The Wave Pool > Stealing graphics

 


wizardkees
9/22/2006 10:37:29 AM
Today I visited a very popular graphics site that is set up to support, be supported by and cater to churches.  I was dismayed to find images that appear to have been taken from unauthorized sources.  For example, a corporate product logo modified to be a church slide. 

It is a violation of copyright law to use corporate logos for your own purposes without written permission.  Most major corporations have very specific and lengthy regulations on how, when, and why an outsider can use any of their logos.  They specify how often you can use it, the Pantone color requirements, how large it can be, the exact proportions etc.  They also require some sort of attiribution on your use or application.  Several years ago, the copyright specification book for the Lockheed Corporation was at least an inch thick with fine print.

In another graphic on this same web site the base image had been lifted from another, copyright protected, web site.  The person who made the modifications did not go out and take the original picture as the item in question no longer exists.  

I am dismayed that so many people do not comprehend that stealing intelluctual property is just as wrong as breaking into a jeweler's window because you need a tiara.  I am saddened to think that no one--not the webmaster, not the person's pastor, not the person's fellow congregant said, "By the way, what you did is stealing.  Knock it off."

Stealing is stealing.  It is one of the top 10 offenses.  Stealing for the glory of God does not honor God.  It does not reflect well on the church that allows it happen.    It does not reflect well on the body of Christ.  It does not win converts to Christianity. 

As you go about creating graphics for your projected images, bulletins, PowerPoints, and bulletin boards please use your own, totally original work or buy work from legal sources or get written permission and give attribution to the owner of the intellectual property.  If you steal a car and modify it by painting it a different color and changing the radio it does NOT make it yours.  It is still a felony.  Copyright violation is a felony, too.

Karen39
9/22/2006 11:27:18 AM
Speaking as a photographer, I wholeheartedly agree . . . stealing is stealing.  Which website was it? 

On the other hand, I have been accused of copyright violations by using images and/or video clips that I did have permission to use.  After  I explained we really did have permission, the people settled down. 

osborn4
9/22/2006 12:34:56 PM
If it's the web site I'm thinking of, I know they are vigilant about copyright violations. They understand both a) thier liability should they get caught and, more importantly, b) how breaking the law, even if not caught, effects thier witness as Christians.

Karen39
9/22/2006 2:06:42 PM
Which website is the one you are thinking of???

wizardkees
9/22/2006 5:39:55 PM
If the person who used the image and the corporate logo had permission, he or she should have included a line of attribution. Most corporations insist on it; look in any magazine and you will "x logo used by permission . . . ." If you have permission, then just put a line somewhere on your graphic or video "Used by permission x company/x person" or if the original image is from Suzy Jones, your firend, just put her name in a corner, even if you have modified the image. Something to give attribution. Also, get permission in writing and keep it in a file--paper or electronic. That will give you proof should anyone ever question your right to use something. Ian Britton's sites, freefoto.com and reelworship.com just ask that churches using his work just put his name and the sitename.com somewhere on the image. It doesn't need to be large. It can be in an unobtusive color. Grey often works well, but attribution should be there. A couple of years ago a high ranking New Jersey judge's high achieving daughter lost her admission to Harvard because she did not give attribution to some Presidential quotes when she wrote some articles that were printed in the newspaper. Someone noticed it and Harvard withdrew the offer--right before school began. Get written permission. Give attribution. Thank you for a place to get this off my chest.

mastermap
9/23/2006 9:43:02 AM
Perhaps before posting you think someone is steeling you should ask. Starting rumors can be just as bad has steeling.

Karen39
9/23/2006 12:15:19 PM
I'd like to know which website you are referring to. 

osborn4
9/23/2006 9:40:48 PM
I am not a laywer, nor do I play one on television.

I'll just say that copyright law is an inexact art. There are many different interpretiations and even the lawyers agree that no one agrees.

Many churches and Christian organizations do try to take the most conservative approach.

Also, there are clauses protecting satire/parody. I don't know the details, but I've heard they are in there.

Karen39
9/24/2006 6:12:36 AM
Plagirism is a whole different legal topic than copyright violation.  They're even under different sections of the law.  Plagirism and copyright violation are completely separate.  As it stands now, educational entities are allowed to use almost anything and not worry about copyright violations.  Some churches have taken this to mean they can do the same in their services.  I believe it is legal to do that in an education environment, but not during a sermon.  So, you could do that in Sunday School but not during a church service.  This is a very gray area.  If you are very concerned about this, you can go to churchmedia.net and post a question in the copyright section.  There are lawyers who review the questions and would be happy to answer your concerns. 

wizardkees
9/24/2006 6:13:37 AM
If you don't own it, get permission and give attribution. That way you are always in the right. The US Copyright laws are readily available on the web at http://www.copyright.gov/. The FAQ section is informative and thorough. You can also find informative articles by searching terms such as "fair use" and "parody." Yes, everything in the world is open to nuance and interpretation, but why not just get permission in the first place? Sometimes it is tedious and time-consuming, but often it can be acquired quickly via email or a phone call and follow-up fax or email. What is more important: what you want, when you want it or honoring God in all you do?

rkresge
10/11/2006 8:57:47 AM
Posted By Karen39 on 09/24/2006 6:12 AM
As it stands now, educational entities are allowed to use almost anything and not worry about copyright violations. 

Karen: That's less true than you might think, but it is true that the rules are a bit looser and allow some things that aren't allowed in other situations.  But schools can't just do anything they feel like, either.

I've read the copyright law, and although I'm not a lawyer it seems obvious to me that the educational exemptions are written for educational institutions.  Sunday School, as I understand what I've read, does not qualify for the education exemptions.  However, if the church were running an accredited school, the education exemptions in the copyright law would apply there.

Roger

To post messages to the forums you must be signed in to a user account.
An error has occurred. This application may no longer respond until reloaded. An unhandled exception has occurred. See browser dev tools for details. Reload 🗙