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?
I can rip my CDs into MP3s so I can play them on my MP3 player, but I can't share them with someone, or burn a CD for someone.
This was my thought with the workout DVD's. If I burn them for myself to have back ups, then that should be okay. I would not be copying them for friends and no one else would be working out with me..
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.
I agree, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone in the USA, thank God, is free to discuss ideas (up to a point). You have been respectful here and I appreciate that. In this day and age, people cannot always agree on what's right, which is a very sad state of affairs, IMO.
I also happen to agree with you about using an image to create a card and then selling the finished card. But that isn't my concern, so we are not talking about the same thing. You're talking about selling. I'm talking about sharing.
I entered the original discussion with 2 questions:
1.) What are the rules in borrowing a stamp. Specifically, can my sister use my stamp to make a card?
2.) How does this effect sharing an uncolored stamped image, such as in an image swap?
I didn't say, nor did I intend to imply, that anyone was attacking Mo. My point was that instead of having a civil conversation, where the parties speak and actually listen to each other, some people were spouting unconsidered knee-jerk reactions. In this case, I asked a question, Mo gave a thoughtful answer, and we have understanding. Eureka! Yet there were others who were so set on having their say and going on a tirade, they missed it completely.
Mo, it's been great chatting with you! I'm sure we'll run into each other again and I look forward to it! YGG!
I agree, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone in the USA, thank God, is free to discuss ideas (up to a point). You have been respectful here and I appreciate that. In this day and age, people cannot always agree on what's right, which is a very sad state of affairs, IMO.
I also happen to agree with you about using an image to create a card and then selling the finished card. But that isn't my concern, so we are not talking about the same thing. You're talking about selling. I'm talking about sharing.
I entered the original discussion with 2 questions:
1.) What are the rules in borrowing a stamp. Specifically, can my sister use my stamp to make a card?
2.) How does this effect sharing an uncolored stamped image, such as in an image swap?
I didn't say, nor did I intend to imply, that anyone was attacking Mo. My point was that instead of having a civil conversation, where the parties speak and actually listen to each other, some people were spouting unconsidered knee-jerk reactions. In this case, I asked a question, Mo gave a thoughtful answer, and we have understanding. Eureka! Yet there were others who were so set on having their say and going on a tirade, they missed it completely.
Mo, it's been great chatting with you! I'm sure we'll run into each other again and I look forward to it! YGG!
UNSUBBING
One of the many joys of a public forum, one idea spawns another, and just like that a completely new conversation is born! I appreciate that. It's part of what makes these kinds of threads enlightening. So many people with so many different view points get to share their experiences and beliefs.
__________________ 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 agree, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone in the USA, thank God, is free to discuss ideas (up to a point). You have been respectful here and I appreciate that. In this day and age, people cannot always agree on what's right, which is a very sad state of affairs, IMO.
I also happen to agree with you about using an image to create a card and then selling the finished card. But that isn't my concern, so we are not talking about the same thing. You're talking about selling. I'm talking about sharing.
I entered the original discussion with 2 questions:
1.) What are the rules in borrowing a stamp. Specifically, can my sister use my stamp to make a card?
2.) How does this effect sharing an uncolored stamped image, such as in an image swap?
I didn't say, nor did I intend to imply, that anyone was attacking Mo. My point was that instead of having a civil conversation, where the parties speak and actually listen to each other, some people were spouting unconsidered knee-jerk reactions. In this case, I asked a question, Mo gave a thoughtful answer, and we have understanding. Eureka! Yet there were others who were so set on having their say and going on a tirade, they missed it completely.
Mo, it's been great chatting with you! I'm sure we'll run into each other again and I look forward to it! YGG!
UNSUBBING
Though you have unsubbed - I would just like to clarify that in this thread in case people wish to go back to read' that your first post in the thread was to call people "entitled" because they wish to use what they own in a way they see fit. And to secondarily say they had no "respect".
Now I don't know you but it actually read as a very snide comment to me implying people had no right to expect to use their own property as they wanted and had no respect. Both comments were completely out of the blue for this thread from what I have read.
I'm glad you got your answer but TBH there was no need to be rude about it by calling people names and attributing behaviors that wasn't described in the thread. Apologies in advance if I have misread the situation.
Last edited by RiverIsis; 05-26-2011 at 06:00 PM..
I have a few questions that pertain to actual stamps. I do believe the rules for digital stamps would be different:
Does the copywrite belong to the original artwork the rubber stamp was created from? Is there a separate copywrite for the rubber stamp, which is a reverse image, sometimes altered from the original art work? Or is it a tool created by the owner of the original image with the implied consent that the tool can be used to create additional images of the rubber stamp. And after the image is stamped and colored, embossed or otherwise altered does it then become the copywrited work of the stamper? If I stamp several images from a stamp does each separate image gain its own copywrite upon my act of creation even if I do nothing further to it?
__________________ 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
The copyright is for the image only -- intellectual property is not really "tangible" -- even if it is an original drawing, it's not the paper and ink that are copyrighted -- it's what you see when you look at it and that belongs to the creator. That one copyright applies to that image whether you're looking at the piece of paper the artist drew on, a photo of drawing, a print of it, the reverse image in a rubber stamp or even the image ripped in half and tacked to a wall.
That's why you can't actually own another person's copyrighted image -- and why you can't trade or sell other copies of it without permission -- it's because the only thing you actually "own" is that piece of wood and rubber!
Even if you alter it it remains the intellectual copyright of the artist and you can't say -- print off 100 color copies of it at Kinkos (again, unless you have permission!)
PS I should say that a copyright CAN be sold by the creator to someone else. I know some artists sell their copyrights to the companies they work for. But I guess they gotta eat!!
I do understand what you are saying. I don'tagree that the images made from a rubber stamp sold to an individual can't be sold by that individual. The closest craft related to this idea would ceramics. Companies create three diminsional artwork. From this item they create a case and make molds to sell to individuals to make copies of that original piece. Those molds are produced for the individual purchaser to make multiple copies and sell, give away or keep as they see fit. The original sculpture is an intellectual property. I also agree that is would be a violation to use the cast piece from the original mold to make additional molds to sell. In stamping I would see it as a violation to take a stamped image and a make a stamp from that image, especially if the intent were then to sell the stamps.
So I guess even though I have no intent to ever sell cards or stamped images, rubber stamp creators and companies will have to decide if they want to sell me stamps based on what I believe are my rights to the images. If they do not agree to my terms of use they need to accept the responsibility to not sell me their product.
__________________ 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
Though you have unused - I would just like to clarify in this thread in case people wish to go back to read that your first post in the thread was to call people "entitled" because they wish to use what they own in a way they see fit. And to secondarily say they had no "respect".
Now I don't know where you but it actually read as a very snide comment to me implying people had no right to expect to use their own property as they wanted and had no respect. Both comment were completely out of the blue for this thread from what I have read.
I'm glad you got your answer but TBH there was no need to be rude about it by calling people names and attributing behaviors that wasn't described in the thread. Apologies in advance if I have misread the situation.
I just went back and read the first post #30 and it does sound very brisk and condescending .
__________________ "I have not failed . I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work" --Thomas A. Edison
All I am reading about copyright law really just addresses making a copy of the actual art (as in, making your own stamp, or saying that you are the designer when you are not, or something along those lines). Rubber stamps seem to be in a class by themselves because they are in fact designed to copy the artwork. So, nothing I have read so far (except the one lawyer's opinion on that avvo site) shows me that selling cards, borrowing someone's stamp, or even giving them a few stamped images would be in violation of the copyright laws. Even on that avvo site, they were all careful to say "consult a local lawyer."
__________________ 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
well the Flourishes thread that started this conversation is closed, but I have to say I find it interesting that some people are quoting "law" back and forth, but no one has shown where it has ever been enforced (in regards to stamping). I would be interested to see these laws rather than someone else's interpretation of them...cuz like I said, I'm not seeing it so far.
I'm curious, though, if you don't want your images shared--why would you put them on a stamp in the first place? This is NOT the same as copying a CD for someone else...that would be like making an actual stamp for them.
I also don't know of very many people who are sending out "100s" of images, so I don't think that should be the basis of discussing swaps!
__________________ 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
It may be a relatable instance, however there was a injunction of some sort against the movie "The Hangover 2" because of the use of the Mike Tyson designed for him face tattoo on one of the other actors. The original tattoo artist claimed the tattoo on Tyson's face was his artwork and that it couldn't be replicated for the the movie etc. I think the movie was allowed to release on time but the case hasn't been settled.
One day I decided to write an article about copyright and papercrafting and solicited questions. I got a lot. All good ones.
And I started my research, even talking with an intellectual property lawyer. (She looked at me like I was nuts with questions like "can a paper manufacturer bar me from selling a card made with the paper?" I think her answer was "Oh you make cards?" LOL
Her point was that 99% of my questions weren't worth the $$ for a stamper to find out. In areas where the law is not specific, everyone acts in good or bad faith and if your rights are trampled, you send a letter telling the person to stop and/or go to Court.
Well, there are few of us who are actually going to do that or have a suit filed against us. So the rest is internet chatter. And, as Mo said earlier, a lot of internet chatter is just plain wrong.
I act on the "do unto others" rule and if I'm doing something illegal I'm sorry!! Lord knows I'm not making a dime on what I'm doing!!
__________________ Dear Paperlicious is my blog...with a series on how I'm learning to improve my cardmaking by studying others.
Joan, are you saying that certain stamp companies are suing purchasers for using their stamps to sell finished products that have their stamp used on them?
One day I decided to write an article about copyright and papercrafting and solicited questions. I got a lot. All good ones.
And I started my research, even talking with an intellectual property lawyer. (She looked at me like I was nuts with questions like "can a paper manufacturer bar me from selling a card made with the paper?" I think her answer was "Oh you make cards?" LOL
Her point was that 99% of my questions weren't worth the $$ for a stamper to find out. In areas where the law is not specific, everyone acts in good or bad faith and if your rights are trampled, you send a letter telling the person to stop and/or go to Court.
Well, there are few of us who are actually going to do that or have a suit filed against us. So the rest is internet chatter. And, as Mo said earlier, a lot of internet chatter is just plain wrong.
I act on the "do unto others" rule and if I'm doing something illegal I'm sorry!! Lord knows I'm not making a dime on what I'm doing!!
I think that's part of what Tabberone's site complains about--the laws are NOT clear, and yet some big company goes after a mom & pop ebay seller, who clearly cannot afford to hire a lawyer to defend themselves. So, even though they put disclaimers on their site ("this is not official John Deere merchandise," for example) and believe they are following the law, they have to go out of business...
__________________ 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 am copy/pasting a bit of one of my responses on the Flourish website. I would like to add that everything is getting blown out of proportion... "general" comments are being taken personally...people are really getting heated over this discussion, information posted on the internet is being treated as "gospel" and taken out of context.
FYI - "First sale" doctrine relates to one person purchasing a stamp and having the ability to sell it to another person. CR law states, "If one resells or gives as a gift a book (or CD or DVD) that one has bought, a new copy has not been made, therefore it is legal under US copyright law".
The "sticky" part comes in when a person purchases a stamp and sells the copies of the images they have stamped....this is a violation of copyright and ergo, swapping images falls under this category.
Where some people seem to be taking offense is in the literal interpretation of this and getting their backs up and talking about boycotts.
Allowing my daughter/sister/friend/neighbor to stamp a couple of images to make cards is a far cry from a group of people swapping hundreds of stamped images or, even stamping the images and selling them.
Yes, "common sense" has to apply...so does a sense of responsibility and respect for the stamping companies. If one took a look at the Swap SCS board there are over three million posts to the topic....if everyone swapped instead of buying...this is what the stamping companies are talking about...the swapping groups, not the occasional one...the lost to them can become staggering.
I also think relying on the copyright laws via the internet is dangerous. None of us are lawyers and relying on misinformation is dangerous. Copyright protection regarding stamps is a whole different area than dvd/cd copying in Canada and internet information should never be relied on.
I will continue to let my daughter borrow my stamps. I will even borrow/swap a stamp with my friend.....I will not join a swapping group because for me, that crosses the line. Now there is talk of more people boycotting the stamping companies that are trying to protect themselves. I don't believe that you are really hurting the stamping companies in the long run but, with your anger and wish to lash out because they have politely requested no swapping groups you are denying yourself beautiful images.
Cathy
__________________ I stand alone without beliefs...the only truth I know is you
It is hard to hear "tone" of a persons voice on a written message. I try to give the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification if it seems iffy on 'heated' conversations. Forums are a good way to discuss and see all the sides and you will rarely 100% of the time see everyone agree. Same here, but it is good for thought and to see other views to consider.
Thanks for the info on swapping. I never looked at those posts for swapping. I vaguely thought that they were finished cards that were "swapped" between groups. It never crossed my mind to swap stamps like that.
I think there is a consensus that there is no problem if someone purchases a stamp/digi/svg whatever and uses it for there own personal crafting and gives it as a gift or keeps it for themself. But the problem comes when the person who has purchased a stamp then makes a project and then sells it for profit.
I see that the issue is divided here with the copyright owner not wanting anyone else to profit from their creation (not meaning obvious taking the design for themselves and selling it but from a project made with it.) And those that say it doesn't take anything away from the owner since they were paid for the stamp already. Businesses are in the business to make money and they see this as profit that should be theirs. They do have bills to pay and payroll to make.
In these financially trying times, when I have soon to be listed svg's for sale, I am not going to limit anyone from making a profit from any legally purchased files that I sell from the projects that they themself make. If I can help them in this small way then I will. I don't think that anyone will get rich off of selling handmade cards. That is my choice, it may not be the choice of others, not knocking those that differ, they have other considerations that we may not know.
Most people here would agree that it is wrong to:
1. Take someone elses designs and say that they created them/and or reproduce them and sell them as such.
2. Sell uncolored stamped images/digis etc., multiple ones as a business or casually on a consistent basis. That would be the same as #1.
3. Empolying others to mass produce to sell from a stamp not having been liscened to do so.
If you are trying to "get around" the copyright law then it probably isn't kosher. Again, most here desire to do the right thing.
Last edited by sea777; 05-30-2011 at 01:04 PM..
Reason: my stupid computer does weird things and posts, deletes comments and such while I am typing!!!!!!!!
1) One can purchase a rubber stamp and gift it, lend it or sell it to someone else.
2) One can make a card using the stamp and gift or sell (a few companies do not even allow this) that card.
3) One cannot stamp images with the stamp and sell (apparently, this includes image swapping) the images.
I am not sure about an .svg or digital stamp whether they can be resold or not as they are intangible. I do believe one can make things with the .svg and sell them..but not sell a copy of the .svg.
The digital stamp would fall into the same domain as a rubber stamp...sell cards made with it but not sell the image file or any you print off.
Cathy
__________________ I stand alone without beliefs...the only truth I know is you
I am copy/pasting a bit of one of my responses on the Flourish website. I would like to add that everything is getting blown out of proportion... "general" comments are being taken personally...people are really getting heated over this discussion, information posted on the internet is being treated as "gospel" and taken out of context.
FYI - "First sale" doctrine relates to one person purchasing a stamp and having the ability to sell it to another person. CR law states, "If one resells or gives as a gift a book (or CD or DVD) that one has bought, a new copy has not been made, therefore it is legal under US copyright law".
The "sticky" part comes in when a person purchases a stamp and sells the copies of the images they have stamped....this is a violation of copyright and ergo, swapping images falls under this category.
Where some people seem to be taking offense is in the literal interpretation of this and getting their backs up and talking about boycotts.
Allowing my daughter/sister/friend/neighbor to stamp a couple of images to make cards is a far cry from a group of people swapping hundreds of stamped images or, even stamping the images and selling them.
Yes, "common sense" has to apply...so does a sense of responsibility and respect for the stamping companies. If one took a look at the Swap SCS board there are over three million posts to the topic....if everyone swapped instead of buying...this is what the stamping companies are talking about...the swapping groups, not the occasional one...the lost to them can become staggering.
I also think relying on the copyright laws via the internet is dangerous. None of us are lawyers and relying on misinformation is dangerous. Copyright protection regarding stamps is a whole different area than dvd/cd copying in Canada and internet information should never be relied on.
I will continue to let my daughter borrow my stamps. I will even borrow/swap a stamp with my friend.....I will not join a swapping group because for me, that crosses the line. Now there is talk of more people boycotting the stamping companies that are trying to protect themselves. I don't believe that you are really hurting the stamping companies in the long run but, with your anger and wish to lash out because they have politely requested no swapping groups you are denying yourself beautiful images.
Cathy
I absolutely agree with your post. I was the one that brought up common sense on the other thread, I meant that it has to come from both parties in general, not specific people. The designers and purchaser need to use common sense.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of people don't understand the difference between sharing the STAMP itself with friends/family and sharing a bunch of stamped IMAGES with a group of people from the web. And I do think this is where common sense and respect comes in.
For those that are way more computer tech savy than me, off topic a bit, but relevant to why I had to edit my dang post. When I am typing either in a post box or even on Word, it does weird things like deleting most or all of what I just typed, randomly posts an post that I am still typing on. Why does it do that and can I make it stoppppp!!!!! I never had this problem with my old laptop. Thanks for any answers and sorry for the off topic.
Yes, "common sense" has to apply...so does a sense of responsibility and respect for the stamping companies. If one took a look at the Swap SCS board there are over three million posts to the topic....if everyone swapped instead of buying...this is what the stamping companies are talking about...the swapping groups, not the occasional one...the lost to them can become staggering.
Have you actually looked at the threads in the Swap Board ~ if you have, then you know that Images are but a very small subsection (having only 5 pages ~ 126,649 posts TOTAL) & of those there aren't that many (about 13 to be exact) that are active & if you look closer ~ you'd see quite a few posts that are 'bump' or just general 'Hi There ~ How are you doing?' Posts. Not just that, but if you look at the 'rules' of some of the image swaps ~ you'd see that granting a wish involves ~ 8 QUARTER SHEETS per wish!!!
Let's see ~ Card swapping has 1,101,562 posts & the most is for Everything Else with 1,258,074. Now Everything Else includes the people who are wanting to get rid of their actual stamps ~ which is 'not' considered 'bad' or harmful to the stamp companies...
Just as it's been repeatedly said by others in this thread~ not all information on the internet can be trusted or should be taken as 'gospel' (no matter who it comes from)... Check it out for yourself...
And I'm pretty sure I can speak for at least 75% of the members of SCS ~ no one wants to see any stamp company go out of business. Yes, images are nice ~ but nothing gives you the freedom that the actual stamp does for various techniques.
It seems 'common sense' that someone who has gotten images from someone across the country would be more likely to buy the stamp versus someone who can borrow the stamp anytime they want from a friend or family member.
1) One can purchase a rubber stamp and gift it, lend it or sell it to someone else.
2) One can make a card using the stamp and gift or sell (a few companies do not even allow this) that card.
3) One cannot stamp images with the stamp and sell (apparently, this includes image swapping) the images.
I am not sure about an .svg or digital stamp whether they can be resold or not as they are intangible. I do believe one can make things with the .svg and sell them..but not sell a copy of the .svg.
The digital stamp would fall into the same domain as a rubber stamp...sell cards made with it but not sell the image file or any you print off.
Cathy
I agree with what you said here (other than I'm not sure it's really legally correct when companies tries to tell you that you can't sell an item made with the stamp)--
--except for the image swapping part. I'm not sure on that one, and I think that's where another gray area comes in. As for your other comments about swapping "hundreds of images," that's not really how it works 99% of the time! Like AGMommy said...it's usually about 8 quarter sheets. There may be some extremists out there who are swapping/stamping "hundreds" of images, and I would have to agree that perhaps they are stepping over the ethical line of "sharing." But most of the time, stamping a few images for someone doesn't seem wrong to me...again, why make a stamp of your images if you don't want them used? Other visual copyrighted art is a finished product--rubber stamps are MADE for you to turn into your own variation/creation. It's not clear that it's the same law, to me.
I don't think anyone is "getting their back up" about selling stamped images. No one has said we should be able to do that. People are "getting their back up" about being told they cannot sell items made with a stamp they bought (from SOME companies), or that they cannot stamp 8 images to give to someone else with that 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; 05-30-2011 at 05:05 PM..
For those that are way more computer tech savy than me, off topic a bit, but relevant to why I had to edit my dang post. When I am typing either in a post box or even on Word, it does weird things like deleting most or all of what I just typed, randomly posts an post that I am still typing on. Why does it do that and can I make it stoppppp!!!!! I never had this problem with my old laptop. Thanks for any answers and sorry for the off topic.
Are you using a laptop? Are you using a mouse or the touch pad with a laptop? I had to tape a piece of cardboard over that darned touchpad and use a wireless mouse because I was always accidentally touching it and it was doing things without me!
Well, I know that people will disagree with my feelings on this subject, but this is how I see things. When I buy a stamp, I can do whatever I want with it, as long as I don't try to pass it off as my own design. A stamp is a tool, not a work of art that is bought to be hung on a wall or placed on exhibit solely as an artistic piece. If that's the case, then the stamp designers shouldn't have their designs made into stamps. (I'm not saying that the designers aren't artists, though, and I don't mean to de-value their talents.)
If I want to lend my stamps to friends or family, I will. If I want to stamp off some images to give away or trade, I will. If I want to sell cards or other hand-made projects, using hand-stamped images, I will. If a stamp company has nothing better to do with its time than come after and sue little old me, then it can go right ahead. I don't have time to research and keep track of each and every stamp company's Angel Policy (which I don't believe is enforceable anyway). If they feel that strongly about it, they should include their policy with the stamp so that I can make an informed decision about whether or not I want to buy their stamps.
There are plenty of stamp companies out there that don't have a problem with any of the things I've mentioned. I've refused to buy stamps from some companies who have made it very clear that they are very proprietary about their images and don't even want you sharing stamped images. That's my right as a consumer.
As I said, I know others will disagree with me, but that's how I feel. With all of the things I have to worry about in my life, this is very small stuff. And I try not to sweat the small stuff.
Lynn, not sure if you missed this -- (see below) but I'm clipping my answer from a few posts back as to why you can't do just "anything" with a stamp you bought to use to stamp.
I know my rights as an illustrator. I have been negotiating contacts with companies for 30 years for various rights to my work. A users license for a stamp is a contract too. And a copyright owner can pick and choose the rights they want to sell to you. You, as a consumer can pick and choose to buy only stamps by a stamp company who grants you permissions that you agree with.
xoMo
Mo, let me say first that I appreciate your responses--you are definitely remaining polite, even though I'm sure we are probably stepping on your toes as a designer and artist! Thank you for providing all of this information.
I did see your post, I'm just not convinced that it applies Again I ask "where are the court cases" vs lawyer's opinions? I agree with you about a finished piece of art; that seems clear. But a stamp, which is a tool designed for duplicating that art--not so clear. You mentioned that we are buying a "license," but how is the buyer to know that? Every CD you buy has the law right on it...not so for a stamp.
Does the "terms of agreement" the maker supposedly puts out there really hold water legally--especially since it is never made clear when you buy the stamp that there is some unwritten contract that you are entering into?
Even the online sellers of rubber stamps do not require you to indicate that you understand that you are agreeing to their terms of use (except for digital stamps). Not everyone is on SCS, so my guess is there are LOTS and LOTS of stampers who are unaware of all this.
Furthermore, for a CD it's pretty much all the same. But we are expecting everyone to keep track of all these angel policies?? I do agree with you that you can choose not to purchase if you disagree with the terms (which is what some people are saying)--but what if you already purchased and didn't know the terms?
This is the issue I am raising.
On a more personal note, may I ask why someone would put their art on a stamp and then expect to dictate whether that image is sold on a card? I know you've said YOU are okay with the card being sold--but why would someone NOT be okay with that?
__________________ 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
Lynn, not sure if you missed this -- (see below) but I'm clipping my answer from a few posts back as to why you can't do just "anything" with a stamp you bought to use to stamp.
I know my rights as an illustrator. I have been negotiating contacts with companies for 30 years for various rights to my work. A users license for a stamp is a contract too. And a copyright owner can pick and choose the rights they want to sell to you. You, as a consumer can pick and choose to buy only stamps by a stamp company who grants you permissions that you agree with.
xoMo
Mo~ I know this was not directed towards me ~ but I think that at least for me, sometimes the consumer either is not presented with the permissions granted at time of purchase (say at the stamping store) or the Angel Policies are very hard to find on the website &/or not very clear ~ many only refer to actual selling images/hand-made projects. Not that many have specific references to swapping. And then there is the issue of online swapping vs local swapping. Many posts have said that online swapping is 'stealing' & local swapping is a-ok. But either way, the artist/stamp company did not get paid. Also, it was mentioned that online swapping is like getting something for free. But considering that there is actual postage & other expenses incurred, the actual people who are getting something 'free' are the local swappers ~ sisters/neighbors/friends, etc. Most online swaps are limited to 8-12 images, whereas with local groups how many images the group ladies will stamp.
THink of it this way ~ if I sent 8 images to an online friend (who I've made almost a many online friends thru SCS as local stamping friends) in California & she sends me 8 images, and I decide that I'd really like to watercolor that image, but the images I received were all Copic-ready. The probability of my actually ordering the stamp is pretty high. BUT lets change the scenario ~ lets say, my best friend/neighbor has a stamp set that I used last week to make 8 images in Copic-ready ink & I decide I want to watercolor it instead. Why the heck would I buy the stamp set? I just give my BFF a call & I've got the set in hand within minutes (assuming of course we're both home). That said, it seems SCS with it's abilities to actually regulate/limit the number of images that can be sent, is more in line with the 'Common Sense' swapping then local ladies who can very well, do as they wish & borrow stamps when ever they choose.
I've said this many times, but just in case, I agree you have the right to have your art used in the manner in which you choose & I will honor your wishes. I may not agree with them & actually think that by targeting online image swapping you might be hurting your business more than helping. The people who are going to abuse the system, will continue to do it & those who play by the rules will be left with a bitter taste in their mouths.
Frankly, I don't believe that banning or allowing online swaps will have any affect what so ever on a stamping company. I might be wrong ~ & I'd love to see some statistical data to support either way. Maybe Hambo can show that after their ban 2 years ago, sales went up as a direct result? Although I'd venture to guess it might be hard to link an increase in sales to that one particular event in this ever-changing stamping environment (including sales, advertising, new releases, expanded outlets, etc).
Oh ~ it's getting rather late here on the East Coast & I'm not sure I've expressed myself coherently, but I hope so. I have not written this to say that artist's do not have legal rights, but just to point out that maybe 'GoodWill' goes a long way...
Well, I know that people will disagree with my feelings on this subject, but this is how I see things. When I buy a stamp, I can do whatever I want with it, as long as I don't try to pass it off as my own design. A stamp is a tool, not a work of art that is bought to be hung on a wall or placed on exhibit solely as an artistic piece. If that's the case, then the stamp designers shouldn't have their designs made into stamps. (I'm not saying that the designers aren't artists, though, and I don't mean to de-value their talents.)
If I want to lend my stamps to friends or family, I will. If I want to stamp off some images to give away or trade, I will. If I want to sell cards or other hand-made projects, using hand-stamped images, I will. If a stamp company has nothing better to do with its time than come after and sue little old me, then it can go right ahead. I don't have time to research and keep track of each and every stamp company's Angel Policy (which I don't believe is enforceable anyway). If they feel that strongly about it, they should include their policy with the stamp so that I can make an informed decision about whether or not I want to buy their stamps.
There are plenty of stamp companies out there that don't have a problem with any of the things I've mentioned. I've refused to buy stamps from some companies who have made it very clear that they are very proprietary about their images and don't even want you sharing stamped images. That's my right as a consumer.
As I said, I know others will disagree with me, but that's how I feel. With all of the things I have to worry about in my life, this is very small stuff. And I try not to sweat the small stuff.
I agree with everything you've said here.
__________________ 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
Joan, are you saying that certain stamp companies are suing purchasers for using their stamps to sell finished products that have their stamp used on them?
No. I was saying the opposite. Litigation, particularly in federal court, is well beyond the means of most folks involved in the papercrafting industry (except for the very big guys). So, to the extent that laws need interpretation to apply them to a specific set of facts, there is not a lot of precedence specific to our world.
It doesn't mean that artists do have legal protections. I just could not find super easy clear rules for some of the gray areas.
__________________ Dear Paperlicious is my blog...with a series on how I'm learning to improve my cardmaking by studying others.
I will be the first one to admit that I have at one time, "ripped" an image of a stamp and created a digital copy for one card....I was not comfortable about it either...but that is for me to live with and I sure did not sell it or post about it on my blog.
It doesn't matter one iota that companies don't take the time to sue users who violate the copyright laws. It doesn't matter that most of them are too small and don't have the money to do so. It doesn't matter because I am aware of it and to continue swapping because I can get away with it is plain wrong.
None of us are lawyers. We can talk to another lawyer until we are blue in the face...we can research copyright laws on the internet until we are blue in the face. We can sit here and demand court cases to back up the stamping company's stance. We can sit here and continue to swap, to borrow even though we have been told by these same companies that it is wrong....does not make it right!
It is our responsibility as a consumer to be aware of laws governing products we are using, especially in the "crafting" world...ignorance is not a defense in a court of law.
SCS already has a listing of Angel Policies of the various companies. I really don't believe we have too many stamps from so many different companies that we cannot take the time to monitor our own inventory...I am sorry!
Make a list of the stamp companies you have and note their policies. Sell cards when you can, not buy/use stamps if you do not agree with their policy (you do not have to agree with it however, you do have to accept it and respect it).
Bottom Line:
- Physical stamps can be bought, gifted or sold.
- Stamped images (including digital images) cannot be sold or swapped (depending on individual company's policy).
- Cards made with images legally purchased may or may not be sold (depending on individual company's policy).
I also, think this subject has been talked to death, we have gone around in enough circles and should be closed.
Cathy
__________________ I stand alone without beliefs...the only truth I know is you
I will be the first one to admit that I have at one time, "ripped" an image of a stamp and created a digital copy for one card....I was not comfortable about it either...but that is for me to live with and I sure did not sell it or post about it on my blog.
It doesn't matter one iota that companies don't take the time to sue users who violate the copyright laws. It doesn't matter that most of them are too small and don't have the money to do so. It doesn't matter because I am aware of it and to continue swapping because I can get away with it is plain wrong.
None of us are lawyers. We can talk to another lawyer until we are blue in the face...we can research copyright laws on the internet until we are blue in the face. We can sit here and demand court cases to back up the stamping company's stance. We can sit here and continue to swap, to borrow even though we have been told by these same companies that it is wrong....does not make it right!
It is our responsibility as a consumer to be aware of laws governing products we are using, especially in the "crafting" world...ignorance is not a defense in a court of law.
SCS already has a listing of Angel Policies of the various companies. I really don't believe we have too many stamps from so many different companies that we cannot take the time to monitor our own inventory...I am sorry!
Make a list of the stamp companies you have and note their policies. Sell cards when you can, not buy/use stamps if you do not agree with their policy (you do not have to agree with it however, you do have to accept it and respect it).
Bottom Line:
- Physical stamps can be bought, gifted or sold.
- Stamped images (including digital images) cannot be sold or swapped (depending on individual company's policy).
- Cards made with images legally purchased may or may not be sold (depending on individual company's policy).
I also, think this subject has been talked to death, we have gone around in enough circles and should be closed.
Cathy
Except that reasonable people can and do disagree about this. The fact that various people with various vested interests state A, B and C are either right or wrong don't make A, B or C right or wrong.
Also, I couldn't even begin to tell you how many individual stamps I own or what companies they came from. Many are not marked or are from companies that have been out of business for years. And I have many friends whose stamp collections number in the thousands. Many of mine were purchased loose, unmounted and without any copywrite markings on them, let alone accompanied by any kind of end user's license.
I don't feel it should be up to the purchaser to determine the policies of different companies. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask those companies wanting to restrict the use of their product to advertise so before the sale is made. And require the purchaser's agreement before making the sale. That gives the purchaser a fair opportunity to choose to go elsewhere with their money.
__________________ 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
Mo, that makes sense about the exclusive license thing. It just still doesn't make sense to me to even put them on a "duplicating machine," then (which is what a stamp is!). As for Disney winning, my guess is that it's only because they have more money than the people they are suing.
__________________ 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
This reminds me of the controversy about sewing patterns. "Obviously" they intend you to make the garment depicted in the pattern (maybe several of them). I'm sure it is the intellectual property of the designer too. But I have read magazine articles (presumably well-researched) suggesting that if you are making clothing to sell, you must buy another pattern for each item made, or get into a licensing agreement with the designer.
I would never have thought of swapping uncolored, stamped images. I usually stamp directly on my project rather than using layers, so it wouldn't work for me anyway. I can see that a swap of uncolored stamped images violates the designers intellectual property rights.
It is problematic that verifying the licensing agreement on a particular stamp is so difficult. I have many stamps from unknown companies. There isn't any way to determine the company that I know of. Has anyone had custom stamps made expressly for them of images, not words? This would certainly avoid the problem, as you would be the designer and own the copyright too (assuming it is your original image). I know the cost of having custom stamps made would be a lot higher.
See I completely get that for example the Elvis images that CHF used to do were licensed and copyrighted. I get that there are "official" Elvis cards out there. However I get that if there is a card made with an official stamp and someone wants to purchase it they should have that right too and to me there is a tacit agreement that the stamp could be used to produce an article that someone may wish to purchase. There is an assumption that the person buying the handstamped item is taking business away from the licensers/printed item. I don't think that is the case and often you will have people theme it up with these sorts of things so all sides win. If for instance I sold an Elvis card - I'm fairly certain that person probably has already exhausted the retail selection available.
Now I know there are artists like MoManning whom aren't as big as Elvis (yet) but I have to think that if someone falls in love with a card with a MoManning image they would search out more like images for their life.
I guess I look at these things a bit more Warhol-esque that as long as the name is associated it is worth something and will help propel the name/art.
Well, I know that people will disagree with my feelings on this subject, but this is how I see things. When I buy a stamp, I can do whatever I want with it, as long as I don't try to pass it off as my own design. A stamp is a tool, not a work of art that is bought to be hung on a wall or placed on exhibit solely as an artistic piece. If that's the case, then the stamp designers shouldn't have their designs made into stamps. (I'm not saying that the designers aren't artists, though, and I don't mean to de-value their talents.)
If I want to lend my stamps to friends or family, I will. If I want to stamp off some images to give away or trade, I will. If I want to sell cards or other hand-made projects, using hand-stamped images, I will. If a stamp company has nothing better to do with its time than come after and sue little old me, then it can go right ahead. I don't have time to research and keep track of each and every stamp company's Angel Policy (which I don't believe is enforceable anyway). If they feel that strongly about it, they should include their policy with the stamp so that I can make an informed decision about whether or not I want to buy their stamps.
There are plenty of stamp companies out there that don't have a problem with any of the things I've mentioned. I've refused to buy stamps from some companies who have made it very clear that they are very proprietary about their images and don't even want you sharing stamped images. That's my right as a consumer.
As I said, I know others will disagree with me, but that's how I feel. With all of the things I have to worry about in my life, this is very small stuff. And I try not to sweat the small stuff.
I have been reading this thread with interest, not because I sell many of my cards made with stamps (some relatives have insisted on paying me for 8 or 10 to be used by them or given as gifts--but nothing formal). But just so I can wrap my head around the whole idea. My son is an IP and I plan to ask him his thoughts on this, but his expertise is not in copyright, but in patents. I thought I understood, then the more I read, the more confused I got. Now I think I have it. I totally understand the obvious that you cannot sell a stamp image as your own and I happen to agree that selling or even giving away lots of stamped images to others would be like making copies of a CD to sell or give away. I have done it with a group of friends as we get together and make cards. They use my stamps to make a card and sometimes stamp extra images so they can go home and make another card or two. I now see this extra stamping as wrong. I would never have thought (and still don't) it wrong to make cards using a stamp(s) I bought to sell at a profit--if there is such a thing in card-making! If there are companies out there that have this legal policy, I would like that information to be posted wherever their stamps are sold as I would not buy them. Maybe I would miss out on some lovely images, but I don't want the hassle or worry of a law suit either. There are certainly plenty of stamps out there that are just as lovely. Actually, what we think is right or proper is not the issue. The law is the law and we must adhere to it or suffer the consequences. Perhaps there should be some universal law like there is for music for paper crafting, but that's for another discussion in a whole different forum. What an interesting world we live in!
This reminds me of the controversy about sewing patterns. "Obviously" they intend you to make the garment depicted in the pattern (maybe several of them). I'm sure it is the intellectual property of the designer too. But I have read magazine articles (presumably well-researched) suggesting that if you are making clothing to sell, you must buy another pattern for each item made, or get into a licensing agreement with the designer.
That's a big presumption, actually. Sure they want you to think that, but is it true? I think it's silly to assume someone's going to buy a new, identical pattern for a second item to sell.
__________________ 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
This has been an amazingly interesting discussion. I for one have traded images and have received traded images. I usually do it for the experience of seeing what else is out there. I was exclusively SU - for a very long time - then someone sent me some Bella images - wow! Were they sassy stamps! Loved them and now have over 40.
Then somewhere along the way, someone sent me some Pink Cat Studios - oh that Lilly is just adorable! Tweet is just too cute and now I have about 12 sets.
Then I made the mistake of seeing that darn cat from TCP - yes, The Cats Pajamas - egads! Had to get some of those! 12 large and small sets. same thing happened with Penny Black, CC Designs (love those Sugar Plums and Swiss Pixies), and Our Craft Lounge, and Kraftin' Kimmie, and Sweet n Sassy, and Popcorn the Bear, and SWALK, and Peachy Keen, and Lockhart, and Wild Rose Studio, and Sparkle Creations, and my lastest over the top purchase...Whimsey! Someone made the mistake of sending me some of Kenny K's design...I have not been able to resist buying more and not only that, spent over $125 in Whimsey stamps for the month of May - for Kenny K, Raindrop Echo, and the Whimsey Dies. I never would have even gone to the Whimsey site if someone hadn't sent me images.
so where am I going with this??? Sharing gets the word of mouth out, we are a tight little group and loyal to our craft. It allows me to try a product without spending a good amount of cash and decide, with something in my hand, that it is a product I am interested in. What is the potential if this opportunity is taken away??? Well, for me, unless there is a liberal return policy for the stamp, I will likely not support the company selling it. I want to see things in person and to pay for the stamp and shipping when I might not even like the product is ridiculous to me. I want to know that I can create with it before I commit to spending my resources on it. Sorry Mo, I don't have any of your images...they are digital and I like the feel of my crafting...but you do have some cute images!
anyhow, just my two cents. It will be interesting to see where this all leads.
yes, I do go over the top...had to get my insurance agent to visit regarding the amount of renters insurance I wanted to account for my personal possessions as well as for all the stamps and supplies that I have accumulated in my crafting room.
Pam
__________________ ...I'm just meandering through life; trying to have some fun along the way!!!
See I completely get that for example the Elvis images that CHF used to do were licensed and copyrighted. I get that there are "official" Elvis cards out there. However I get that if there is a card made with an official stamp and someone wants to purchase it they should have that right too and to me there is a tacit agreement that the stamp could be used to produce an article that someone may wish to purchase. There is an assumption that the person buying the handstamped item is taking business away from the licensers/printed item. I don't think that is the case and often you will have people theme it up with these sorts of things so all sides win. If for instance I sold an Elvis card - I'm fairly certain that person probably has already exhausted the retail selection available.
Now I know there are artists like MoManning whom aren't as big as Elvis (yet) but I have to think that if someone falls in love with a card with a MoManning image they would search out more like images for their life.
I guess I look at these things a bit more Warhol-esque that as long as the name is associated it is worth something and will help propel the name/art.
I bought one of the Elvis sets before CHF closed - even their licensed images (Elvis, Saturday Evening Post are two I actually have) fall under CHFs angel policy: All the stamps produced here at Cornish Heritage Farms are copyrighted or licensed by Cornish Heritage Farms. Every image comes under our Angel Policy. We want you to get the most value out of our products so give you permission to use our stamps for creating personal & resalable items as long as:
* Each item is hand stamped. (No mechanical or computerized reproduction in any form is allowed.)
* Items sold must give credit to Cornish Heritage Farms on the back of the creation.
Stamp designs must not be relabeled or separated and resold.
Designs cannot be used as company logos or trademarks.
Angel copyright stamps are available for a modest price on this store, should you wish to use one.
And that angel policy is printed on the back of the index card that came with the unmounted sets I bought. The index card also notes that it is ok to use the copyright notice included on the sheet of rubber as a copyright stamp. (I'm not sure that notice would be included on not-licensed sets).
This, to my thinking, is an ideal scenario - the angel policy was easy to find before I ever bought the sets, and now that I have them, the angel policy is easy to keep with them.
Pammers - I agree that some stampers will need to go out and purchase after being introduced to new images, but I wonder how many are like you and how many are using the swap forums (not just at SCS) to keep from buying stamps they like.
I don't have a dog in this hunt - I'm not talented enough to have created a line of stamps of my own (and I thank the good lord above every day that there are people like Mo who are!), and I don't participate in online image swaps. The limit of my swapping is stamping a couple of images that my mother might have, or letting her stamp a few of mine, and we usually end up getting the stamp ourselves after that.
The difference between sharing a few items with friends and using online forums, as I see it, is this:
You're stamping with a friend, and she has this totally cool image you haven't seen before, so you try it and you like it and you must order it. Or you try it, and the rubber isn't even and you can't get a decent image to save your life, so you don't get it.
In the image swaps forum here at SCS, some just specify a few companies and you'll be surprised by what you get. I can see where that would introduce you to new stamps. But there is also the "fulfill your wishlist" one that looks to be ongoing, where you list your top ten wanted images and other stampers fulfill them. You're not being introduced to anything new - you're requesting something you already know you want. I can see it for retired stamps, where that's the only way to get the images, but otherwise? I think you should just buy the stamp. In an image swap, you don't have the actual stamp in your hand, so you can't tell the things about it that you can if you're borrowing the stamp from a friend.
Sorry I'm so long-winded. It's just that swapping among a couple of friends kind of automatically limits the number of images being swapped. Once you get into the online thing, where you have an almost infinite number of people with an almost infinite number of images - I can see where stamp companies would have a problem with their images being shared in that way.
Cheryl you have illustrated my point perfectly. Thank you. The stamp maker acknowledges that you are going to use the stamp and that it may fall within the retail category and as long as you don't represent the art as your own and give credit you are fine to use it.
I haven't ever done image swaps here - I have swapped images with a group of friends I met in England and we are now all over the world after sharing with them what I bought. Truthfully if we lived next door we would be in each other's stash so for me it was no different to stamp and pop a few in the post for them. I don't however collect images generally. And you make an excellent point that people could take advantage of swaps and never actually buy a stamp of their own which really is against the spirit of fair usage.
I wonder how stamp usage sits with the Letterpress movement because that is generally mechanical reproduction.
Pammers - I agree that some stampers will need to go out and purchase after being introduced to new images, but I wonder how many are like you and how many are using the swap forums (not just at SCS) to keep from buying stamps they like.
I don't have a dog in this hunt - I'm not talented enough to have created a line of stamps of my own (and I thank the good lord above every day that there are people like Mo who are!), and I don't participate in online image swaps. The limit of my swapping is stamping a couple of images that my mother might have, or letting her stamp a few of mine, and we usually end up getting the stamp ourselves after that.
The difference between sharing a few items with friends and using online forums, as I see it, is this:
You're stamping with a friend, and she has this totally cool image you haven't seen before, so you try it and you like it and you must order it. Or you try it, and the rubber isn't even and you can't get a decent image to save your life, so you don't get it.
In the image swaps forum here at SCS, some just specify a few companies and you'll be surprised by what you get. I can see where that would introduce you to new stamps. But there is also the "fulfill your wishlist" one that looks to be ongoing, where you list your top ten wanted images and other stampers fulfill them. You're not being introduced to anything new - you're requesting something you already know you want. I can see it for retired stamps, where that's the only way to get the images, but otherwise? I think you should just buy the stamp. In an image swap, you don't have the actual stamp in your hand, so you can't tell the things about it that you can if you're borrowing the stamp from a friend.
Sorry I'm so long-winded. It's just that swapping among a couple of friends kind of automatically limits the number of images being swapped. Once you get into the online thing, where you have an almost infinite number of people with an almost infinite number of images - I can see where stamp companies would have a problem with their images being shared in that way.
I really agree with you on this. However, I'm not sure if your common sense is what I'm reading about the copyright law. Think I will follow this line of thinking. I don't do swaps (seems a bit iffy in the law area to me), but I do let friends use/borrow my stamps. Thanks for making it plain to me.
Rule of thumb for me is when using artwork, remember that this has cost someone time and money to produce it, if you print it or sell it you are stopping another person from buying it from the artist so you are loosing them a sale.
If you make a card and take hours over it using your own materials to do so and someone came along and took your card from you and sold it therefore making a profit from all of your hard work how would you feel?
Most scrapbookers are card makers would be upset if someone replicated their layout or card and claimed it as their own work, yes?
