Why is Star Wars a copyright issue but a MLB team is not? Over the weekend, I was asked to be part of a photo shoot for a political candidate. I was wearing a t-shirt that featured a Star Wars character and the photographer stated that he wanted to position me in a fashion so it wasn't visible to avoid a, 'copyright issue'. (For those who are curious, the request was made last minute and I wasn't advised on clothing restrictions) After a certain point, it was determined that the ideal angle still was showing the Star Wars character, so they gave me a t-shirt featuring logos and imagery associated with a Major League Baseball (MLB) team. I'm trying to figure out why the MLB shirt wouldn't create a copyright issue for the photographer, while the Star Wars character would. Is it relating to the litigious nature of Disney (I really doubt this MLB team would sue) or is there something about MLB logos that are inherently fair use? Regarding this potential duplicate which questions whether a trademark can be used by a political campaign without permission and the most upvoted answer is of course, &quot;it depends,&quot; but for the equivalent scenario in my question it seems like it would not be allowed because of the logo's prominence in the photo. Thus it begs the question why is this copyrightable material acceptable and this one is not? To clarify the issue, the MLB logo in particular is for the Philadelphia Phillies. As a team, they've had a variety of logos over the years and based on the answers provided thus far, it seems some may be subject to copyright and others would be subject to trademark depending upon the complexity of the art. In this specific case, it's this version of their logo: As this is more than just stylized lettering, it seems this would presumably be subject to copyright.
From the mention of a MLB shirt, I am going to assume the OP is located in the united-states. Logos are (in general) copyrightable Anything with a modicum of creative input is by default copyrighted. This includes both film shots from movies and logos of sports organizations. &quot;Modicum of creative input&quot; is known as the threshold of originality. That legal doctrine is in force in the US, but not in other jurisdictions - for instance, the UK uses &quot;sweat of the brow&quot; where creativity is not needed to obtain copyright protection. A still shot from a film set almost surely passes the threshold of originality. However, some logos do not. For instance, the Pittsburgh Pirates logo is a two-dimensional letter P - somewhat stylized, but not that much. It is arguably below the threshold of copyright protection. On the other hand, the Red Socks logos (which is, well, two red socks) is almost surely copyrighted. Let us assume that the logo or imagery present on the OP's photo shirt was indeed copyrighted. Does that make the photo a copyright violation? Incidental use It might be the case that having the artwork on the shirt as an incidental part of the photograph makes it OK. In the US, such incidental use could be covered by fair use, but as always, it’s a delicate balancing act. A professional photograph taken for political advertisement is going to be held to a higher standard than a blurry photo from your aunt’s Facebook gallery. Dmitry Grigoryev says in comments that walking around with a Star Wars shirt could be construed as distributing (via public display) a copyrighted work. However, &quot;putting it on and walking around&quot; is an essential function of a shirt. Absent terms to the contrary, whoever sells a shirt with a copyrighted design grants an implied license to the shirt-wearer to move about with that shirt. [EDIT: see Mayken’s comment, that’s a statutory exception to copyright.] The scope of such implied licenses can be unclear, though, and it could arguably not extend to promotional photographs for political advertisements. Note a recent case in Germany (link to judgement, in German) where it was held that a hotel posting online pictures of its rooms, including a wallpaper design, violated the copyright of the designer. I am not familiar enough with German copyright law to determine if an appeal of that lower-court decision would have any chance of success, but I think that ruling is reasonable within the general principles of EU copyright law. (Whether it is morally acceptable is of course another thing entirely.) Non-legal explanations It is also possible that the photographer or another PR staff member would rather have the politician associated with baseball than with Star Wars for image reasons, and copyright is only a pretext for that. Or that they (mistakenly) thought that the baseball shirt design was not copyrighted.
Generally, it's illegal. You are creating a derivative work and you are not allowed to do that without the permission of the copyright holder. Some jurisdictions may have exceptions, such as fair use under US law. However, this generally protects uses that are intended to comment on or parody the work. It doesn't sound like that is the purpose of your image modification. NOT including: faceswaps, modifications that would shame or affect negatively the reputation of the actors on the image. That doesn't make it legal. I share it in a way that I don't make any economic profit out of it, and clearly stating that it is a modified image (not sure if inside the image, or in the caption under it) and state who is the legal owner of the original image. That doesn't make it legal, either.
YES, if you can get an image of it, you can use it A work that old is not under copyright protection in any country in the world. Under US law any work published in 1924 or before (as of 2019) is in the public domain. Unpublished works may be protected for up to 120 years after creation under US law. But no work that is over 600 years old has any copyright protection. In any case, merely owning the physical work does not mean owning the copyright. In the case of a work sufficiently recent that it is under copyright, say from the 1970s, the copyright initially belongs to the artist. If the artist sells or gives the painting to a museum (or anyone else), the artist retains the copyright unless that is explicitly included in the deal, in a written agreement. If the artist dies, the copyright is inherited, just as any other property that the artist leaves, as directed by will or law. If a museum owns a painting that is out of copyright, it can restrict access to it and prevent people from photographing or copying it, because it can restrict what people do on its property. But if an exact copy (known as a "slavish copy") gets out, the museum has no copyright in it, because making a slavish copy does not create an original, copyrightable work under US law. See the case of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) and Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) The law may be different in non-US countries, but the reasoning of the Bridgeman case has bene followed elsewhere. A "slavish" copy is one that attempts to reproduce the original as exactly as possible, without adding or removing or changing anything. A photo of a painting in a frame on a stand with people standing beside it is not a slavish copy. The images of art one sees in books on art are usually slavish copies. So are the images one sees on museum web sites, as a rule. The term implies that the copyist had no more freedom than a slave in making the copy. At least that is the metaphor. Slavish copies do not get separate copyrights because they are not original works. Photos of 3D works such as sculptures require choice of angle, lighting, etc, sufficient t make them original works -- no two photographers will produce quite the same image of a sculpture. But some courts have ruled that wire-frame models of 3D works of art are slavish copies and not protected by copyright.
It depends. Wikipedia is quite strict on its policies, and it only allows uploading images (and other media) that either are in the public domain or with a licence that allows to be reproduced (often, Creative Commons, CC). If you go to the details of the image it claims that the picture is licenced under CC, with attribution to Saffron Blaze. So most probably Saffron Blaze got permision to take the picture, and he distributed it with the CC-Attribution licence. When scrapping a web site for data, Google and other engines usually search for metadata (the robots.txt file) that tells them what to index and what to not. If a user gives them permission to index a picture by not stating restrictions in the robots.txt, they can do index it. Of course, in both cases it might be that someone uploads a picture that he does not have permission to share. In this case the situation will, of course, depend on jurisdiction, but many laws have provisions that ensure that, if the content provider is dilligent in addressing copyright issues caused by the users, they are protected. For example in the USA the Digital Millenium Copyright Act establishes &quot;safe harbor&quot; provisions that protects content providers if they give a way to denounce copyright infringiments and address those in a given timeframe.
Copyright Issues There are several issues here. The Original Rose Image and its Derivatives The image was apparently first posted to Stack Exchange as part of this question by user &quot;Ongky Denny Wijaya&quot;. That user did not say where the image came from. If that user created the image, whether by taking a photograph, or in an image drawing program (or in any other way), then s/he owns the copyright, and licensed it under the CC-BY-SA (4.0) free license by posting it to SE. However, if that user did not create the image but got it from somewhere else, it was quite probably protected by copyright and used without permission. If &quot;Ongky Denny Wijaya&quot; did not have the rights to the image, then s/he could not license them, and all uses on SE and deriving from SE are copyright infringements, and the copyright holder, whoever that is, could sue for damages. The first two answers to your SE question give LaTeX code for rose images only slightly resembling the original rose image. They are not derivatives of the original image. The third seems to be a transformation of the original, and so is a derivative work. It may not lawfully be used without the permission of the original copyright holder whoever that may be. Unless you can reliably determine who that is, and seek permission, you may not lawfully use that image, nor LaTeX code for it. Original SE Content When a user posts original contest to SE, it is automatically released under the CC-BY-SA (4.0) Creative Commons free license. That license allows anyone to reuse the content, and to create modified (derivative) versions of the content, but under some conditions. The most important of these are 1) that the content must be attributed properly to the copyright holder, and any copyright notice must be preserved. (That is the &quot;BY&quot; part.) And 2) the reused or modified work must be provided to others under exactly the same license. (That is the &quot;SA&quot; part.) The first part can be done by listing the user name of the original SE poster, and providing a link to the post. The second part is potentially trickier. If the modified work is &quot;merged into&quot; a new work, the entire new work must be released under CC-BY-SA, which would hinder any commercial publication. If the re-used or modified work is kept separate, at the very least it needs to have a separate license statement, making it clear that anyone can re-use or further modify the work, and making it clear just what is included in that release. That should be associated with the credit or attribution statement mentioned above. That would apply both to an image, and to LaTex code for generating the image. If this is not done, reuse of any such content is an infringement of copyright, and could be the subject of a lawsuit. Fair Use Use of the whole or the majority of an SE question or answer, or of the whole of an original image posted to SE, would probably not constitute fair use in the US, although that would depend on the rest of the facts. If such use did not qualify as fair use, that it must be used in accordance with the stated license, as described above.
The length of a literary work doesn't determine if its use is fair use. Copyright does not cover names, titles of works, catchwords/catchphrases/advertising slogans etc. or lists of ingredients (like in a recipe or chemical instructions), however, the procedure can be copyright. The work must also be original. If the tweet copies something that already exists then there is no copyright in the tweet - if the thing that is copied has copyright protection then the tweet itself may be a violation. That said, assuming that the Tweet enjoys copyright protection, the owner will be the author: presumably the owner of the Twitter account. For anyone else to legally use it, the use must be either: Licensed by the copyright owner Fair use (USA) or Fair Dealing (most everywhere else in the English speaking world) For Item 1, the Twitter terms of service say: You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). In case you don't know what that means, Twitter gives you this plain English summary: Tip: This license is you authorizing us to make your Tweets on the Twitter Services available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. So, you can get permission from the copyright holder or from Twitter. Well, Twitter has given permission: Except as permitted through the Twitter Services, these Terms, or the terms provided on dev.twitter.com, you have to use the Twitter API if you want to reproduce, modify, create derivative works, distribute, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, or otherwise use the Twitter Services or Content on the Twitter Services. Providing you use their API, you can "reproduce, modify, create derivative works, distribute, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, or otherwise use the ... Content ..." Therefore, fair use/dealing considerations are irrelevant.
Well baseball for historical and frankly crazy decisions of SCOTUS is exempt because it is not a business that crosses state lines (by definition of the court if by no one else's). The other sports have had their run-ins with antitrust laws; some they've won and some they've lost. All of these have been to do with antitrust provisions in restraint of trade between leagues and clubs and clubs and players. As for monopoly powers: The elements of monopolization are twofold: possession of monopoly power in a relevant market; and willfully acquiring or maintaining that power. There are two clear defences to allegations of running a monopoly: the definition of the market - if the market is defined as &quot;baseball&quot; then there is a clear monopoly, however, if the market is &quot;professional sports&quot; it is not so clear that there is a monopoly. Certainly, both definitions of market are arguable. that the monopoly was &quot;the result of superior skill, foresight, and industry&quot;. These types of monopoly are allowed as the acquisition of monopoly power was not willfull.
This is known as "film novelization"(For example, the novelizations of the Star Wars movies are film novelizations, created under license), and is copyright infringement unless made under a license from the copyright holder. Specifically, you would be making a derivative work of the original, by changing the medium. One of the rights provided by copyright is the right to control the transference from one medium into another. This, in my (non-lawyer) opinion, is unlikely to be found as fair use. There are four test factors for determining fair use(source), decided on a case by case basis: Transformative Character of the Derivative Work: Unlikely to be found in your favor, as nothing is transformed ("I don't change anything, the name are the same, everything is the same, it's just a conversion to textual form"). Nature of the Original Work: A narrative entertainment film, thus unlikely to be found in your favor. Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken: You've taken all of it; not in your favor. Effect on the Potential Market: You are essentially providing a free version of what copyright holders can often charge for; negative effect on their potential market. Not in your favor.