No copyright

[Tor]

For making a pattern, I would also look at the "genericness" of the image. For example, I wouldn't worry about taking a common forest bird on a branch out of an image for a pattern. A flight shot of the same bird might well merit contacting the photographer. One is what nearly everyone who has taken a picture of the bird with a good camera has, while the other may require extensive patience with an excellent camera.

BTW Bob, you may wish to change "implicitly" to "explicitly" in the last paragraph.

Tor

[SNAPPER]

I did a little reading on the copyright laws (wow what alot of info), Bob is right. Copyright law protects the "original work of authorship". Copyrightable works include but not limited to: pictoral,graphic and sculptoral works. I agree with Minnesota and Canadian scroller, if you do not want your piece copied or reproduced then it should be stated so. Either way permission or not it should be indicated. You know what the word "assume" stands for. I am not out to break any laws, but how many people agree with or abide by every "law".
Dean

[lucky788scroller]

Just remember, ignorance is no excuse. If you arent sure, investigate, or erradicate. Save yourself the headaches. Dale

[chrispuzzle]

Originally Posted by SNAPPER

I agree with Minnesota and Canadian scroller, if you do not want your piece copied or reproduced then it should be stated so.

Your scrollsaw belongs to you, whether you register it or not. So do your photographs and original artwork.

The point of copyright registration is to provide a simple way to prove that a work is yours if you have to go to court.

If you intend to sell a piece of work you really do need to pay some attention to securing the source for the design. You don't know if the flickr photographer is a litigious maniac or just an easy-going guy who is going to be flattered. He has the law on his side though - you know the pictures belong to him by default.

Obviously there's a point where, with a hobby, people take a view as to the risk involved with out of print material or Internet pictures. Personally, for my puzzles, I would feel very queasy about using the work of an amateur photographer on Flickr without permission: this is a living person with an email address you can write to. I am far less queasy about using images of old paintings by dead artists even if the galleries that own them protect their rights quite jealously. But even so, if it ain't legal, no amount of wishing will make it so.

[Shannon]

Another thing you have to be aware of... Just because the photo posted on the internet does not have the photographer's name or copyright information - it doesn't even mean that the original photographer is the one who posted that particular image! It's so easy to copy and paste an image from any website - post it somewhere else - and never mention the original source or artist.

It sure is a slippery slope - public domain images are your best bet.

[will8989]

When I was looking at C5 pictures last year to make a pattern, I came across a very talented photographer's work. At the very end of his posting was this line (or something similar) DON'T EVEN THINK OF USING ANY OF MY PICTURES FOR YOUR WORK. MY BIG GUN ATTORNEYS WILL COME AFTER YOU AND I'LL SUE. That was all I needed to see! That pops up in my mind everytime I look at a picture and think what a great puzzle or something that would make! LOL

Betty