What are /r/COPYRIGHT's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

You can still go for CC ND. For instance, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

There is no general universal definition of "commercial use" in the licensing context. Because there's been very little litigation regarding any of the Creative Commons licenses, we just don't know exactly what that term means, or what kinds of activities are covered, other than those that are obviously aimed primarily at generating revenue.

If you check the text of a CC license, it will typically define noncommercial use as use "not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation." Would that include something like a devblog? I don't know, I think most people would probably say yes, but it would depend. Is the devblog overwhelmingly promotional? If its only purpose is really to serve as a commercial for the product, and it's just being called a "devblog," then that feels more like an advertisement, and I think most people would say use in an advertisement is commercial use. This is the kind of question that would be entirely appropriate for an attorney, since the answer is going to be a legal opinion, and not a black or white yes or no.

In fact, the "noncommercial use" component is such an unknown that a few years ago CC actually hired a research firm to try and figure out what people thought it meant, and those results might be helpful to you - this is the publication announcement, and this is the actual study. You're certainly not the first to ask this question (it's a good question), so googling around might give you some more information as well to help make a decision.

You can also always just ask the source if it's OK to use the material in the way you want. These are all from Wikimedia?

Assuming these texts are not in the public domain: No, it is not legally permitted to record a reading someone's work an distribute it for free.

17 USC § 106: The owner of copyright has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

17 USC § 101: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.

If the book is still copyrighted, only the copyright holder can make an audio book version.

You technically are not even permitted to make a recording just for your personal use, that is, even if you don't distribute it. Of course, it'd be very difficult for a copyright holder to learn about your infringement if no one but you listens to the recording.

https://librivox.org/ is a neat library of crowd-sourced audio books of text in the public domain. I encourage you to volunteer there if you'd like to contribute your voice.

There's no list, for various reasons.

Behold, a helpful chart (US context):

https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain

See also: https://lifehacker.com/these-1923-copyrighted-works-enter-the-public-domain-in-1825241296

Was it posted specifically saying it's "public domain," or was it just posted in public? There are so many levels of attributions. Here's a sample to give you some headaches :) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

They might not own the copyright to the talk (though you've granted them a licence to it), but they certainly own the copyright in the video, including the distribution rights for the video.

Where this gets tricky is that they've released the video under a Creative Commons BY-SA licence, which means that you have a licence to redistribute the video, provided you adhere to the terms of that licence (namely, giving attribution to TEDx Talks and releasing it under the same BY-SA licence).

They shouldn't be putting ads on the video - not because you wrote the talk; you licenced that to them - but because you've been granted a licence to use the resulting video. That's the argument you should be making.

By default your work would be protected. The only glitch I can see is if you choose a blog host that requires you to grant them licensing rights. I haven't seen an agreement that would allow a host to exert ownership, but read the small print. Paid hosting of your own (e.g. renting web space and installing your own content management software) would ordinarily be free of such restrictions. To avoid misunderstandings clearly state that your work is protected under copyright law, and identify yourself as being the author.

If ownership is your main concern then consider a Creative Commons licence if you'd like people to be able re-publish your work with attribution. There are quite a few options (commercial/non-commercial).

https://creativecommons.org

> Can anybody help to answer our question as to weather or not we can scan our own books and make them available to students?

Even teachers make typos ;)

I don't have an answer for you, but would like to let you know there is a free class on Coursera called "Copyright for Educators & Librarians" by Duke University, Emory University & The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I started it but I think it may be especially useful to you as an educator. It is online and self paced, and not very long. I recommend it for someone looking to learn more about copyright and fair use.

Here is a link to the course and it's 100% free (unless you want to be certified).

I echo /u/lethargilistic's comments that Creative Commons licensing has nothing to do with losing rights (in fact, in most jurisdictions, you have no way to relinquish copyright even if you wanted to, through you could transfer them to another party). CC licensing is about using your rights to say what uses you would like to allow for your work.

In case you haven't seen it, I suggest checking out this page to get a feel for the six licenses that you can choose from for your work. It's often much more versatile than people give them credit for.

No problem. The short answer is that it most likely satisfies the originality and minimal creativity requirements to qualify for copyright protection. That being said, there are many things to consider before deciding whether to use a copyrighted work. I would suggest using Google Scholar to look up some scholarly articles that discuss the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing a license to use a copyrighted work. That or go talk to an IP attorney.

This isn't so much of a copyright question as it is one of trademark. Titles are not protected under copyright, but they can be protected by trademark.

In general things can have the same title if they are different enough from each other, or in different industries, to not create confusion between the two for consumers. For example, something like Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets is ok since they are in completely different industries and the risk of very customer confusion is very low. Here is a great write up on trademark infringement. Trademark also expires rather quickly if not actively used, 5 years in most places, so it easy to find books and movies that have the same title and are unrelated. For example there's a British spy movie from 1998 called 'The Avengers'.

I think your situation is a little dicey. 'The Dragon Saga' game is still using their trademark, as their last expansion came out in 2017. I think you might be ok to call a webcomic by the same title, but you probably couldn't make a game. It might also be difficult to sell merchandise as I think one could make a pretty strong case for trademark infringement based on consumer confusion, as both IPs are dragon based fantasy stories. You may even have this problem just with the web comic.

I think with a lot of IPs doing tie-ins across multiple media platforms, its hard to argue that a game and a web comic are truly different industries or markets, particularly online, so I think all in all you would be better off going with a different name. Especially if you hope to develop anything outside of the comic.

As a disclaimer, I'm by no means an expert or a lawyer, this is just some brief research I did.

Yes, it would be copyrighted. However, using the footage for a purpose could potentially be Fair Use. If you're not attached to a specific recording already, Librivox dedicates its recordings to the public domain.

What is the license of the photos on Pexels?

All photos on Pexels are licensed under the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license. This means you can use them for free for any personal and commercial purpose. Attribution is not required.

source

You can use it however you want as per the FAQ

You own both copyrights to your music and can put yourself down in both categories. The DAW is just a tool.

See also their ToS:

>Any and all music, tracks, samples, pictures, graphic, comments, and other content, data or information that User uploads, stores or submits to AUDIOTOOL (hereinafter „Content“) are generated by the User, not by AUDIOTOOL. User´s Content therefore remains in User´s sole property and responsibility.
>
>
AUDIOTOOL does not claim any ownership rights in any Content deriving from User.

As for samples and SFX, the copyright for those is owned by the creators. The issue is whether you have permission to use them in your works - and that usually depends on where you obtained these samples and what license was given to you when you obtained them, if any.

When you say "rejected from publication", what exactly do you mean? Published where?

Yep.

There is actually a classic book by Richard Wincor called The Art of Character Licensing

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Character-Licensing-Richard-Wincor/dp/1888075570

This gives some detailed overview and some case law of the complexities involved.

I am not sure, but I think that you can actually use Donald Trump if it isn't anything related to politics, being a president, etc. For example you can make a game of donald trump the cake baker and probably won't have any problems if there isn't any image of the character donald trump somehow related to the US president.

So you can use names, if they don't relate at all to the real person. If you actually want to make a reference to the person by having the same context, you must modify the name in some way. I could make a game "Ronald Rump the wall builder" without problems as long as the image isn't that much related to him and isn't the same name, but you can actually guess that I am talking about the US president with the wall reference.

Download the game bowmasters on ios or android. They have a lot of real life persons as characters with modified names and images.

That's beyond the scope of this copyright sub, but I'll take a swing. What they are going to want in the business proposal is a proposed royalty on sales, and an advance on that royalty; and they will propose (or expect a proposal for - I am not in this business and don't know the standards) a bunch of secondary stuff like approval rights, audit rights, regular sales reports with as much detail as they can get you to supply, and the right to terminate the agreement with as little disadvantage to them as they can negotiate. You will propose the term, and the territories in which you have the audio book rights. You will propose how you plan to create and then market and sell the product. They might want your low/medium/high sales projections.

The advance is to make sure they aren't wasting their time with you, and to make sure they make money even if your sales are zero.

I own but have not read one of the editions of This Business of Music, as seen in School of Rock. It is not exactly in this business but is in the ballpark; maybe it will help.

You will need an attorney to review and help negotiate, if you want, the contract; this will be complicated by the fact they will want the contract to be in Japanese, governed by Japanese law; while you may want it to be in English, governed by the law where you are.

I did not literally see the copyright notice on the company credits page on imdB, but that page says it's "Vortex (as A Vortex/Henkel/Hooper Production)" which would be one place to start.

I didn't see a copyright notice on this purported copy of the original movie poster, but it says "A Bryanston Pictures Release" - but they're listed as a mere distributor on the above imdB page.

The most straightforward way to start is to instead rent a copy and look for the copyright notice that is probably shown at the end of the original credits.

How they have stated that matters.

If they have provided a license -- like, say, a Creative Commons license or some other written license -- they you are able to use that work as documented in the license.

If they haven't provided a license and just said verbally, in an email, or on an Internet forum, "Yeah, this image is free to use," then I would exercise extreme caution. Such a simple statement could potentially be considered binding, but you'd probably have to go to court to argue such if the creator objected to your specific use.

If they haven't provided a license, then get something in writing from the creator specifying that they are providing you permission to do either anything with the image or, at least, permission for making modifications or adaptations of the image.

You simply have to say it is CC. For public domain, it depends on where you are originally from. Some jurisdictions (in fact, most of the ones in Continental Europe) do now allow that you put something in the public domain.

BTW, this would probably be helpful for you - https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/

Use of a Shutterstock image is governed by the license under which you buy it. Generally images of celebrities are available for "editorial use only". There's a solid summary of this (and the other licenses) on their website: https://www.shutterstock.com/support/pkb_sstk_core_customerkb_home?c=CustomerKB%3ALicensing_and_Usage&l=en_US

Maybe ask Dread Zeppelin, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5,000,000#/media/File:Dread_Zeppelin_-_5,000,000.jpg

There's a better image here, https://www.discogs.com/Dread-Zeppelin-5000000/master/97742 , but you might need to be signed in to view.

Yes, and CC0 only exists because in some countries, placing something into the public domain can't be directly done, so CC0 assigns the same rights (basically "everything") that public domain would.

Your edited version will be published on the web somewhere available for people to see, right? Somewhere on the page where you're publishing your version, you already know that you need to attribute the work to the original creator with a link back to their page. Right next to that credit, indicate that the work is published under the share-a-like license by writing something simple, such as "This work is published under a ShareAlike license: CC BY-SA 3.0 US" You could +/- more or less detail to that text, and link it to the Creative Commons page so that someone can get more details on what it means. You do not need to publish the work anywhere else on the web, but if you decide you WANT to publish it in additional places, you'd have to include that same attribution, link, and license information each time.

Hope that helps!

Thanks! I went to the pixabay form and that is what one of their admin said as well.

https://pixabay.com/forum/questions-about-pixabay-11/licensing-question-my-tilesets-getting-rejected-f-9007/

IANAL but I know that the Berne Convention stipulates that everything a person creates is automatically restricted by copyright, so you don't need to register anything. Unless you are from a country that is not a signatory, the above applies to you.

I believe the best way to "protect" a work is to share it. YMMV.

I want to make recordings on LibriVox (which requires the source material to be public domain), so I want to be as sure as possible.

When you mention inquiring at the copyright office, do you mean their professional research service or something else? $200 an hour seems a bit steep, but I've submitted a request for an estimate and if the right person can clear this up with 15 minutes of their time I could probably scrape together fifty dollars.

https://snipboard.io/6tWK3q.jpg here is an example of what I'm talking about. Can I download it or do I have to get permission? Fair use but no rights apply. I don't understand

It is a little bit unclear what you mean by "animating". Tshirts are printed with a still image, which leads me to assume that you don't mean a moving animation. Are you wanting to redraw the image in the style of an animated cartoon? There are cases where this could be different enough from the original to count as fair use, although it depends on a lot of factors.

Is there a reason to use that particular image? There are hundreds (or maybe thousands) of pug photos released under creative commons licenses, and are free to use for this sort of purpose. Here is one source you could use to find an alternative image to use. https://pixabay.com/images/search/pug/

Just be sure to pay attention to the license each image is released under. I think that everything on Pixabay uses the Pixabay License, which allows for commercial use without attribution, but always check before using something.

1. Wikipedia is a huge site. They have lots of bandwidth, I doubt that they'll get the reddit hug unless it's a very popular post (a.k.a if it's a comment reply on a small discussion or small sub then I would go for it. Use your own judgement though) I understand the concern though, as we've been known to do that to some pretty big sites. Just think of /r/TodayILearned. It's mostly wiki links.

2. Here's your answer for wiki images: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing which says yes you can. Wikipedia only uses pictures which can be used by anyone, anytime, anywhere.

As for the license you specified, it's a little trickier (but not too tricky), you can use it (share or adjust/adapt/modify) non-commercially as long as you give credit. If you photoshop it or something, you provide it under the same license.

Google doesn't control the copyright of the images you find in its search results. The creators of the images have that control, so you either need to make sure the creators are OK with you using their work, or you need to make sure the work is in the public domain.

If your intension is to make money off the images, even if you've not made any money yet, then you might run into trouble. If the owners of the images you've used don't want you to use them, they'll likely contact you asking you to remove them before doing anything more dramatic.

Google provides a nifty tool in its image search page results. After doing an image search, you should see a small menu on the top of the page. Click on Search Tools, then Usage Rights. The option "Labeled for noncommercial use" is probably what you want for your work. I'm a little dubious about how accurate their tool is, but it might be helpful in finding accessible images.

There are a lot of places that provide images that sit in the public domain or are published under a Creative Commons Zero license (free for any kind of use). I've got a Pinterest board bookmarking some of them. Each collection has a different set of terms, most of which are pretty loose, but make sure you review them before you use an image.

Better you go throe the form https://creativecommons.org/choose/

I think that the "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International" license would fit your purpose http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

It means that * you stay the intellectual property holder, * you allow people to share the source and play with, but * they must ask you for permission to use it for business.

The CC helpdesk works quite well

Creative Commons's page about how to give credit.

Basically, you need four things: title, author, source (usually the URL), and license.

The link to the license can be the exact link you quoted: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

It does not have to be clickable, but there has to be some way for people to get to the page.

Hi, just want to start by saying I hope I didn't offend.

Copyright is not concerned with plagiarism, though the concepts may overlap-- copyright is concerned with 'copies' of works through their various forms. While citing credit is irrelevant to copyright infringement, often authors grant licenses to use their works in return for attribution. Here's an example of a creative commons license that's really popular: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/

So you see, this practice of giving credit is not only nice etiquette, but often required by the copyright holder in exchange for using their work. But credit itself doesn't transform infringement into non-infringement.

And just so you know, newspapers often pay a lot of money to use images-- that's how photographers afford to make a living.

OP's case actually concerns two separate works, (1) the game itself and (2) the screenshot of the game (someone took that, and it's subject to copyright separately from the game itself). The issue boils down to whether he's commenting on the image. If his article has nothing to do with the image, but rather it's used to make the article look nicer-- I would tend to lean towards this not being a fair use. Again particulars would be important. Also, I'm not saying OP will or will not be sued, I just wanted to make OP aware that news reporting does not have blanket immunity from copyright infringement. That's just the technical answer.

I haven't at all... That's just how the font is, I haven't added the stripe through the middle myself. The font may how similarities with the ESPN logo I don't know, we don't even have ESPN in my country so it's not something I'm even familiar with.

It's not just the logo, it's the entire banner, it's a blatant attempt at a copy of one of the old designs I used to use which is what my current one is still based off.

Mine from 2016: https://www.deviantart.com/uweportfoliodane/art/Project-Gamer-YouTube-Branding-656984245

His: https://sellfy.com/p/7fgX/

It's hardly a coincidence they look so alike.

Handbrake and MDRP generally work for me, so I was a bit surprised by the GoT disks. I couldn't be arsed to learn another piece of software for this, as I'm already quite familiar with my existing tools and Transmission.

I'm also very wary of DVD ripping software. There seems to be a cottage industry of dodgy downloads . For example: http://www.dvddecryptermac.com

The site design looks like one of those shysters who take an open source product and sell it without adding any value to it. Kind of similar to what we see happening to FlightGear As well as looking cheap, they have the usual collection of awards and stuff to try to convince me this is a legit site. Because of this I generally stick with stuff I've researched.

I'd like it if HBO were a little more eager to take my money and give me a means of playing the content. We're reaching the same point music did, and they are acting as if the MP3 and iPod revolution should never have happened, and we should still be wandering around with Sony Discmans.

I do 3D modeling for a living including character design. I have 35 year industry experience working for some of the worlds top agencies who have their own in house lawyers. Anyone can take a stock character and use it. It's as simple as that.

The principles and concepts of character design cannot be copyrighted. i.e. stock characters cannot be copyrighted.

Disney animator Preston Blair has books out on how to draw in the Disney style. The idea that you can't draw (or model) a Disney style character of your own because of similarities between other Disney characters is utter nonsense and there would only be one cartoon mouse in the world.

https://www.amazon.com/Animation-Learn-Draw-Animated-Cartoons/dp/B0046PROZO

So when you dont make an exact copy, you are allowed to use famous characters in your game and make revenue on it? I really dont understand why copyright dont cover this. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.forulo.pkcheshy I really dont think that Marvel allows these guys to use their characters, there is a plenty of similiar games, this one actually makes 20k$ monthly on Android.

Making money from copyright licensing is a complex issue.

For an in depth understanding of Character Licensing there is a classic book called.
The Art of Character Licensing by Richard Wincor.

The-Art-of-Character-Licensing

Well the sole purpose for my VPN would be to that I don't get caught downloading torrents as I do that from time to time. I used to have ExpressVPN and they have good reviews so I guess I'll go back to them.