Hot answers tagged

24

It's absolutely necessary to attribute any third party graphics that your site utilizes as specified by the license agreement. Just because there might be other sites out there not properly attributing artwork doesn't make it okay at all. If the icon is so "basic" or "minor" that you think it's silly to give attribution, then consider just creating the ...


10

Whatever you decide, WRITE UP A CONTRACT. You must both sign it before you begin work. The contract should contain your requirements for licensing and state that you own the copyright otherwise. You can probably find some good language as a starting point from AIGA: http://www.aiga.org Do not in any way proceed without a contract. Even if your contract is ...


10

I would always search the site for any attribution requirements or guidelines. In the absence of that, the The Noun Project has some clear and concise instructions for different forms of media that can be reliably used as a guideline: How to Attribute This Icon Digital Attribution Websites - Include the attribution either on the page where ...


10

You can put tutorial work in your portfolio provided you explain that it is tutorial work. Alas, I don't know if that would gain you much in an interview. The fact that you can finish a tutorial doesn't necessarily translate into design and problem solving skills which is what the person looking at your portfolio wants to see.


9

Yes, you may. I contacted Microsoft support and they confirmed this. However, I don't know how much trust I would put into a chat representative for legal concerns. So, I've provided some more information... Here is an excerpt from Microsoft's own website: Clip Art and Sample Art The End-User License Terms that accompany your software describe ...


7

Yes, a vectorized image generally counts as a derivative of the original, which means that distributing it without the original copyright holder's permission would be a copyright violation. Of course, if you just want to make a nice poster to hand on your own wall, then you're probably safe — doing so might or might not be legal, depending on your ...


7

I haven't read about anyone being sued for vectorizing, but I have read about someone being sued for pixelating. After seven months of legal wrangling, we reached a settlement. Last September, I paid Maisel a sum of $32,500 and I'm unable to use the artwork again. Pixelating is removing detail whereas vectorizing would be adding detail (if you ...


7

There are three issues here: The easy one. Do you have permission or a license from the artist? Or did they artist release their work under something like Creative Commons? If no, you're stealing their work, don't do it. If yes, move on to... The medium difficulty question. Can a person's likeness be used like this? Leaving aside who it is for now, see ...


6

Think of yourself as a carpenter and the client has hired you to trim out a house. You buy the tools, the client pays for the final product (the trim being installed). You walk away with the tools you bought as part of doing business. This is the same with fonts. It's a tool that you as a graphic designer use to produce work for clients. Since the logo ...


6

I'm not a lawyer, but there are a few things here that any designer who's worked with CC material can clear up. does this mean that the shirt cannot be sold? Not at all. Plenty of people sell physical goods containing open-licensed intellectual property (e.g. open source software on a disc for convenience or installed as a service, books that are out ...


6

If the license says it should be attributed, I don't think it should be questionned if it should be attributed or not. These are the conditions and you are free to make your own visual if the conditions are not right for you. Then again, I am fairly sure that in common practice, a lot of people don't bother attributing even when the license requires it which ...


6

The material is copyrighted. You can use it under the terms of the CC licence offered, you can negotiate with the copyright owner for a different license. Or find another resource that has a license you're happy with. Or develop your own. Either it's worth doing this right, or it isn't worth doing. Pick one.


6

GitHub Perhaps obviously (although perhaps not so obviously in the era of Wikipedia and having one's StackExchange Q&A edited by others without asking)...someone's GitHub repository on the web is not something you modify directly. Instead you "fork" it to create your own clone, that only you (and collaborators you designate) can modify. So if the ...


6

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, so I can't take responsbility, yadda yadda yadda. No. 'Changing' a work 'a bit to make it mine' is a so-called derivative work, for which the original author explicitly owns the copyright. Besides, taking someone else's work, changing it a bit, and presenting it as completely your own, wouldn't that be deception or fraud, or ...


6

If it's clearly Radcliff's likeness, then you'll probably run into a problem. It's to do with a persons privacy rights, and to prevent them looking like they endorse things that they don't. If it is plainly in character as Potter, you'd have a problem there as well, probably with Rowling / her publisher / the movie studio / etc. kinda sounds like it's not a ...


5

The guy who created the Obama Hope poster was dinged for violating AP's copyright. While I'm not a lawyer, I'd say if it's for your personal use, you're probably not going to get sued, but if you put it out into the world in any capacity, and/or if you try to make money from it, you'll be in trouble.


5

When you purchase or download a font, there is usually a readme file or a license included which states the usages the artist declares safe. It might be free for personal use, but you have to pay for commercial or even just acknowledge the creator's work. Look at the license, it will answer all :)


5

IANAL, but clear documentation of permissions and focused management of assets on your end are really the only ways to obviate possible use claims. If a stock imagery site isn't able to provide clear documentation about the permissions status of an image, then don't download it and find something else that does. Also, having an asset or content management ...


5

For a business card, my recommendation would be Use a URL-shortening service to create a short url for the webpage that is hosting the original graphic with full attribution. Use small print on the card to give the short url with the credit. Example: If you have room, you might want to include the creator's name as well as the link. You also might ...


5

I am going to stick my head out, as I have thought a good deal about this. I am first and foremost concerned with practicalities and decency and what actually is going on and a viable solution. (Obligatory disclaimer: this is my personal opinion and experience. This does not reflect any law, nor does it cover all kinds of permissions given with various ...


5

Do you want the possibility of getting work from the new owner? Do you want the possibility of getting more works from the current owner if she every starts a new business? If the answer to one of these question is yes, do not even think about being so daft as to even talk to her about recharging for work you have already charged her for. As to what ...


4

In every question about licensing terms, the correct procedure is to contact the rights-holder of the font or typeface. The actual owner of the typeface, and licensing, is the only one who with the authority to answer your questions about license terms. If you for some reason cannot contact or get a response from the owner of the rights in question, your ...


4

In terms of technology, likely no problem. Font file formats are mostly cross platform these days (OSX and Windows 7 can handle most font file formats). Legally, though, it's murky. The fonts that come with OSX are licensed with the purchase of the Operating system. Technically, you are allowed to use them with the operating system...but not on other ...


4

I'd say it's a very blurry line (and as many similar cases: It's always better to ask a lawyer). As for your first question, the HTML code (the code itself) would probably not violate the clause. The CSS and images, on the other side, might. No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Looking at the definition of No ...


4

Your proposal means that you buy the image and then either sell the image to your client, perhaps for nothing or as an included fee in the full project price; keep a copy of the image yourself and distribute a copy to your client (perhaps for a fee, or maybe not). Both of these are explicity forbidden by the licence, which states that you may not:— ...


4

By reselling images to clients, most agencies and design firms are probably falling into a grey area in terms of violation of these license agreements. This is a very interesting legal issue that must be causing conflicts on the order of thousands of times a day. We all buy stock and use it in work. That's what stock images are intended for. As an agency, ...


4

Commercial use means that the image is used directly in the marketing and promotion of a product that results in monetary gain. Otherwise, you are fine as long as you don't claim ownership of the image either explicitly or implied.


4

If your main concern is not wanting to mess up your web design with bylines attached to every graphic, be aware that you generally have some flexibility with how you give attribution. In particular, you may be able to give attribution in HTML comments that don't actually show up on the page. The full legal text of the international version of CC-BY-3.0 ...


4

I think Confused is missing some information in his answer. It would depend on the contract if the designer is being contracted in the first place by the company and not employed or even an intern. If this individual is on contract he might be putting his initials on the work to help aid the director or lead designer in knowing what he is producing and it ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible