HOME | DD

Description
I’m writing this because of the number of features that are put on D.A.. I have done many in journal form to highlight or draw people to artists and writers they may not see otherwise. Each had no monetary value to me, nor did I feel that I was hurting anyone, just the opposite. Videos that went through YTube were private to my account and only accessible to DA members. They were not questioned in the journals and many people were happy to have their own video. When someone was angry, it was taken down, but I was still threatened and treated shabbily. Although I understand, some situations can be handled better. Now I will not do even a journal without asking the artist and keeping a record of the answer. Because there are so many features going up on a daily basis, it’s a good idea to ask. Most deviants are happy for the publicity. I’ve been featured over 100 times and have never been asked if it’s ok. What is DA’s policy with features, it seems to go against anything written here. Art and writing on my website have written permission for use. The hardest are the photo manipulations because each piece of stock used must be listed. I tend to stay clear. If stock says may be used no where else but DA, I don’t use it. Free stock is not free, it costs to use the license. Free means, give us $10 and you may use that picture. That is misunderstood by many people. It’s sad because people have taken to using istock, Getty, 123rf, etc. Nobody wants grief, but I’ve found my own work plagiarized and have had to go to court before the issue was corrected. Writing is my business and I made an error. There is a picture on here that was taken off of Facebook and overly masked. I recognized it immediately, put up a journal about where people got their pictures, but it’s still up. My website was pillaged by Pinterest, with pictures credited to me. Each picture has correct credits. There’s a fine line, but it didn’t seem fair. My site does not share pictures on Facebook, Google , but it does share pages to read. It promotes musicians, poets, writers, photographers and has pages for people to share links about various topics, illness, human issues, etc. All must be properly linked to their home page.
One thing they do say is to talk to the person in a kind, non threatening manner. They will more often than not just remove the piece. After that, if not, report or threaten. It’s a good idea to remember how this person has treated you in the past.
Copying a Van Gosh and claiming it’s a Van Gogh is theft/FORGERY. However his work is too old to fall under copyright. If you use stock, make sure you credit the stock. Vintage pictures before 1922, come under public domain, so it’s nice the make the provider aware.
Important to know, anything put on the web after1989 is automatically copyrighted.
Make your copyright clear
Sign your work
© put this sign and date your work.
Write copyrighted and the date.

Some Other Facts to Know

The link below is one from Deviant Art with varying opinions of art theft.

protectart.deviantart.com/jour…

thief-busters.deviantart.com/

about.deviantart.com/policy/co…

Using materials from the Internet COPYRIGHT CRASH COURSE
Copyright law governs the use of materials you might find on the Internet, just as it governs the use of books, video or music in the analog world. Many people consider copyright law inadequate to deal with the realities of electronic communication today, but it takes time to change the law. This is actually a good thing: it will probably be better if it changes in response to what we learn about these new technologies through experience, rather than in response to special interests that may be desperate to protect their positions in the print world. Unfortunately though, this means that the law is not going to get clearer right away.
Given unclear legal rules, what can we do today with the materials we find on the Internet and what are our liabilities for infringing another's copyright?
Some common assumptions are wrong
Copyright protection
Many people assume that everything posted on the Internet is public domain, probably because our law used to protect published works only if they displayed the proper copyright notice upon publication. The law, however, has changed: neither publication nor a notice of any kind is required to protect works today. Simply putting the pen to the paper or in the electronic medium, putting the fingers to the save key creates a copyrighted work. Once expression is committed to a tangible medium (and computer media is considered tangible), copyright protection is automatic. So, postings of all kinds are protected the same as published printed works.
The saving grace: implied and express licenses
to use Internet materials
Whenever an author posts anything on the Internet, he or she should reasonably expect that it will be read, downloaded, printed out, forwarded, and even used as the basis for other works to some degree. So, just by posting, an author impliedly grants a limited license to use her work in this manner. Think about the rights a newspaper editor has to publish a "letter to the editor." The author of the letter probably did not include a line in the letter giving the editor an express permission to publish the letter, but anyone who sends such a letter must be presumed to understand that this is what happens to letters to the editor.
On the other hand, most authors would not think that posting a work automatically gives consent to commercial use of it without permission. This is not part of what one reasonably expects, and so it's not part of the implied license.

LINK TO THE REMAINDER OF THE ARTICLE copyright.lib.utexas.edu/useof…

What You Should Know About Pinterest and Copyright
www.pcworld.com/article/250700…

Copyright Issues for Social Media
www.legalzoom.com/articles/cop…

When posting journals, there was no intention in my mind to do anything more than
Spread the word about talent found on DA.
If you don’t think you need to read this think again., the rules are changing daily.
New laws are being written about bullying, etc.
I had no intention of infringing on anybody’s rights, but make sure before you do anything.
One example-I have been featured in a few journals which have some pictures which offend me and I’m very open minded.

HOW LONG DOES COPYRIGHT LAST?

70 yearsAll works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. Works published after 1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.

fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/…
Does copyright protect an author’s creative ideas?
No. Copyright shelters only fixed, original and creative expression, not the ideas or facts upon which the expression is based. For example, copyright may protect a particular song, novel or computer game about a romance in space, but it cannot protect the underlying idea of having a love affair among the stars. Allowing authors to monopolize their ideas would thwart the underlying purpose of copyright law, which is to encourage people to create new work.
For similar reasons, copyright does not protect facts — whether scientific, historical, biographical or news of the day. Any facts that an author discovers in the course of research are in the public domain, free to all. For instance, anyone is free to use information included in a book about how the brain works, an article about the life and times of Neanderthals or a TV documentary about the childhood of President Clinton — provided that that they express the information in their own words.
Facts are not protected even if the author spends considerable time and effort discovering things that were previously unknown. For example, the author of the book on Neanderthals takes ten years to gather all the necessary materials and information for her work. At great expense, she travels to hundreds of museums and excavations around the world. But after the book is published, any reader is free to use the results of this ten year research project to write his or her own book on Neanderthals — without paying the original author.
- See more at: fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/…
NEVER COPY A WHOLE ARTICLE-LINK, LINK, LINK.

THINK
THINK
THINK