Copyright Aid

Hi antgleb, Provided that you use the original postcards which you buy and don't make copies of them, there will be no infringement of copyright as you are not copying anything and you are not distributing the original cards other than in a way which the manufacturer intended the cards to be used. I...

Hi Sally, Good to hear from you again. Downloading and using the tree image for commercial projects would not be advisible, but if this was just for a one-off personal project I think there would be negligable risk involved. The problem with the whole concept is that ignorance of the fact that somet...

Hi tajones, The purpose of trade mark protection is to prevent the buying public from being deceived or confused about the true origin of the goods or services they are considering buying. To that extent it mainly concerns the way in which a product is being offered to the public, such as advertisin...

Hi Timothy, Copyright can get very complicated, and so I don't blame you for being confused. Let's look at the issue as if Letters Patent and Copyright were in fact the same thing. Copyright is a territorial right created by statute and each nation has slightly different laws which govern how copyri...

Hi Timothy, To split hairs a bit, the King James Bible is not subject to copyright in the UK, however because of Letters Patent issued by the Crown, only the Queen's Printer may print, publish and distribute the KJV Bible within the UK and its Overseas Territories. The Copyright Designs and Patents ...

Hi Crafty,

We've covered this topic a couple of times before, so take a look at these threads and see if they answer you questions:

Decoupage using Napkins
repurpose of purchased images from paper napkins/serviettes
Decoupage of Disney napkins onto items - copyright infringe

Good bit of sleuthing, Nick. Well done.

Hi justacog,

Thanks for the extra detail. Good luck with your negotiations.

Nice one, Gabe! I hope your bullish approach works. Good luck

Hi Gabe, It doesn't sound as if they know what they're talking about as you clearly had a valid licence, but just failed to apply all the licence terms. I would have advised you not to draw attention to that omission, but as you have, I don't think it fatally damages your position when it comes to m...

Hi Anthony, I am a bit confused. When you say that PicRights are after £240, is that explicitly stated in the email? Given the rates you quoted from Reuters and Adobe, £240 does seem excessive. It's hard to tell if the use, as you describe it, is editorial. However assuming that it is, I think you s...

Hi MOGODONMAN867, As you will have seen from the other postings here, and in the similar threads about demands from Pixsy and PicRights, their standard method is to ask a high fee, and then drop it down if the person they are going after stands up to them and is prepared to negotiate a fairer settle...

Hi Gabe, You don't say exactly what Pixsy's claim concerns. Is it just that there was no credit, or are they claiming more general copyright infringement. If it is just the fact that a credit was omitted, that certainly wouldn't justify the sort of fee they are asking for. Failing to provide a credi...

Hi Mr Punch, The dead can't be defamed, either here or in the USA. You are right that in the USA some states have so-called Publicity Rights laws which can protect certain personal characteristics for up to 70 years after a person's death.The most comprehensive of these is probably the Californian C...

Hi qwerty2021, Yes, section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 would apply to copyright infringement, so after 6 years have elapsed from the point at which the tortious act ceased, then in normal circumstances claimant would be out of time to bring a claim. However that wouldn't apply in the case you ment...