With all the recent discussion about avatars, I thought that I would change mine.
Hope that the change works - It was a Cane toad that I lifted from an old Utube Video.
I changed it to a picture of a clay figurine that I purchased many years ago. Unique & no copyright I think.
SWMBO says it's a good likeness.
-- Edited by Cupie on Sunday 3rd of August 2025 12:27:28 PM
Peter_n_Margaret said
03:15 PM Aug 3, 2025
Good job Cupie.
My work years back included exposure to intellectual property law. Copyright is a very complicated issue and is much broader than many understand, and I am no expert.
You do not have to register copyright. It simply exists to protect any and all original works. Only the copyright owner can determine where or how a work is used or release it for public use.
And if you purchase an original artwork (for instance), you own the original, but the artist still owns the copyright. So it is possible your clay figurine copyright is still owned by whoever made it first and taking a photo of it would breach that copyright, but I doubt you will have a problem. There are exemptions for certain copies for certain uses.
Also, having something displayed publicly (like on social media) does NOT mean that the copyright is null and void. Like parking your car in the street does not mean that anyone can use it.
Copyright can be worth a lot of money, and having something released to the public to use often comes with restrictions. This is an example. The Aboriginal flag copyright was purchased by the Government from Harold Thomas for $20million so that the public can freely use it on cloths and web sites for example, but flags must be purchased from one specific company.
Breaching someone's copyright can get you into deep legal trouble.
Take care.
Cheers,
Peter
DMaxer said
03:21 PM Aug 3, 2025
Hi Cupie. When I was just a kid in the 1950s we had a neighbour who used to make and paint figurines. Although she made some like your painting, mostly they were of Chinese farmers and their wives and families. Blokes with long beards either carrying something or holding a hoe or spade. She would sell them through a dealer and they were much sought after. Looking at your avatar brought back many happy memories. As an aside, she used to make a heap of those flying ducks that everyone had on the lounge room wall and would hand them out to us plebs as Chrissie presents. Thanks for the memory kick.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 3rd of August 2025 06:07:46 PM
Magnarc said
07:40 AM Aug 4, 2025
The flying ducks! I remember them well. They adorned the living room wall for years. Father had to take them down to be dusted in case they were damaged falling off.
Those were the days when "woke" had an A in front of it, and usually meant you were no longer asleep. Life was a lot simpler then.
A good explanation P&M, I did not know that flags had to be purchased from one place. We live and learn!
DMaxer said
09:56 AM Aug 4, 2025
Copyright law is a very specialised area of law and apart from what I studied back in student days, I wouldn't really have much of a clue so don't treat my post as legal advice as it certainly is not.
I remember George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" being in breach of copyright for just one line, supposedly taken from another song "He's So Fine" and also Men At Works' "Down Under" with the flute rift supposedly not dissimilar to "Kookaburra Sits In the Old Gum Tree". Both were extremely expensive exercises for the users.
What it really gets down to is a protection for people who were the originators, manufacturers et al, to prevent others from profiting from the first person's work either by using or holding themselves out as the originator.
Lots of things are not subject to copyright. Things that have been put out into the public domain generally don't get this protection. The whole gist of the legislation is protect people from being exploited or damaged financially by someone else claiming or indicating an inference that is not true.
The flag used by indigenous Australians was designed by someone who then sold the rights for it to be used. I understand that person still holds the publishing rights and therefore determines who can sell it. Ordinary national flags do not come under this.
I think the most important aspect is to look at the use of the image. Is the person suggesting they were the author or creator, is it being used to obtain a financial profit, is it being used to enhance or promote their own brand of something or suggest they have an insight or relationship with the originator. Most importantly, what damage has the originator suffered because of its use.
As I said, not legal advice just a few observations as I have no expertise whatsoever in this field. As an afterthought, have a look through social media and the different avatars that are being used. One would think that would be a goldmine for ambulance chasers if it was so simple an action.
I have heard a few people in my travels give me their learned views on copyright. It was about as good as their views on not being allowed to physically discipline children or not being allowed to prevent a burglar or home invader entering your property. Brilliant self proclaimed jurists travelling the country.
With all the recent discussion about avatars, I thought that I would change mine.
Hope that the change works - It was a Cane toad that I lifted from an old Utube Video.
I changed it to a picture of a clay figurine that I purchased many years ago. Unique & no copyright I think.
SWMBO says it's a good likeness.
-- Edited by Cupie on Sunday 3rd of August 2025 12:27:28 PM
Good job Cupie.
My work years back included exposure to intellectual property law. Copyright is a very complicated issue and is much broader than many understand, and I am no expert.
This is an excellent resource if you have a question and it is pretty easy to understand .... Home - Australian Copyright Council
You do not have to register copyright. It simply exists to protect any and all original works. Only the copyright owner can determine where or how a work is used or release it for public use.
And if you purchase an original artwork (for instance), you own the original, but the artist still owns the copyright. So it is possible your clay figurine copyright is still owned by whoever made it first and taking a photo of it would breach that copyright, but I doubt you will have a problem. There are exemptions for certain copies for certain uses.
Also, having something displayed publicly (like on social media) does NOT mean that the copyright is null and void. Like parking your car in the street does not mean that anyone can use it.
Copyright can be worth a lot of money, and having something released to the public to use often comes with restrictions. This is an example. The Aboriginal flag copyright was purchased by the Government from Harold Thomas for $20million so that the public can freely use it on cloths and web sites for example, but flags must be purchased from one specific company.
aboriginal flag copyright - Google Search
Breaching someone's copyright can get you into deep legal trouble.
Take care.
Cheers,
Peter
Hi Cupie. When I was just a kid in the 1950s we had a neighbour who used to make and paint figurines. Although she made some like your painting, mostly they were of Chinese farmers and their wives and families. Blokes with long beards either carrying something or holding a hoe or spade. She would sell them through a dealer and they were much sought after. Looking at your avatar brought back many happy memories. As an aside, she used to make a heap of those flying ducks that everyone had on the lounge room wall and would hand them out to us plebs as Chrissie presents. Thanks for the memory kick.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 3rd of August 2025 06:07:46 PM
The flying ducks! I remember them well. They adorned the living room wall for years. Father had to take them down to be dusted in case they were damaged falling off.
Those were the days when "woke" had an A in front of it, and usually meant you were no longer asleep. Life was a lot simpler then.
A good explanation P&M, I did not know that flags had to be purchased from one place. We live and learn!
Copyright law is a very specialised area of law and apart from what I studied back in student days, I wouldn't really have much of a clue so don't treat my post as legal advice as it certainly is not.
I remember George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" being in breach of copyright for just one line, supposedly taken from another song "He's So Fine" and also Men At Works' "Down Under" with the flute rift supposedly not dissimilar to "Kookaburra Sits In the Old Gum Tree". Both were extremely expensive exercises for the users.
What it really gets down to is a protection for people who were the originators, manufacturers et al, to prevent others from profiting from the first person's work either by using or holding themselves out as the originator.
Lots of things are not subject to copyright. Things that have been put out into the public domain generally don't get this protection. The whole gist of the legislation is protect people from being exploited or damaged financially by someone else claiming or indicating an inference that is not true.
The flag used by indigenous Australians was designed by someone who then sold the rights for it to be used. I understand that person still holds the publishing rights and therefore determines who can sell it. Ordinary national flags do not come under this.
I think the most important aspect is to look at the use of the image. Is the person suggesting they were the author or creator, is it being used to obtain a financial profit, is it being used to enhance or promote their own brand of something or suggest they have an insight or relationship with the originator. Most importantly, what damage has the originator suffered because of its use.
As I said, not legal advice just a few observations as I have no expertise whatsoever in this field. As an afterthought, have a look through social media and the different avatars that are being used. One would think that would be a goldmine for ambulance chasers if it was so simple an action.
I have heard a few people in my travels give me their learned views on copyright. It was about as good as their views on not being allowed to physically discipline children or not being allowed to prevent a burglar or home invader entering your property. Brilliant self proclaimed jurists travelling the country.