Smileys

[mrs68tm]

I made a  smileys assets file. Not the best one, nor the worst. I bought some smileys badges, took a picture of each smiley, and saved it as png.  Then I made the assets file.

Every smiley can be changed using adjustment layers (HSL, Vibrance, White balance, and so on), and transform options (flip H and V, rotate),

The size is 2000x2000 px for each of them.

Enjoy!

(Attachment removed by moderator)

 

[Patrick Connor]

1 hour ago, mrs68tm said:

I bought some smileys badges, took a picture of each smiley, and saved it as png.

So they're someone else's designs and you're redistributing them for free? I should think the place you bought them would not allow that. What do you think?

[mrs68tm]

You can find them every where.

Btw, there is no license for them, nor rights, nothing. They are common badges used by kids.

 

[Patrick Connor]

I've saved the attachment and will restore it if I can corroborate that (or if you can)

[mrs68tm]

I bought them from a Chinese store. They are sold at bulk. I am curios if the Chinese manufacturer has a license or rights.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, mrs68tm said:

Btw, there is no license for them, nor rights, nothing. They are common badges used by kids

Are these physical badges that you purchased, since you say you photographed them? 

If so, it would be common for them not to have a license or rights expressed.  However, someone designed them, and the designs are automatically copyrighted.

[mrs68tm]

Agreed, but as long as there is no paper with the designer's name and with license and rights, I consider the usage of them under CC or open source.

[iconoclast]

50 minutes ago, mrs68tm said:

Agreed, but as long as there is no paper with the designer's name and with license and rights, I consider the usage of them under CC or open source.

Usually every creative work is copyrighted by it's creator. There doesn't need to be a paper or  something that claims the copyright. Quite the contrary: if the copyright owner wants to offer his work for free, he can declare it as free. But if he doesn't, you should be careful, because you possibly break the law. Usually, copyright owners who offer their work for free, do it only for the usage of their work, not for redistribution.

[mrs68tm]

I understood that. But they are just badges. For example, if I take pictures from my glasses, plates, forks, knives and spoons in order to make some kitchen assets, shall I ask permission from manufacturer?

There are thousands of things in this situation. Tulips, for example. If I buy bulbs and after they grow up and I have flowers and I want to take pictures of them to make my own assets, do I have to ask the producer of the bulbs?

The same for the badges. As long as I paid the required price for them, I can use them as per my wish. Even to resell them. I don't need the manufacturer approval.

[debraspicher]

This went from "You can find them everywhere. There is no license for them nor rights".
Then it was "I bought them from a Chinese store. I am curious if the Chinese manufacturer has a license or rights...(???)"
Now it's "I can use them as per my wish. Even to resell them. I don't need the manufacturer approval" (????)

The funny thing about "rights", is we tend to hold onto them even if we don't explicitly state we wish to use them. It would likely need to be stated outright that the work is meant to be redistributed this way. Otherwise, why put the assets behind a paywall?

There are creators on this site that offer goods on their own websites that regularly see their efforts end up on other exchanges/stock sites. It's very frustrating. I don't think the author intends the assets themselves to be redistributed, but if one creates a whole new work and not a derivative, it's probably fine.

[walt.farrell]

7 minutes ago, debraspicher said:

Otherwise, why put the assets behind a paywall?

I think the "assets" started as physical badges (e.g. to be pinned onto something)  that were purchased in a physical store, and then photographed, then transformed into digital assets.

[mrs68tm]

Yes, I bought them from a  physical store a long time ago. I put a few in my bike's bags. I gave a part of them as gifts to my nephew. A lot a kids have them on their  bagpacks.

I saw a lot of pictures with these type of badges on the net and nobody say anything.

If I had said that I donwloaded them from the internet, nobody would have said anything.

We are living in a strange world.

[v_kyr]

• Icons, Emoticons und Emojis – richtig verwenden in OER   (DE)
• Icons, emoticons and emojis – use correctly in OER  (EN translation)
• 1. Oktober 1971 - Der Smiley wird als Warenzeichen geschützt (DE - WDR TV news channel)
• October 1, 1971 - The smiley face is trademarked (EN - WDR TV news channel)
• Kurios aber wahr: Emojis und Emoticons sind geschützt (DE)
• Curious but true: Emojis and emoticons are protected (EN)
• ... and so on ...

Quote

October 1, 1971 - The smiley face is trademarked

As of: September 22, 2021, 8:04 p.m

The term "smiley" comes from the English word "to smile", which means to smile. But when the French management consultant Franklin Loufrani trademarked the smiley face on October 1, 1971, it was the start of a lot of trouble.

Smileys have become an integral part of modern communication; there is hardly a message without them. But the idea of depicting moods in simple images is not an invention of the digital world. As early as 1893, characters appeared in a newspaper that were supposed to illustrate a funny, an indifferent and a sad face.

The reason for its use is the same then as it is today: "A smiley is the simplest form of expressing emotions," says Nicolas Loufrani, who makes a lot of money with the yellow grin face. His father Franklin patented the smiley on October 1, 1971 - even though he didn't invent it.

45 dollars for a global success

The American commercial artist Harvey Ball is considered to be the creator of the smiley. As a commission for an insurance company in 1963, he designed a pin that was intended to lift the spirits of the frustrated workforce. His design - for which Ball receives 45 dollars - is simple but effective: Within ten minutes he draws a yellow circle in which two black dots and an upward arc represent a stylized laughing face. The smiley was born - and became a huge success.

By 1971, the original 100 buttons became 50 million buttons for insurance employees. In addition, the smiley will soon appear on cups, bed linen, T-shirts, jeans and record covers. Ball doesn't earn a cent from it because he never secured a copyright. Why license a smile?

----------
September 19, 1982 - First emoticons are sent | more
----------

License to laugh

Franklin Loufrani sees it differently and has the name Smiley and the appearance of a slightly modified version of the original legally secured. He originally used the feel-good symbol to lighten up a newspaper article, but he soon earned millions with the trademark. Renowned companies such as Agfa, Levi's and Mars pay considerable sums to Loufrani's company to use the smiley for themselves.

Above all, Nicolas Loufrani, who took over management of the company from his father in 1997, is tough when it comes to licenses. Anyone who uses an unauthorized scribbled grin face will be sued. He has been successful with this in many countries - but not in the USA, where Loufrani still has no copyright.

Nicolas Loufrani not only manages the smiley, he also develops it further: For example, he played a decisive role in ensuring that the yellow face makes the leap into the digital world. In 2001, Loufrani put a set of hundreds of different smileys online - including ones that laugh, cry, wink or explode with anger. Internet users can simply adopt these precursors to our current emojis. And - who would have thought - completely free.

 

[PaulEC]

42 minutes ago, mrs68tm said:

If I had said that I donwloaded them from the internet, nobody would have said anything.

I can’t see why downloading images from the internet is any better than copying a physical object! They still belong to someone else and are their copyright.
You’ve uploaded some nice pictures in the past. If I downloaded them and started selling prints of them on eBay or gumroad, would you be OK with that? (You haven’t explicitly said that no one should do that!)

[mrs68tm]

7 minutes ago, PaulEC said:

I can’t see why downloading from the internet is any better than copying a physical object! They still belong to someone else and are their copyright.
You’ve uploaded some nice pictures in the past. If I downloaded them and started selling prints of them on eBay or gumroad, would you be OK with that?

As long as I don't say that the pictures are not copyrighted to me or I don't mark them with my logo, I see no problem.

[PaulEC]

2 minutes ago, mrs68tm said:

or I don't mark them with my logo

So why is something with a logo different to any other image? - As soon as anything is created it is automatically the copyright of the creator, unless they say that it is not! (With or without a logo!)

 

 

[iconoclast]

@mrs68tm

It's a very tiresome topic, I had to discuss about very often with many people during the last years. It is not the point that we want to blame you. We don't make the rules. We only try to warn you. But to be honest, if I had to make the rules, I would make them exactly this way. It is really bad for people who try to make a living from their creative work, if others use their work as a self-service store for free. I'm not really sure about the legal conditions concerning these certain smileys, but e.g. if you photograph buildings that were wrapped by Christo, you are not allowed to create a picture book with this photos - without permission. It is of course at first the privilege of the artist to take the benefit from his creative work. It may be meant as a nice gesture, that you want to share these smileys with us, but it could cause legal troubles. Not only for you, but for the operators of this website too.

[debraspicher]

21 minutes ago, mrs68tm said:

As long as I don't say that the pictures are not copyrighted to me or I don't mark them with my logo, I see no problem.

I think what we're saying is we hold a copyright whether we state it explicitly or not. We can forfeit our right and distribute it as such, but it has to be explicitly stated. Where you have decided that all creative works fall under free to distribute just because it's not outright stated is not correct.

FWIW, it's not the buttons themselves that is the issue. The graphics you took are more like an image scan and it's likely the artworks on the face of them are copyrighted. Probably not by the manufacturer (unless it was in house), but by the person(s) who licensed the graphics to be used and sold as part of the final design.

[Victoria Lasher]

3 hours ago, mrs68tm said:

I understood that. But they are just badges. For example, if I take pictures from my glasses, plates, forks, knives and spoons in order to make some kitchen assets, shall I ask permission from manufacturer?

There are thousands of things in this situation. Tulips, for example. If I buy bulbs and after they grow up and I have flowers and I want to take pictures of them to make my own assets, do I have to ask the producer of the bulbs?

The same for the badges. As long as I paid the required price for them, I can use them as per my wish. Even to resell them. I don't need the manufacturer approval.

They are not "just badges", they are a designer/artist's creation. Trying to compare taking a photo of someone else's art and then selling something you made from that, to taking a photo of a plant and using it to make something and then sell it is ridiculous. If the badges had Disney characters on them would you consider it OK to take a picture and do what you did? Believe me Disney would not agree. You might get away with it if Disney didn't find out, but it would still be dishonest. By using photos you took of someone else's art and selling it as your own you are being dishonest. 

Also, NO you can not use someone else's art just because you paid for it. Let's use Disney as an example again. If you buy a badge with a picture of Mickey, or any other Disney character, and take a picture of it and "create and asset" by setting it up so things can be changed, as you said you did with the badges, it's still Disney's and if they find out they will come after you. You will get a cease-and-desist order and they will go after any profits you made and damages, and they will win!

So now I am also curious, did you buy a Universal License when you purchased your copy of Affinity? Because you can't sell stuff you create with it if you didn't.

[walt.farrell]

5 minutes ago, Victoria Lasher said:

So now I am also curious, did you buy a Universal License when you purchased your copy of Affinity? Because you can't sell stuff you create with it if you didn't.

All the licenses (not just Universal) for the Affinity products allow creating art, and selling that art.

[mrs68tm]

Just now, Victoria Lasher said:

They are not "just badges", they are a designer/artist's creation. Trying to compare taking a photo of someone else's art and then selling something you made from that, to taking a photo of a plant and using it to make something and then sell it is ridiculous. If the badges had Disney characters on them would you consider it OK to take a picture and do what you did? Believe me Disney would not agree. You might get away with it if Disney didn't find out, but it would still be dishonest. By using photos you took of someone else's art and selling it as your own you are being dishonest. 

Also, NO you can not use someone else's art just because you paid for it. Let's use Disney as an example again. If you buy a badge with a picture of Mickey, or any other Disney character, and take a picture of it and "create and asset" by setting it up so things can be changed, as you said you did with the badges, it's still Disney's and if they find out they will come after you. You will get a cease-and-desist order and they will go after any profits you made and damages, and they will win!

So now I am also curious, did you buy a Universal License when you purchased your copy of Affinity? Because you can't sell stuff you create with it if you didn't.

Let's take some pictures of some glasses from my kitchen. Do I have to ask the permission of the manufacturer?

A few weeks ago I went to a demonstration with some military aircrafts. There were hundreds of people that took pictures and in the next seconds I saw them on many social network.  Nobody said anything.

 

[mrs68tm]

7 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

All the licenses (not just Universal) for the Affinity products allow creating art, and selling that art.

Yes, I have bought full license of Affinity, version 2 and version 1. Also I bought a lot of stuff from Affinity store.

I am not a professional artist and I don't earn money from this activity. Is just a passion.

I made a lot of pictures in Affinity for my friends without asking for money. I made pictures for schools, kindergarten , hospitals, NGOs.

[smadell]

I am not an attorney, and my knowledge of copyright law is rudimentary at best. But, I think the gist of it is that copyright infringement requires that the creator is (potentially or actually) deprived of income (or perhaps deprived of non-monetary gain, such as recognition, etc). Taking a photo of the glasses in one’s kitchen and distributing that photo cannot reasonably be construed as depriving the designer or seller of the glasses of income to which he/she would otherwise be entitled. But, now I can download these smiley assets for free whereas I might otherwise have had to purchase them. That, I believe, is the difference. And what has happened here does seem like copyright infringement.

Also, copyright protection is by default an opt-out for the creator. Your copyright protects you, and can be legally pursued, unless you specifically say otherwise. You are suggesting that the copyright protection for the smiley badges is an opt-in and, because it was never explicitly stated, that protection is not and can not be assumed. I really think you’re wrong here.

So, it boils down to the question, “How likely is it that you’ll be caught?” But, obviously, that’s not the point here.

[v_kyr]

From one of my above link postings "October 1, 1971 - The smiley face is trademarked" ...

-----------

... "A smiley is the simplest form of expressing emotions," says Nicolas Loufrani, who makes a lot of money with the yellow grin face. His father Franklin patented the smiley on October 1, 1971 - even though he didn't invent it.

45 dollars for a global success

The American commercial artist Harvey Ball is considered to be the creator of the smiley. As a commission for an insurance company in 1963, he designed a pin that was intended to lift the spirits of the frustrated workforce. His design - for which Ball receives 45 dollars - is simple but effective: Within ten minutes he draws a yellow circle in which two black dots and an upward arc represent a stylized laughing face. The smiley was born - and became a huge success.

By 1971, the original 100 buttons became 50 million buttons for insurance employees. In addition, the smiley will soon appear on cups, bed linen, T-shirts, jeans and record covers. Ball doesn't earn a cent from it because he never secured a copyright. Why license a smile?

License to laugh

Franklin Loufrani sees it differently and has the name Smiley and the appearance of a slightly modified version of the original legally secured. He originally used the feel-good symbol to lighten up a newspaper article, but he soon earned millions with the trademark. Renowned companies such as Agfa, Levi's and Mars pay considerable sums to Loufrani's company to use the smiley for themselves.

Above all, Nicolas Loufrani, who took over management of the company from his father in 1997, is tough when it comes to licenses. Anyone who uses an unauthorized scribbled grin face will be sued. He has been successful with this in many countries - but not in the USA, where Loufrani still has no copyright.

Nicolas Loufrani not only manages the smiley, he also develops it further: For example, he played a decisive role in ensuring that the yellow face makes the leap into the digital world. In 2001, Loufrani put a set of hundreds of different smileys online - including ones that laugh, cry, wink or explode with anger. Internet users can simply adopt these precursors to our current emojis. And - who would have thought - completely free.
-------------

So according to the last bold marked paragraph above, at least using the digital representations of those, from the smiley copyright holder Nicolas Loufrani, should be for personal usage be free. Since otherwise using Emojis (which originated from Smileys) and the like (which every computer OS and smartphone comes along with and are used million times a day in digital communications etc.) wouldn't be allowed too! - The before said is context wise close and related to this here ...

• Icons, emoticons and emojis – use correctly in OER  (EN translation)

 

[Victoria Lasher]

6 hours ago, mrs68tm said:

Let's take some pictures of some glasses from my kitchen. Do I have to ask the permission of the manufacturer?

A few weeks ago I went to a demonstration with some military aircrafts. There were hundreds of people that took pictures and in the next seconds I saw them on many social network.  Nobody said anything.

 

It is just not the same thing. This is reminding me of a conversation I had with my, at the time 4 year old, grandson as we were driving past fields of corn. I would say, "look at all that corn", and he would say, "that's not corn". I said to him, "You can say it's not corn as much as you want to, but it's still corn." You can say "it's ok, I'm not doing anything wrong" as much as you want to, but you are still doing something wrong.