Stamp Out

Just a quick posting to say THANK YOU!

2011-11-22T03:21:00.000-08:00

I have been blog hopping early this morning. And I just wanted to say... THANK YOU!!! I have seen some really awesome posts on public forums helping to explain copyrights and angel policies. I have also seen links back to the articles on this blog. It is people like this who help spread the word, and I wanted to let you know Stamp Out really appreciates that!

Have you been seeing this too? Let us know where. I think these wonderful people should be recognized. It is nice to have people doing the right thing and focusing on all the positives!

Angel Policies.... What are they all about?

2011-10-27T11:49:00.000-07:00

It may be good to start out talking about what we are purchasing when we buy a rubber stamp or a digital stamp. When we buy a rubber stamp we are purchasing a limited license for personal use of the image on the stamp. We own the rubber, we own the block or cling foam it is on, but we do not own the image. The artist or company selling the stamp retains the ownership of the image. This is just like a CD; we own the material the CD is made out of, we do not own the song. Art, such as music, images, etc are intellectual property of their originators. When we purchase a digital image we are purchasing only the limited license to use that image personally.

An Angel Policy is a form of limited license that specifies ways in which a stamped image may be used. Angel policies were developed to allow crafters additional rights in use of rubber stamps and other crafting materials that are copyright protected. Angel policies are not all-inclusive. If a company has an "angel policy" that does not mean we can do whatever we wish with their image.

What does "Angel Policy" mean then? It means exactly what it says. So if it does not mention something, for example: swapping, sharing, trading, then the angel policy does not allow that. It may say we can sell a certain number of hand-made items using their image, but that in no way implies any other use. Perhaps that company may also allow swapping or sharing of their stamped image, but we would have to contact the artist/company for permission to do so.

Simply put, having an angel policy does not mean "YES" to swapping images. Well then, what does mean "YES" to swapping images? There are two ways to we can be sure we are allowed to swap a stamped image. One is by reading in the Terms of Use that we are given permission to do so, (or reading it in an Angel policy), the other way is by seeking permission from the artist/company who produced the image and retains the copyright.

It seems lately a lot of crafters are assuming if it doesn't say "NO" in the angel policy or terms of use, then it must mean you are allowed. This is absolutely NOT the case. So please contact the company and artist before assuming something that is not in print.

Thanks for reading, Michelle

Letter to a Student (crafter)

2011-10-17T10:48:00.000-07:00

This is another letter I thought it might be helpful to share, because it is not an isolated incident.

Again, identifying information is left out, but this is to a member of a crafting class where the Teacher sent out copies of one of my most popular images freely to all of her Students without my permission.

**********

Dear Student,

I'm afraid you're missing the point of my email completely. This is not about Teacher. She's not the victim here -- that would be ME.

I'm sorry to tell you, but this is not Teacher's first time getting caught sharing images. This was not an honest "mistake." She is known to other stamp companies for violating copyright also, and has been told it is wrong and not allowed and that she must stop -- never mind that it is against the law. She is WILLFULLY and repeatedly violating copyright law. Perhaps she is kind to animals, throws a nice tea, inspires your creativity, has a beautiful singing voice -- I don't know. All that I know is that Teacher feels completely free to steal from artists like me and that you are defending her doing it.

My work is VALUABLE to me -- it is my source of income -- how I feed my children.

And it's valuable to all the people who choose to enjoy it legally, especially those who like it enough to spend their own hard-earned money purchasing it.

And obviously, if someone chooses to use my stolen image instead of drawing her own, my talent and my image must be valuable to them too -- though why not valuable enough to pay $3 for instead of choosing to steal it I can't imagine. Why not find one of the hundreds of freebies people offer? Oh yes, people value my work.

I contacted Teacher first (as I always do) when I learned she had been passing my images before contacting any of her class. I did NOT get an apology from a person taking responsibility for their actions (taking responsibility for the violation and promising not to do it again is something I DO forgive.)   As Teacher has been a customer in my shop -- she IS aware of my usage policy, and as evidence that she is aware -- she tried to deny the fact that she distributed my file to you all. Instead - I got two emails from her claiming that "I was under the impression that if I coloured the image which I always do for my class that I had not broken any rules." --- even though I told her I had the actual email with the original digital file attached -- of course colored images were NEVER an issue.

Fortunately -- one person was honest enough to show me proof. The rest -- I heard only from you (here mostly defending Teacher) and one other person simply demanding to know how I got her name. I understand defending a friend, but how about standing up to defend what's right? Do you think it's right for any of you to allow her to continue the violations? Do you smile and say "thank you" when she sends you a stamp illegally -- even if in the back of your mind you know it's not right?

The "name and shame" policy we have adopted at Stamp Out comes from the fact that we get so many repeat offenders. We always give them a chance to acknowledge, apologize and state to us privately that they understand what they did was wrong so we can perhaps end things there. -- but when they do not, we have found that the idea of having proof of their crime go up on the Wall of Shame is a great deterrent.   It is a last resort. It's not something we ever do lightly, but if the internet is going to make it so easy for a person to be dishonest and steal our art -- it is going to also be used as the method to "out" these thieves so they can't hide behind their repeated claims of "not knowing" or "My husband lost his job and I wanted this stamp" or "I did it for charity." By the way, I still have not heard an acknowledgment from Teacher accepting responsibility for passing on my digital files. If you are her friend, you should let her know accepting responsibility for what she has done is how she may be able to move past this.

I honestly do not want your three dollars to "fix" this. I want every one in the class to read this email and see my point. I want promises from you that you won't accept, use or pass on copyrighted work illegally again.    I want you all to understand WHY there are laws protecting art creators. I want you all to read up on copyright issues. (try starting with: http://www.whatiscopyright.org/) I want you to understand this issue so well that you can pass on information to others so they can understand it too. Oh -- and as I said at the start, I'd love it if you all would understand that the only victim here is ME.

If you each can't promise me that -- then I remain violated.

Sincerely,

Mo

Great Article and Great website to learn more about Copyrights!

2011-10-16T15:18:00.000-07:00

I was recently pointed in the direction of a website that does a great job of breaking down basic copyright information to a level we can all understand! The website is Tech & Learning

Although the article is 8 years old, I thought was still very relevant. It is called Kindergarten Copyright!

So if you have time stop over and read it. Let me know what you think. I realize all the different forms of copyright violations we have been seeing lately are not referenced in this particular article, but I do think this makes a great base in our quest for educating the public on this topic.

Another great website that helps define and explain copyright laws can be found HERE. It is http://www.whatiscopyright.org/. I think their definition of copyrights shown below is very fitting to stamping and digital images. (Especially the last sentence)

Copyright is a protection that covers published and unpublished literary, scientific and artistic works, whatever the form of expression, provided such works are fixed in a tangible or material form. This means that if you can see it, hear it and/or touch it - it may be protected. If it is an essay, if it is a play, if it is a song, if it is a funky original dance move, if it is a photograph, HTML coding or a computer graphic that can be set on paper, recorded on tape or saved to a hard drive, it may be protected. Copyright laws grant the creator the exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the work publicly. Exclusive means only the creator of such work, not anybody who has access to it and decides to grab it.

Another explanation from their site that I particularly like is:

Graphic images provided by "free" or "linkware" graphics sites and stock photography are not public domain. These images, although provided to you for free or a fee, are not being given to you in ownership. You are being allowed to use them if you comply with the owner's terms and conditions, so make sure that you comply with them in full when you use or display the works in question. If the owner says "don't alter it", don't alter it. If the owner says, "only use for your personal homepage," only use it for your personal homepage. The same applies to linking images or logos. They are still copyrighted by the owner and are usually only to be used for links to the owner's web site. Again, in these cases the © symbol at the bottom of your web site only pertains to the content that you yourself created, not to the graphics, stock photography or logos provided to you for use.

There is also great easy-to-read information on FAIR USE and the Berne Convention and universal copyrights on their site. They also provide information on where you can actually read more on these laws!

I think it would be a great idea for everyone to read these articles so that they are educated and informed on the law. That way when there is a disagreement on a copyright infringement people are not just throwing their opinions around of what they think is okay or what they think copyright means.

Have a wonderful week,

Michelle

Different Forms of Copyright Infringement

2011-10-05T14:44:00.000-07:00

Hello to everyone! I think it is safe to say for the most part we all understand that buying digital images and making a CD and then selling it would be illegal. However, there are other forms of copyright infringement that some people do not even think about. Tonight I would like to take a little deeper look into what is referred to as stamp image swaps, aka RAKs , or just plain sharing.

Every time I have seen this issue brought up in a public forum there are always those crafters who defend it. They defend it by saying 'I want to try out a stamp before I buy it' or 'It is good for the stamp companies and increases their sales, sometimes that is how I find out about new companies' Granted these responses may be true once in a while, I highly doubt that is the usual case.

Why do I feel that way, you ask? Well, below I am going to show an example of a posting on a public forum. This posting is not an "exception to the rule" this is what we, at Stamp Out, have been finding by the dozens every week. What we find very little of, is a person asking for one image so they might try it out and see if they want to buy it.

I also might point out that if these swaps were really helping any company do you think they would be protesting them? Wouldn't they be encouraging them, in fact hosting them, if they were making money from them?

Do most crafters think their favorite company allows sharing/swapping? Just because it doesn't outright say in their angel policy that they forbid swaps, that does not mean that they allow them. Since reproducing and image and sharing it with anyone IS a violation of copyright, many manufacturers have never thought they had to spell it out in their policies. They might just have "no mechanical,electronic or no manual reproduction". They probably never anticipated the world wide web having such a negative impact on image theft . (Although I think we should have looked at it as a warning when all the music was being stolen via the internet) A lot of companies are now adding wording specifically to their angel policies so as to alleviate the belief that since it doesn't say no, it must mean yes. This does not mean it was okay before they changed their policy, or that they are even changing their policy at all. What this means is they are spelling it out for us. They are telling us what a copyright violation is. So, what I am saying is, unless it specifically says "swapping and sharing are allowed" or unless we write and ask a company if we can share their images and they say yes, then it is, by law, NOT allowed.

I also realize some companies are afraid of making the crafting community mad, and afraid it will hurt their sales if they spell it right out or say no, so they do nothing. I say to them, saying no will not hurt your sales near as much as these huge swaps and image sharing galleries do. Please stand up for your rights!

Now onto the belief that we should be able to try it out before we buy it. If someone sends a stamped image to me, they stamp it, I don't. Therefore, I dont think I am tyring it out at all. They are stamping it, not me, so I am not quite sure how that would be trying it out. However, I will play along with the premise that that is "trying it out". Why on earth should we be allowed to try it before we buy it? Really with the internet, blogs,crops and all the forums we can already see what the images look like when they are stamped and even colored, so there is no need to "try it". Also, I think many companies offer a freebie image digitally if we would like to get an idea of what their images look like when they are sitting on our table. Lastly, if we really feel we want to try it, well then we should just ask the company. They may be able to oblige us in some way.

Below is a screenshot of a post on a public forum. (Click on it to enlarge) This is what we see A LOT of!! I welcome your comments, questions and concerns on this issue!

Have a great night,

Michelle Offenberger

Another Anti-Piracy site

2011-02-09T10:19:00.000-08:00

Please check out Jen Strange's great reference site: StopPiracy -- Jen has been addressing this issue to digital scrappers since 2006

My new job!! Stempledrukjes!!

2011-01-27T14:48:00.000-08:00

Imagine this:

Hey, I have an idea -- I’m going to sell stamps on Ebay!

No, I am tired of drawing my own illustrations -- what are you kidding? That’s too much work!! I have this drawer full of Magnolia stamps, so I’m gonna stamp, stamp. stamp, stamp, stamp . . . on paper (wow, this is so easy!!) and now I’m going to sell them on Ebay and make some money selling them!

Wow, what an easy job I have!

Okay, just kidding -- you don’t have to imagine it, because here it is, a whole list of stolen images being sold to stampers who either don’t know they’re committing theft -- or simply don’t care:

STEMPELDRUKJES!!

This instance is from the Netherlands’ version of Ebay, (actually, Marktplaats was the first place I found my prints of my images being sold as “stempeldrukjes” a year ago, but the seller did take them down when I confronted her.) I have also dealt with people trying to sell my images on Ebay UK, so don't think I'd pick on any country -- some of my longest, most dedicated friends are from the Netherlands.

Kind of sad that "stempledrukjes is the first Dutch word I learned.

There’s even a category for this on Marktplaats! PLEASE -- this is wrong!! I can’t fight for all these stamp companies (at a glance I see Magnolia, Greeting Farm, Penny Black . . .)

Thank you to a fan from the Netherlands who alerted me to this. If you know the stamp companies whose work is being sold illegally here, please drop them a line and let them know. (And leaving some “pointed but polite” feedback for these thieves on Marktplaats if you speak Dutch would be most appreciated.) There are also buttons to report illegal sales on all these sites.

Please do NOT buy printed images or CDs containing stolen stamps, and spread the word that this is not okay.

Open Discussion on Image Swapping

2011-01-22T09:25:00.000-08:00

In the comment section of another post, I received this today. I think maybe this discussion is being lost in the comments, so I'm bringing it out here because it is very important:

"I am sorry to say that I don't agree with the reasoning behind the "don't let anyone else use your stamps" push. Rubber stamps and digital images are made to be reproduced more than once. We pay for the privelege of buying the stamp in order to use the images an unlimited amount of times. It doesn't matter if I use it myself, or my friend who comes to stamp with me on Saturday uses it. As far as I am concerned, it's the same as me buying a book written by a talented artist (Author) and lending it to the same friend when I have finished reading it. Is that against copyright too? Or, if I was to sell the book secondhand when I have finished with it, does that breach copyright? Are you saying that when I have had enough of my stamp (rubber or digital) that it is a breach of copyright to sell it to a new owner?
You made your money once- stop your money grabbing and let us crafters use the images that we paid for. You only drew it once, yet you are selling it a million times over- unlike the famous painters/artists that you compare yourself to, who made and sold one only of their famous images. Let's compare apples with apples if we are going to have a serious discussion here." LL

Well -- here's my response:

Hello there,

Do you buy a loaf of bread and run it through your printer so you can give copies to your neighbors? Do you buy a chair and you and your best friends all sit in it at the same time? Of course not.

Sorry if you don’t agree with the copyright policy on stamps, but you shouldn’t be buying them if you don’t intend to abide by them -- otherwise you’re opening yourself up for legal action. It’s the law, and by simply possessing a piece of intellectual property owned by someone else (art, books, music, video games, movies . . .) you are assumed to have agreed to the policy. If the owner thinks you are violating the policy by sharing or swapping or copying or selling . . . well, this web campaign is to tell you that there are a lot of artists/companies and a lot of true fans who do care and will keep their eye out for each other.

It is okay to lend someone your RUBBER stamp. Just as with a physical book, you let someone take your stamp home and you must stop using it yourself for the time they are using it. This is the same with a library . . . they purchase a certain number of physical copies of a book and that same number of people may be reading them at once . . . and even with Kindle, which is now allowing people to lend a digital book, but only for two weeks -- and it will be unavailable on your own Kindle while your friend is possessing it.

What you’re saying is more like -- “okay, I bought this book -- so I feel I can do WHATEVER what I want with it, so I’m going to scan it in and print it out and GIVE it to the the ten ladies in my reading group so they don’t have to buy it.” Or let’s kick it up a notch. How about, “Let’s do a digi swap -- Everyone who wants to join has to pick 5 of their favorite digis and email them to everyone else in the group -- that way, with the hundred of us participating, we’ll all get 500 free images!”

OR . . . let’s kick it up another notch . . . I found these digis on google search, I’m going to erase the watermarks and erase the artist’s signature, and I am going to put them in my Picasa album, and share the link here on my blog and on my LiveInternet page and on my LiveJournal page and all of you WORLDWIDE who would like to download 30 free images by Mo (or 20 by Whiff of Joy, or 5 by Stampavie, or 100 Magnolias) can go here and just grab them.”

Do you see where I’m going with this?

You know what -- here’s the thing. It is SO EASY to share a copy of a piece someone else’s art. But that doesn’t make it morally right or lawful.

We artists are here to tell you that sharing our images is distributing our stolen art. And lets not go into the “famous artists” thing, that was intentionally rude -- but by the way, maybe if Van Gogh had been able to license his art for a $3 each usage, he might not have died in poverty.

xoMo

Discussion

2011-01-06T20:45:00.001-08:00

Any questions, suggestions, criticisms or comments?