1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
     
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Creative Commons photo usage

Discussion in 'Band Management [BG]' started by fraublugher, Aug 14, 2012.


  1. fraublugher

    fraublugher

    Nov 19, 2004
    ottawa, ontario, canada
    music school retailer
    Anyone know if you need permission to use an album cover image that was a stolen 30 year old image in [1968] for a gig poster ?
    I'm not selling poster 's it's just a gig poster.
    cheers,
    John

    [it's LZ 1]shhhhh! :)
     
  2. Pacman

    Pacman Layin' Down Time Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Apr 1, 2000
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
    Yes, you do.
     
  3. fraublugher

    fraublugher

    Nov 19, 2004
    ottawa, ontario, canada
    music school retailer
    Thx Jon!
     
  4. Corbeau

    Corbeau

    Dec 14, 2011
    Australia
    While 30+ years is a while, it hasn't become part of the public domain. I think a photo becomes part of the public domain if it's been 50 years since its first publication [don't quote me, it could differ between countries].
     
  5. At the same time, if no one knows who you are and you're not making any real money off of it, then no one cares... So long as you don't claim the image to be your own and give credit to those due, nothing will happen.

    If it's that old, the chances of you getting permission is slim to none. At the same time, unless you're Pink or Madonna or The Rolling Stones, the copyright owners would almost be happy to let you use the image. Just don't plaster the town with them or put it up on a 100' high billboard.
     
  6. The US of A has a lifetime copyright plus 50 years after the death of the author, or 75 years after the item was created if the item is not owned by the author. So, whomever took this picture probably got paid to do so by the record company. That picture is owned by the record company, not the author (or photographer). As such, it's still got 45 years to go before its public domain.

    Additionally, 20 additional years can be tacked on if the right paper work is filed, according to the 1998 Sonny Bono Act.

    If your not making thousands of dollars off the poster or that gig, and you're not using it to sell a decent amount of records, then no one will care and no one is going to go after you.
     
  7. fraublugher

    fraublugher

    Nov 19, 2004
    ottawa, ontario, canada
    music school retailer
    Thx Uber , I see what you mean , I did go ahead and ask permission but no response, yet.
    I'll try my hand at photo-shoping the original photo [ the hindenburg] and be happy with that.
    cheers
     
  8. When you say stolen 30 year old image, what are you saying ?
     
  9. fraublugher

    fraublugher

    Nov 19, 2004
    ottawa, ontario, canada
    music school retailer
    It's Zeppelin I so , the hindenburg photo from the 30's.
    It's convoluted ....
     
  10. Well I seriously doubt the record label stole the picture.
     
  11. throughthefire

    throughthefire

    Oct 1, 2010
    Utah
  12. Cool, then use it as you will
     
  13. Hactar

    Hactar

    Sep 25, 2011
    Boulder, CO
  14. There's also a "fair use" part of the act that allows criticism, political commentary, and the like. It's why The Daily Show, Bill O'Reilly, other political shows, news websites and even movie reviewers don't have pay for the clips or images that they use in their shows. Andy Warhol (under a similar, but older Act) didn't have to pay Campbell's Soup anything for his famous painting because it was a commentary on society using the image as a platform.

    As long as the image is used as a criticism of some sort, you'll fall under fair use. For example, if you took Led Zep's Houses of the Holy image and altered it by putting Barak Obama's image or George Bush's image at the top of the pile of rocks that the naked kids are climbing, it could be easily argued as being a political statement or commentary. As such, it would be considered fair use.

    There's sort an unwritten rule within the music industry that if you use copyrighted material, but you're not making money off of it or making the original artist lose potential money, then they won't sue for copyright infringement. This isn't written down anywhere. As long as what you do isn't obviously exploitative, making any meaningful amount of money, making the artist loose potential money, or if it's just plain tacky, you won't get bothered. It's why when a band covers a song (like the one in my sig, or a cover band at a bar) technically should pay and/or get permission to use a song, no one ever gets sued over it. If you're Kelly Clarkson or Jay-Z, and you put out a studio version of a song to be sold on Amazon or iTunes, you'd better believe they'll get sued if they don't pay the copyright holder or get permission.
     

Share This Page