With Windows Vista Microsoft plans to introduce its own proprietary alternative to the universal JPEG protocol. Undoubtedly aiming to replace it. I consider that bad news.
Exactly like I never use Apple's AAC format, but stick to MP3 because of its universal compatibility.

So will it be Bill's next monopoly?
Only if we, users, fall for it!

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/wmphoto/default.aspx (Micro$haft's announcement)

Jpeg isn't universal. In fact, Forgent want to charge you for it, and might succeed (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14775&Page=1&pagePos=2).

Jpeg isn't universal. In fact, Forgent want to charge you for it, and might succeed (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14775&Page=1&pagePos=2).If this is the same case as a year ago, some large companies have already paid. The thing that bothers me is the idea of jpeg was that companies come forward and make their claims before making it a standard. This company waited until everyone was using it as a free standard, then demanded pay. And apparently they are getting away with it.

doug,

that would be like compuserve now trying to charge for anyone using a .gif. it would be ludicrous, not that that would stop anyone. pheh!

there is a law in the tradermark/patent arena that goes something like, 'if your brand name becomes synomous with the product type, you can no longer trademark it. 'jello' ran into this and so did 'reynold's wrap' and some others. that's why you now hear the jello commercial say 'jello brand gelatin' instead of just 'jello'. i would think the same thing or something very similar applies to file formats. once they've become a standard with no restrictions on use, you cant just go retro on the patent/copyrights. but, that's just me; and lawyers dont think that way :(

craig

The GIF situation was actually caused by the LZW patent, which expired a couple of years ago.

And the Jello situation (called trademark genericizing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark)) demonstrates why Adobe hates it when people say "photoshopped" (http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html#photoshop).

genericizing.... i knew there was a term for it.

and lol, i hadnt even thought of 'photoshopping' something. and yeah, i'll bet adobe hates it.

does anyone else wonder about all this copyright, trademark, patents, and so on? i mean, was Bach ever concerned that someone would rip him off? Beethoven? Da Vinci? Rembrandt?

as an artist, i see something and i want to do something with it, some image or piece of music or whatever...and i often do. but, if it's based on someone else's work, i dare not produce it so that anyone else can see or hear and that part of it just goes against the grain for me. i dont want to steal anyone's work, but one image will often inspire another. if someone else produced the first piece and i produce some alteration of it, i'm doomed if i try to sell it or show it off even.

i've also seen folks here on retouch put a copyright notice and signature on a rendition in the phogo art area where someone else produced the original. i have to wonder if that's even legal. who owns the altered copy? and to make matters worse, i think the laws in the U.K. (and probably other countries) say something like if you alter it 15% or more, then it's your work, the altered copy. at least, that's what i've heard. dont know for sure. but i doubt that's true in the U.S

even here on retouchpro where we're more or less a peer to peer learning site, doug has taken the conservative side on this, even though the law has stipulations of 'for educational purposes'. but i dont blame doug one bit. someone is always willing to go find a lawyer thinking they can make a buck or 'to protect my properties' or whatever, and i certainly wouldnt want the hassle of fifty lawyers banging on my door every day. even if doug could defend himself in every instance and be found not guilty, the hassle is immense, not to mention the stress.

it at first surprised me when doug took down all the celebrity images here on the site. i'm no lawyer, but i believe we would have been doubly protected there, both on the 'educational' and the 'fair use' or whatever that's called type issues. but again, who wants the hassle and who wants the stress?.

and now someone wants to lease us '.jpg'? lol. i can see the jail cell now.

"what are you in for?"

" i used a .jpg without paying for it."

"oh my god, and they didnt put you put you on death row?"

and that some companies are actually paying this extortion just feeds the greed as far as i'm concerned.

pheh!

craig

that would be like compuserve now trying to charge for anyone using a .gif.Something like this happened. CompuServe was forced to start putting restriction in GIF because they lost permission from the patent holder for some part of it. I don't remember all the details now, but this is what motivated the development of PNG.

Perhaps Da Vinci was a bad example to illustrate your point. The man lived in fear of having his ideas stolen, going so far as to invent a backwards code for his journals to protect them.

"Fair use" is widely misunderstood. In practice, it doesn't protect "educational use", but use for commentary and criticism (which doesn't include "inspiration"), and use by educational institutions (of which we ain't one).

The whole "15%" business is one of the most widely-spread myths about copyright law.

And I didn't remove the celebrity images to protect RetouchPRO, but because allowing them implicitly endorsed breaking the law (and this is a teaching site, even if it isn't an educational institution).

Copyrights, trademarks, patents, likeness rights, etc., do all get abused, but that doesn't make them bad ideas. They all exist to give the rights owner a fair shake at making a buck from their efforts. Without them, no one would make those efforts.

There's an old joke about how a liberal is just a conservative that's never been mugged. In a similar vein, those that fight copyright, etc., have never felt the sting of having those rights stolen.

Due to prior art issues, Forgent is about to fall. Read this (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1968402,00.asp). Yes I subscribe to eWEEK digital magazine (I'm a techie). I think even if it wasn't for this, the US would cause the Patent to be void since they allowed the standard to be open source for so long. If you don't fight for your patent you can loose it. I think that's the jest of the rights of patents. :)

To add, the Government might even charge them for not disclosing that they knew about the prior art and didn't tell them about it. This is in violation of Patent Law. Sleep calmly tonight. :wink:

Edit:

Some kind soul pointed out to be the jest should have been gist. I never said that I was good @ English. :lol:

Regarding copyright issues. Did you know that your e-mail is copyrighted. What about linking to a webpage ---- is that a violation of copyright law?

Here is a page that is devoted to 10 Copyright Myths. Interesting stuff.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

(I have the author's permission to link to his page)


Also, Walmart wants the rights to the Smiley face :)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0605140121may14,1,1836994.story?coll=chi-business-hed


Pete

...

Also, Walmart wants the rights to the Smiley face :)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0605140121may14,1,1836994.story?coll=chi-business-hed


Pete

Doesn't just seem that Wal-Mart wants it. That French dude does too. What a shame. I think that the U.S. should officially set the smiley (and namesake) to public domain to eliminate all this hogwash. :) (I always use smileys by the way).

Walmart claims that they had to move to register it because a Frenchman was threatening to do so.

The smiley face has always been considered in public domain. The creator of the smiley face never applied for a copyright or a trademark. He was paid $45 for his creation.
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/13/smiley.htm

Actually, I always thought Forrest Gump was the creator of the smiley. :grin:

It will be interesting to see how this plays out

doug,

rather than getting into a point by point debate, i'll simply admit ignorance and pose some questions to you. i pose them to you because you are probably the closest thing we have to an expert on the subject, with the site and all the issues that could arise here.

so, who does own the copyright on a re-rendered image in the photo arts forums?

in the may 06 contest, i made a tracing rather than a filtered sketch (at least in part). had i just made a tracing and only rendered that, who would own that copyright?

if i make a digital copy of a small piece of someone else's work and used it in a collage or montage, is that a violation?

if a model poses for a painting, does the model have any rights to the finished piece if the artist didnt get a release first?

if i take a picture of someone on the street and then 'artify' it and then sell that art, does the other person have any rights to my work? and i mean everything here from they know i took it or even posed for it to they were in the distance and just 'part of the scenery'

and let's get even less informal. let's say i take a picture of a brother or sister just as a family shot and then for some reason i decide to use it commercially later on and sell it. do they have any rights to this?

and what about scenery and landscapes? if i take a picture of your prize begonias that you were intending to use in commercial pictures and i sell my pictures of your begonias, do you have any legal rights there to my pics?

i'll probably think of some more as this gets discussed more and frankly, i think i'm already afraid of some of the answers here.

craig

I suggest you Google "derivative work" and "publicity rights" and state that all the answers are probably the ones you don't want.

And oh yeah, read the RetouchPRO FAQ.

Doesn't just seem that Wal-Mart wants it. That French dude does too. What a shame. I think that the U.S. should officially set the smiley (and namesake) to public domain to eliminate all this hogwash. :) (I always use smileys by the way).


Seeing as the original artist was denied a copyright on the smiley in the US because it is public domain I don't see where either of these guys have a right to it.

There is confusion between copyright and trademarks ---and perhaps I started the confusion.

The smiley case is about trademarks. From what I read both Walmart and the Frenchman have registered the smiley face as trademarks ---- Walmart's trademark deals with retail store services. The Frenchman, who claims he created the graphic in 1968, registered it as a trademark in 1971 and has been licensing its use worldwide. He has a company named SmileyWorld.