Gig Posters

Posters: 139855 | Bands: 124049 | Designers: 10679                 
   
       RSS Feeds

Username:   Password: 
Register      

Social Networking Activity                 



 Bands  Designers  New Arrivals  Top Lists  Forums  Buy Posters  Submit  Merch Store  Advertise  Widgets  Help

Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Issue

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8
    Comments
    1

    Default Issue

    i took a vintage photo (60s) from an art magazine, blew it up, and used it to make a print for a printmaking class i took in school last year. although the print is alot different obviouslly, i'm still pretty sure it was illegal right?

    could i use my print as clipart for a poster, or still illegal?

  2. #2
    sunsetbrew's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,882
    Comments
    1

    Default

    copyrights only last 28 years if i have my facts correct. There is an option to renew for another 28, but i think mostly things like mickey mouse do that. Anyway, you might even beable to photo copy a mag that old.

    I AM NOT A LAWYER.

  3. #3
    sunsetbrew's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,882
    Comments
    1

    Default

    the problem with answering questions like this is that if you are wrong it can really cause harm to a person trying to do the right thing. Even a lawyer would be reluctent to give advise. So hey, there is a risk, I really don't know what to say but I don't want you to take my advise. I would prefer you take my hint and go look it up on the net yourself.

  4. #4
    greymatter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    medulla oblongata
    Posts
    795
    Comments
    459

    Default

    i always thought there was some ambiguous 15% alteration rule (to hold up in an actual trial)....

    but who gives a fuck anyway, blame it on warhol.

  5. #5
    Dan Keezer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    482
    Comments
    93

    Default

    this is the current expiry schedule for copyright:

    before 1925 is public domain
    between 1925 and 1977 its 95 years from the date of copywrite
    after 1977 work for hire is 95 years
    after 1977 individually created is Life of the creater + 70 years...


    a little trivia: the works-for-hire bit used to be 75 years, but in 1998, when Disney realized Mickey Mouse would be public domain uhh.... this year, they pulled some strings, bribed some people and made it another 20 years.... this'll probably happen again in 2024 (assuming the apocoypse doesn't destroy all of humanity)

    so basically, yes, to answer your question, your 60's photo could still be under copyright. That is, if it actually is copyrighted.

    frankly I don't think you should worry that much... unless you're making thousands, the odds of anyone knowing, and then actually taking you to court is slim.

    on the other hand, large firms love to pick on little guys, knowing that they have to settle in a negotiation because the littly guy can't pay legal fees. But thats a whole different thing.

    My advice, use it, god knows I'm screwed if Morton Salt sees my posters... (was that graphic made before '25... i don't know..)

  6. #6
    Premium Member
    DenisMutter's Avatar
    $20.00


    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Very Near Dayton, Ohio y'all
    Posts
    8,159
    Comments
    732

    Default

    If the man wants you, you're gone any way you slice it.

  7. #7
    dustin wallace's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    oklahoma city
    Posts
    18,703
    Comments
    1533

    Default

    kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out.
    at least that's what the white trash kid's shirt said in 3rd grade...

  8. #8
    8ball's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    HELLL AWWAIIITSS!!!!
    Posts
    8,088
    Comments
    2478

    Default

    You're asking a good question from the wrong people.

    Readjust your question.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8
    Comments
    1

    Default

    well the picture was in a newer photog magazine that had a vintage photo on each page. the picture is in a gallery in new york (or was when the mag came out). i think i'll go ahead and use it.

    thanks for the info guys.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •