Splitcoaststampers.com - the world's #1 papercrafting community
You're currently viewing Splitcoaststampers as a GUEST. We pride ourselves on being great hosts, but guests have limited access to some of our incredible artwork, our lively forums and other super cool features of the site! You can join our incredible papercrafting community at NO COST. So what are you waiting for?
Hello! I am making some cards to donate to a dog rescue that they can use to help get more donations - they are going to sell them on their website. What is the general rule for something like this? Do I need to name the stamp maker somewhere on the card? Or if it is a limited number am I ok?
Hi,
I think you may want to review the angel policies for the stamp companies you will be using. Many companies are ok if you just make a limited number. Or you may want to make a paper insert that you put with the card so that when it is sold, the copyright information is with the card but doesn't detract from the card itself.
sorry I couldn't be of more help.
__________________ ...I'm just meandering through life; trying to have some fun along the way!!!
What companies can legally do and not do about limiting what you make and sell with stamps, patterns, cut cartridge images, etc. is explained at this site:
I asked them in an email to clarify this issue, you cannot call the image your own, sell it as your own etc. But you CAN stamp images and use them on projects to sell. As many as YOU YOURSELF can make. You cannot enlist others to use that stamp and make them to sell yourself. They would have to purchase their own stamp/image/digi/die etc. to use. They cannot limit you to a specific number or tell you that you cannot sell the project made with it. But again, no "sharing" of the stamp/imgage/etc.
It has to do with the Right of First Sale doctrine, there are lots of links at the bottom of this site that explain and have court cases sited.
I'm wondering the same thing since I've recently started making cards for our local shelter to sell. I did just order a custom stamp a couple weeks ago that says "Handcrafted to benefit the UC Humane Society" with our website also listed. I figured it would get our name out to at least another couple people when the card is given away.
Each company has its own unique policy. Best to check their websites for specifics! Some require their company name to be written on the back of the card, some require permission, some have no requirements at all.
Here's a helpful link with general angel policy information for a billion companies:
What companies can legally do and not do about limiting what you make and sell with stamps, patterns, cut cartridge images, etc. is explained at this site:
I asked them in an email to clarify this issue, you cannot call the image your own, sell it as your own etc. But you CAN stamp images and use them on projects to sell. As many as YOU YOURSELF can make. You cannot enlist others to use that stamp and make them to sell yourself. They would have to purchase their own stamp/image/digi/die etc. to use. They cannot limit you to a specific number or tell you that you cannot sell the project made with it. But again, no "sharing" of the stamp/imgage/etc.
It has to do with the Right of First Sale doctrine, there are lots of links at the bottom of this site that explain and have court cases sited.
Hope this helps.
Thank you! I always knew this was true. Thanks for citing actual cases.
Each company has its own unique policy. Best to check their websites for specifics! Some require their company name to be written on the back of the card, some require permission, some have no requirements at all.
Here's a helpful link with general angel policy information for a billion companies:
I think it's great that they have time to research and update their Hall of Shame. I personally prefer the Angel list route. If someone goes to the trouble of creating something, I personally feel that it's just simply nice to respect their wishes on how it is used, sold, etc. If their policies are not in agreement with mine, I then have the right to buy or not buy their products.
__________________ By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest. Confucius
The misconception is that, all these angel policies and non use policies are legally binding. They are not. They can say it but it doesn't hold legal water. Those that create rubber stamps, digital images, dies, patterns, svg images etc. are protected by copyright laws. No one can take their rubber stamp, ........svg image etc. and call it their own or sell it as their own. Rightfully so and they should protect that right, but not to go beyond that.
BUT, those who purchase that rubber stamp .......svg image etc. CAN use it in anything they make and do not have to have any permission to do so and cannot be limited in the amount that THEY THEMSELVES can make with it. This is covered by law with the First Sale Doctrine and proven in many court cases. Somone may "wish" that those that purchase their product do not make money buy using it, but it is not legal for them to do so. Why would they, who are making money off of you, wish to limit you. By using it (either for or non profit) is free advertisting for them and they make more money by others seeing it used.
The person who make a rubber stamp .... svg etc. makes money off of that sale, they do not have the right to anything after that, except the protection of the copyright of the original stamp ...... svg etc.
As above, I cannot take say for example, a Gina K stamp, and sell it as my creation. I cannot copy the design and call it my own. I cannot make a copy of a Sizzix die and call it my own and sell it as such. I can make kits, projects, finished die cuts with embellishments ect. and sell them through the First Sale Doctrine since I am only using the product of that item that I purchased. I can not employ or enlist anyone else to help me, they would have to purchase a rubber stamp, die etc. to use for themself.
They cannot tell me that I have to use a declaration of "A Such and Such stamp/die cut/svg etc. was used to make this product." on my project. That is adverstising for them. We as crafters usually do share our "what did you use to make that" info and thereby the person gets more sales because of it. But again, it isn't a legal requirement to do so, even if they do say they "require" it.
Example, (from site) I purchase a car from say, a Ford dealership. They cannot tell me where or when or how much I can drive it, or in what way I can alter my car, or if I can use it to make money. You purchase a really pretty scrapbook paper and make it into a project. The designer and sell of that paper cannot tell you that you cannot sell the project made from it. I use a die to cut a heart out and make a project to sell, they die designer cannot tell me that I cannot use it to make a die cut heart to sell. They can tell me that I cannot copy their unique die design (not the heart image itself as it is a non copyrightable image, such as a star, circle, square etc. In other words you cannot copyright a "heart" and similar because you did not design the widely and well known heart image).
I purchase my computer. HP cannot tell me what printer I can use with it, or what programs I can load on it. They cannot tell me that I cannot make money with it. I use MS Excel to data base for my husbands boss and he pays me for it. MS cannot tell me that I cannot do that.
I respect and appreciate the people who put time and money into creating things to purchase, especially in the papercrafting industry, I love playing with the things they create. I also spend a lot of money on it and they benefit from it.
The misconception is perpetuated that these Angel policies, non use policies and copyright limitations (that go beyond copyright rights) are legal and binding. They are not. Sellers make products to sell. You purchased them, they get their money. Sellers/designers are protected from you taking their product and repackaging it as yours. New sellers see that others have angel policies/non use policies and think that they can do so also. So they check and see what they want in one, checking others policies, and make it up. If these "policies" were legal they would all be the same stipulations by law (as copyright law is), and there would be a law associated with it. There isn't. These angel policies/use polices go beyond copyright law.
By the way no all lawyers are versed in copyright law, just as all dr's are versed in all areas. You can get any lawyer to send a letter saying anything and all kinds of law suits are filed every day, even if they have no or iffy legal grounds (they still get their money either way, not lawyer bashing, my dad is one).
Actually, I have seen card stock in various well known companies here on SCS that are a stock item from a paper supplier/manufacturer (did they go and have a new formulation of paper and then have it manufactured, no.) and then is "renamed" as one of these companies "own" brand. It could be Neenah cardstock or another brand sold as their "very best ever" "bestest" etc. brand. Are they violating copyright of the Neenah brand? You sould be able to ask them what card stock brand it really is then. I am not knocking them for doing this, just saying that they did not have that card stock made from their special paper formula and then had it manufactured especially for them. They had to purchase it from a paper supplier/manufacturer and then called it their "brand". Possibly well known brands or ones that could be purchased elsewhere under another name.
I have to ask why do they do business use these policies and want to limit use? They are making money and when you use it, it is advertising (free, by the way) for them to sell more because of your exposure. I began researching this because I wanted to purchase some SVG files from a woman's online store, they were really cute. But I happened to see her "use" page. It was so limiting and had such strong CAPITAL WORDED NON USE issues that I wondered why she wanted to SELL them at all if she didn't want anyone to USE them. I felt she only only wanted my money. I then went to researching it.
We wouldn't have these copyright infringement issues if people were honest. Unfortunately some are not. But on the other hand, there are many copyright owners that are not honest in their stating their "rights" either. Be honest and don't call something that isn't yours, yours, either way.
I am not promoting anyone to abuse or infringe anyone's copyright, but it is not right either when you try to limit people's fair and honest use of a product. Research it for yourself, don't go on feelings, wishes etc. see what is legal under the law for both sides. There is enough to go around for everyone, if we are honest and fair.
TBH I never understood Angel Policies so I'm glad to see some further clarification. I hated being handcuffed to promoting a product that I may have used but may not have felt was a "great product" for whatever reason.
I think it would be prudent to be cautious regarding copyright infringement. We are not lawyers and personally, I don't have the money to pay for a lawyer to defend myself if one of the companies decided to push it with a test case.
Basically, I will not use a product I am unable to sell, have to list all their names on my card, can't use another company product on the same card, etc. There are too many "consumer friendly" companies out there for me to chose from.
Cathy
__________________ I stand alone without beliefs...the only truth I know is you
Well put! Frankly, I don't believe any company 'cares' about what we say should or shouldn't be done. Companies only listen to one thing & one thing alone ~ when our MONEY talks. So if you want to make a change ~ do so with your money! Stop supporting companies (not just stamp companies) who you don't believe are acting in a way you agree with. what's the old saying ~ Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catrick
I think it would be prudent to be cautious regarding copyright infringement. We are not lawyers and personally, I don't have the money to pay for a lawyer to defend myself if one of the companies decided to push it with a test case.
Basically, I will not use a product I am unable to sell, have to list all their names on my card, can't use another company product on the same card, etc. There are too many "consumer friendly" companies out there for me to chose from.
Thank you for all the information - sounds like I am in the clear to make some cards with the images that I have...I hope they sell well and help more dachshunds!
Thanks Mo...it is amazing how much information (miss-information) is out there on the internet passing itself off as "legit".
I feel if one is going to sell the crafts one makes then it is one's responsibility to ensure it does not violate the copyright. If one does not agree with the policy of a company then one does not have to use that product.
I.E. Whipper Snapper stamps..."its stamps and images are sold for personal use only, without the right to reproduce the copyrighted images for commercial/ personal resale"...so, I will only use the stamps on cards I give away and not sell.
It is not difficult to compile an Angel policy listing of your stamps and use only the ones that grant the right to sell cards that are made with their images.
Cathy
__________________ I stand alone without beliefs...the only truth I know is you
Thank you Sonya, and amen Monika! Mo, while I respect what you are saying--I do believe that the tabberone site brings up a very good point, which is: show us the court cases. A lawyer's opinion is just that. You get both sides in a case. So obviously lawyers can and do disagree. The key is, what is the legal precedent, and what the judges have said.
You are saying the person using the stamp should "make sure they aren't violating copyright law..." well, it seems to me that they are NOT, regardless of what the stamp manufacturer claims.
Sonya isn't saying you can sell the images; she said you can sell an item you MADE with an image that YOU personally stamped with the stamp. That's a big difference. And, why shouldn't you be able to sell a card you made? Just because you used a stamp to make it? Does that mean the rhinestones and glue companies should be able to tell you not to sell items made with their products? Sure, the image is a focal point and it took some design--but the money was made when it was sold. So how does it hurt the designer for you to make a card and sell it?
It would be interesting to read the actual copyright document for a rubber stamp--is it for the image, or for the stamp?
__________________ Lynn
"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right�--Lincoln
Last edited by nottoocreative; 05-25-2011 at 07:00 PM..
I am certainly not a lawyer, but I think there's a difference between some of the situations posted on the tabberone site and stamp images. I understand what Mo is saying about when you purchase a stamp, you're purchasing a license to use the image, and that makes perfect sense to me (especially with a digi stamp - where all you're getting is the image). But Provocraft's old angel policy, where they were pretty over-the-top about what you could and couldn't do with items made from your Cuttlebug and Cricut - excuse me, those are tools. If Craftsman sold me a jigsaw and tried telling me that I could only sell items cut with that jigsaw if any non-Craftsman brand tools were used on it, that jigsaw would be tied to my non-Craftsman anvil and thrown thru Craftsman's corporate HQ window.
And that's where this all gets confusing. Because a physical stamp is also a tool. But it's a tool that allows you to reproduce a copyrighted image.
So I'll stick with buying stamps from companies with angel policies that allow me to sell creations made with them - even though I don't sell my cards and don't really intend to start, if it does happen at some point down the road I'll be ready.
Thank you Sonya, and amen Monika! Mo, while I respect what you are saying--I do believe that the tabberone site brings up a very good point, which is: show us the court cases. A lawyer's opinion is just that. You get both sides in a case. So obviously lawyers can and do disagree. The key is, what is the legal precedent, and what the judges have said.
You are saying the person using the stamp should "make sure they aren't violating copyright law..." well, it seems to me that they are NOT, regardless of what the stamp manufacturer claims.
Sonya isn't saying you can sell the images; she said you can sell an item you MADE with an image that YOU personally stamped with the stamp. That's a big difference. And, why shouldn't you be able to sell a card you made? Just because you used a stamp to make it? Does that mean the rhinestones and glue companies should be able to tell you not to sell items made with their products? Sure, the image is a focal point and it took some design--but the money was made when it was sold. So how does it hurt the designer for you to make a card and sell it?
It would be interesting to read the actual copyright document for a rubber stamp--is it for the image, or for the stamp?
Excellent points! I was wondering the same things! Without a court case precendence, it's just personal belief.
__________________ Denise
"If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron.�
― Spider Robinson
I think Intellectual property rights are very difficult. I don't blame artists for trying to protect them, most are hardly paid as much as Wall Street Bankers.
However, I just wish to share these two pictures (neither my own) to illustrate that one is in the common domain and one is considered art. The art actually uses the image in the common domain. The copyright for the map belongs to London Underground, the copyright for what was created belongs to the artist. I don't know who actually gets the money or if it is divided for the proceeds of the sale of the art.
Not trying to stir up problems, but if a stamper purchases a stamp in a retail store and is supposedly purchasing a licensing agreement to use that stamp design the way the stamp originating company wants, then shouldn't every stamp come with a paper list of what the purchaser is agreeing to, or shouldn't it be a condition of the retail stores being able to sell that stamp that the retail store post a copy of each and every '"licensing agreement" in the store so potential customers know what they're agreeing to before they purchase? I know as a consumer, you have the right (in some cases) to return the item if you don't agree with the policy restrictions, but why is it always up to the consumer to have to pick through so many contradicting policies? Shouldn't the information be readily available to see before purchase?
Online stores are different because usually the stamp company has the information clearly posted on the site (while others you can dig all day long on the site and never find the information). Just seems like too many companies want to make the quick buck of selling the product then do the old "ignorance of the law is no excuse" if they don't like what the purchaser did with the product. I don't sell my cards so it's a non-issue for me right now, but I too will be one that if I decide to sell something in the future, companies that "forbid me" from selling something I've made based on their angel policy will no longer get any of my crafting dollars.
Not trying to stir up problems, but if a stamper purchases a stamp in a retail store and is supposedly purchasing a licensing agreement to use that stamp design the way the stamp originating company wants, then shouldn't every stamp come with a paper list of what the purchaser is agreeing to, or shouldn't it be a condition of the retail stores being able to sell that stamp that the retail store post a copy of each and every '"licensing agreement" in the store so potential customers know what they're agreeing to before they purchase? I know as a consumer, you have the right (in some cases) to return the item if you don't agree with the policy restrictions, but why is it always up to the consumer to have to pick through so many contradicting policies? Shouldn't the information be readily available to see before purchase?
Online stores are different because usually the stamp company has the information clearly posted on the site (while others you can dig all day long on the site and never find the information). Just seems like too many companies want to make the quick buck of selling the product then do the old "ignorance of the law is no excuse" if they don't like what the purchaser did with the product. I don't sell my cards so it's a non-issue for me right now, but I too will be one that if I decide to sell something in the future, companies that "forbid me" from selling something I've made based on their angel policy will no longer get any of my crafting dollars.
I don't sell my cards and have no intention of doing so, but I agree with you.
I am sort of new to this, but I don't recall ever seeing a statement on a stamp or in a store that you are only buying a "licensing agreement" to use this for your own personal use. I think it is understood you can't sell the image as if it was your own.
When you buy sheet music you can play the songs at a paid event and not have to get permission from the composer to do so. The composer is paid through Royalties on the printing of the sheet music, just as an artist is paid either by the company they design for or if they are selling their own stamps they make a profit from the sale of the stamps. You can't copy the sheet music you bought and sell or give it to others. So I understand the issue with swaps .You can't use a recording of those songs without permission from the artist who recorded them . I have numerous pieces of sheet music by several artist such as James Gallway. He writes the music, performs the songs in concerts and sells the sheet music for the songs. I don't need his permission to play these songs at a paid event. I would only need his permission to use a "recording" of him playing these songs at a paid event . Churches, schools have paid events all the time. Plus people hire musicians for wedding and such and I never heard of them needing permission to play sheet music they have purchased at these event .
I wonder why it is so different when people buy stamps?
__________________ "I have not failed . I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work" --Thomas A. Edison
Last edited by Barbara Jay; 05-26-2011 at 07:14 AM..
geogymnast, that's one thing I was thinking about too...if you think that I research every company's angel policy when I buy a stamp in a store, think again! Furthermore, if you think I am going to make some kind of spreadsheet and keep track of every card I make and whether it can be sold, you're crazy IMO!! If I only used 1 or 2 manufacturer's, that would be different.
I do understand that the image is art, but I also agree that here you are, selling your art on a tool that is DESIGNED to duplicate it. To me, that implies that you are okay with it being duplicated! It's like selling a song on some kind of mini device that is designed to make recordings of that song...and then turning around and saying "but we control how you use those recordings." whattt? Why even sell it, then?
A DJ makes money by playing songs that have been copyrighted--what if certain artists started saying "well, you can't make money with our songs" and the DJ was now supposed to keep track of all that. Granted, it would actually be a little easier for the DJ because their stuff is usually computerized these days, anyway. But the point being, once you've bought the album/CD, no one tells you how to use it (other than not duplicating the actual song and giving it away or selling it--which would be akin to selling stamped images--or claiming that you wrote it).
I still fail to see how making an item with a stamped image would be violating any kind of law, regardless of whether that company has posted a "policy" saying they don't want the stamp used in that way.
__________________ Lynn
"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right�--Lincoln
I think swaps are an entirely different can of worms. With swaps the company is harmed because the recipient generally doesn't buy the stamp(s)
If people buy ready made cards it is unlikely they would have purchased the stamp(s) . I bought a beautiful crocheted baby set at a fair. The pattern company didn't lose any money from this purchase because I had no intention of making it myself.
__________________ "I have not failed . I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work" --Thomas A. Edison
Last edited by Barbara Jay; 05-26-2011 at 07:32 AM..
Hi Cathy! You're so right . . . I think people forget that when someone uploads a website/blog/comment to the Internet, there's no truth-check so people need to be cautious.
I've only been drawing stamps for going on two years, but have been a professional artist for going on thirty years! I do this completely solo -- and even the companies you might guess were "large" usually are family run -- one or two-person small businesses. We do NOT make a lot of money and we DO care very much about our customers. Our policies are never intended to make it difficult for the customer to use our stamps -- that wouldn't be very smart business would it?
The first sale doctrine which Sonya mentioned by the way -- is meant for physical products, not the licensed image. So you can sell the actual rubber stamp you bought, but you can not freely distribute or sell the images you create from it -- except as the angel policy/ToU allows.
Does that make sense?
xoMo
Amen, Mo! I just want to add 2 points.
1.) I work for a company that is majority owned by my family members. While we are not in the creative arena, it is nice to see someone speak in support of small businesses. All any small business owner (including stamp companies & artists) is trying to do is earn an honest living and provide for their family. Small businesses are more stable in times of economic uncertainty, provide more personal service to customers, and contribute to their communities. And they provide many more job opportunities and tax revenue (FYI for those with an entitlement attitude) than most people think.
2.) Before we get any further into a legal debate about who has a "right" to what, let's talk about the other "R" word: Respect. And while we're at it, how about "right and wrong"? It is very simple:
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.Luke 6:31
When I posed the question (on the Flourishes thread) about crafting with my sister and letting her use a stamp I had bought, Mo was more than fair & reasonable in her response that she wouldn't have a problem with that. Yet some of you are so blinded by what you think are your "rights" that you don't seem to even see that she is being fair and reasonable. Instead there's talk about boycotting. That is your right, of course, but is it really right? Is that how you would want to be treated? Would you want someone to take something that you created and use it in a manner you didn't intend? Or would you rather that they respected your wishes?
Mo, thanks for sharing the info about selling the actual rubber stamp. Answers my question on the other thread about B/S/T. ((hugs))
PS - for those with real concerns about what is permitted/preferred by a particular artist/stamp company, you can always contact them and ask. It doesn't hurt to ask! I have an email in now to a company asking for clarification of their Angel Policy, and now that I'm aware of this issue, will do so from now on whenever I'm unclear as to a company's policy and wishes.
Last edited by PaperAddict; 05-26-2011 at 07:35 AM..
A DJ makes money by playing songs that have been copyrighted--what if certain artists started saying "well, you can't make money with our songs" and the DJ was now supposed to keep track of all that. Granted, it would actually be a little easier for the DJ because their stuff is usually computerized these days, anyway. But the point being, once you've bought the album/CD, no one tells you how to use it (other than not duplicating the actual song and giving it away or selling it--which would be akin to selling stamped images--or claiming that you wrote it).
I still fail to see how making an item with a stamped image would be violating any kind of law, regardless of whether that company has posted a "policy" saying they don't want the stamp used in that way.
I think with the DJ, he pays for the songs/CDs to use to provide a service that he is then paid for. So he DJs say a wedding where people listen and enjoy the tunes and dance the night away. Which kinda is like preforming the sheet music mentioned. At no time is the DJ then selling/giving away copies of the songs/CDs at the wedding. That would be where he gets into trouble. Like you can buy a CD and lend it to a friend but it is illegal to make copies of the CD to give away. Do you see the difference?
Like Barbara said, she can perform the music at an event and get paid to perform the service of a musician but she can't make copies of the sheet music and sell them or give them away.
The sheet music and CDs are both made to be reused, like the stamps, but within limits of use set by the creator. With none of those can copies given away or sold. You can sell the original you purchased but the new buyer would still be unable to sell or giveaway copies.
Like you can buy a CD and lend it to a friend but it is illegal to make copies of the CD to give away.
I think along these lines as well- I can buy a stamp and even lend it to a friend - but I cannot go to a someone and ask them to make another stamp using the same image.
If i buy the stamp - a tool intended to make an image - I should be able to make the stamp - do it's thing. I should be able to sell IF that is included as part of a finished product. The person purchasing the card or scrap page is purchasing my art work, the design and embellishment of the combined materials.
A little off the point . . . but do you ever read Snopes (the site that debunks or confirms rumors?) Here's their article about the copyright rules regarding singing the song "Happy Birthday" snopes.com: Happy Birthday Copyright
xoMo
PS > back, Catherine!
I didn't know that the song Happy Birthday is still under copyright !
I am very happy I never want the hassle of selling my cards
__________________ "I have not failed . I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work" --Thomas A. Edison
If i buy the stamp - a tool intended to make an image - I should be able to make the stamp - do it's thing. I should be able to sell IF that is included as part of a finished product. The person purchasing the card or scrap page is purchasing my art work, the design and embellishment of the combined materials.
In view of all of the various rules for using stamps you buy, maybe the wise idea would be not to sell anything you make with them.
From what I read most people just use the money they make from selling their cards and things to buy more stamps and supplies . If you aren't selling the cards you would not need as many different stamps . So financially you would be even without the hassle .
__________________ "I have not failed . I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work" --Thomas A. Edison
A little bit off topic, but still on somewhat....can I buy a CD or DVD and make a backup copy for myself? Like workout DVD's...they get used day after day after day and if someone would like to be able to use it forever. Years from now, if it goes bad from overuse, they may not be able to purchase their favorite one again, so it would make sense to make a copy and use the copy over and over...Anyone know what is okay in a situation like this?
I believe there have been court rulings that you can NOT make copies.
If my memory serves me right a person was fined thousands of dollars for putting iTunes songs they bought on CD's to play in their car. Another person loaded music CD's on their computer to play with an iPod and they were also fined. I am not sure how anyone found out they did this.
I agree about making the copies of a CD to give away being wrong, but I fail to see how making a card with a rubber stamp and selling that is any different from a DJ making money off playing the copyrighted songs in public. Selling the images, yes, that would make sense as being wrong. If I buy a CD, there is nothing (legal or ethical) stopping me from using it to DJ someone's wedding, for which I am paid.
Again, a stamp is a tool intended for duplication of the image.
Catherine, I don't think anyone is attacking Mo per se. We are just discussing the issues. As for being "right," we obviously don't all agree...I for one do not think it is at all unreasonable to expect to be able to use a tool I bought to make a card to sell! I don't think it's wrong or unfair in any way, shape or form. In fact, I think the opposite--it is unreasonable to sell such a tool and then expect the buyer to keep track of your personal preferences about how that tool is used. I do try to be respectful and do the right thing--but I happen to disagree with this one.
__________________ Lynn
"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right�--Lincoln
Music is indeed another can of copyright worms. I keep up with it on a few forums and truthfully by the letter of the law most DJ's (Sports Venues etc) break the law. There is a clause about how many people that are "listening" to the music and I believe it falls under performance rights royalties. HowStuffWorks "How Music Royalties Work" and Film & TV Music Knowledgebase :: What are performing rights royalties? Maybe the industry see it as a trade off for getting known but DJs (even at middle school dances etc) should be paying performance rights royalties by the letter of the law.
Interesting, River...I wonder if it's ever been taken to court. Again, you can always find a lawyer to agree with you!
Exactly - and I am sure there is a trade off. Does it really do the music industry any good to go after the little guy when that little guy is giving them free publicity and the little guy listeners may go and buy the original because of it. What is interesting in the "craft" world is how heavy handed the industry is with the little guy in general presumably because the potential revenue stream is smaller to begin.
ETA - Can you tell I have a dear friend that has a Doctorate in Modern Music? I will have to ask her if she had to pay royalties to teach her courses. I'm thinking not as the trade off is there but I'm ok with being surprised.
Paying the song writer when a group sings their song
We had an intersting experience a couple of years ago. We help our little museum host a Pioneer Day event to raise $ for the next year for electricity and insurance.
We have some no-professional group play Texas swing and entertain for an hour or so. We had a group from San Antonio that someone had heard, paid them around $200 for the gig. There were probably 100 people in attendance during the day, with about 50 when the group played.
At the end of the day we received an official notice from a deputy that we had to pay the songwriters a fee for the group playing their songs! It was mess and turned out it was legal to request payment for songs played. We had no control over what was played so we now have in our contract that the performers must pay this fee. It cost more to pay the songwriters than the group! It took almost all funds raised that day to clear the debt.
Question about Copyright Issues
