Here's a little lesson for those who have no idea what Moral rights are or how they can affect you.

An artist makes a bronze statue of a duck. He sells the statue, along with the copyright, to Joe Blow. Joe Blow takes the duck and puts it in his front yard. Then, in a creative mood, Joe Blow puts a ribbon around the bronze duck's neck. The artist goes by one day to admire his work and sees that Joe Blow has altered it, thereby destroying the intention the artist had in creating the work of art (at least in the artist's opinion).

Now, legally, you would think, Joe Blow paid for the copyright, the artist is shit out of luck. WRONG. He still has something called Moral rights. He believes that the integrity of his work has been destroyed, and dispite the fact that he sold the copyright to his duck, he may STILL sue AND pursue and possibly WIN damages because of the desecration of his beautiful duck.

Changing something, even if it negates the copyright where you live, does NOT negate the artists moral rights to sue your ass off if you destroy the integrity of his work. And these are artists we're talking about. It could be something as simple as a ribbon on a bronze duck. Are you ready to lose your shirt over it?

Yep, but sometimes the artist will have terms dependant on their situation :)

One doesn't even need to go back to ancient times, to find public domain material. According to the US copyright office the maximum duration is the life of the author plus 95 years or 120 years in the case of work for hire. In practicle terms, that means most anything older than 200 years is fair game (with the usual caveats).

It is my understanding that in most other countries copyright durations are shorter. For example in Canada its life of the author plus 50 years.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/37792.html#rid-37875

It also depends on what your intent is and whether the content is used for the same purpose as used by the copyright holder.

For example, if you run a humour site, it's probably alright for you to scan a picture from a newspaper and modify it in some way to make it funny.

Or if you run a photography site, it shouldn't be a problem for you to take a pic or 2 of each photographer for the purpose of critiquing his lighting technique. (even if the pic is unmodified)

Of course I'm aware of this.. However I believe in the context of the thread, they are referring to more contemporary material that is most certainly subject to copyright :)

That is a part of "Fair Use", and generally refers to satire, news reporting, critiques, etc. However Fair Use is not an all-encompassing umbrella, so it's best to ensure you fall within the laws and policies of fair use before assuming. Generally fair use applies to news organizations ....:)

SexEducation.com since inception has been a magazine.

In the US the only specific statutory reference to moral rights in the Visual Arts Recording Act, who's protection expires with the death of the artist. So if you're going to put a ribbon on your duck, kill the artist first.

It is my understanding the US courts have shown little interest in protecting moral rights, for example the case of Shostakovich v. 20th Century-Fox. In short the court ruled against the Soviet composers who objected to their (uncopyrighted) work being used in a movie with an anti-soviet message.

I'm not getting into this with you tonight. You aren't worth my time.

That's the thing..there have been more and more people exercising their moral rights in the last few years as people are becoming more informed about them. Yes, they do expire with the death of the artist, I guess you could always hope the guy who made what you're altering is dead :) hehe.

50

LOL

its good that someone on here can detect sarcasm.

I absolutely love these types of post now.
They immediately identify you as a newbie.

tks

LOL

Do they? Hahah.

Lady-

hows the baby?

If you have to ask yourself whether something is right or wrong......usually you know the answer already.

better to be a "newbie" in your eyes than to be a pedophile in the eyes of the rest of the board. not to mention i've been on this board over twice as long as you.