything with a product here you have to scrub all logos and if the product has a trademark look it is always rejected. The question asked was how would you be able to tell if something was truly public domain or not. The answer is really with the contributor. This site does well in knowing what the trademarks are and if anything is on the fence they reject it or allow you to upload it as editorial.

 

with the composite images, I'd see more of an issue. As far as illustrations go, I don't upload it unless everything is made by me. That includes the concept, the brushes, and anything that it might stem from. If you don't want any trouble down the line about copyright,creative commons, or public domain you just have to be original. Just like photographers can't take a picture of a well known building and put it in a composite image, we as illustrators shouldn't be taking elements or templates from someone to make our images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...As far as illustrations go, I don't upload it unless everything is made by me. That includes the concept, the brushes, and anything that it might stem from. If you don't want any trouble down the line about copyright,creative commons, or public domain you just have to be original...

 

That's been my stance on things so far. I brought up the topic after coming into possession of a 135 year old book with some interesting illustrations in it, mostly small maps and other miscellaneous scenes and images. I don't think any of them alone would useful as a stock image, but as part of an image or composition, maybe.

 

Still not sure I'll do anything with the book, though. For now, it will probably just go on a shelf. It did pique my curiosity as to whether it even could be used in stock, which the answer here seems to be "yes" but with some stipulations on providing source information and with varying opinions on the morals and ethics of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0