Smileys

[Victoria Lasher]

6 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

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

I thought there was an additional benefit to the universal license.

 

[mrs68tm]

The glasses are unique, they are hand made. They don't have the same color, nor the same design. Only the shape is almost the same. Somebody spent a lot of time for making them. I bought them from an antique store.

Why is different from badges?

 

 

[iconoclast]

1 minute ago, mrs68tm said:

The glasses are unique, they are hand made. They don't have the same color, nor the same design. Only the shape is almost the same. Somebody spent a lot of time for making them. I bought them from an antique store.

Why is different from badges?

 

 

I would say, that one obvious difference is that glasses are made for drinking, while smileys are made to be inserted as symbols, meant to be used somewhere for communication, and nothing else. I think, it probably would be no problem, if you would upload a photo of a scene that contains those glasses somewhere, as part of the scene. If you would do the same with a photo that contains the smileys somewhere in the background or so, it would possibly no problem too.  If you upload photos of the glasses or smileys as design elements (a sort of clip art or so), it could cause legal problems, because you arrogate the intellectual property of the designer, without his permission.

[PaulEC]

8 hours ago, Victoria Lasher said:

I thought there was an additional benefit to the universal license.

Well, it's a lot cheaper than buying individual licences - that's a good enough "benefit" for me! 😁

[anto]

The rules of the digital world are very strange.
While an artist in real life has to paint N paintings first to sell them, in the digital world you sell the same work millions of times. Is this right?

[PaulEC]

To be honest, this seems to be quite a common problem. Many people think that if they buy something that means that they not only own the actual item, but also the right to copy it and distribute the copies to others, that's really what copyright laws are intended to stop: Just because you own a copy of something, that does not give you any intellectual rights in the original item; that still belongs to whoever created it. There's also this, rather strange, idea that just because an image is available online, it is freely available to download and do whatever you like with. It isn't; the copyright still belongs to someone else! It's one thing to use something for your own use, but completely different if you distribute it to other people, either for profit, or freely.

[PaulEC]

17 minutes ago, anto said:

While an artist in real life has to paint N paintings first to sell them, in the digital world you sell the same work millions of times. Is this right?

I'm sure most digital artists would be highly delighted to sell millions of copies of the same thing! Actually a lot of fine artists, and, of course, photographers, may sell numerous copies or prints of their artwork. It's usually clear whether you are buying a unique item or one of several copies, and this is normally reflected in the price you pay. It doesn't alter the fact that other people shouldn't come along and start copying your artwork themselves!

[iconoclast]

12 minutes ago, anto said:

The rules of the digital world are very strange.
While an artist in real life has to paint N paintings first to sell them, in the digital world you sell the same work millions of times. Is this right?

This has nothing to do with the digital world. Even in pre-digital times, artists e.g. painted images, wrote books and composed music, and it always were different things to sell the original paintings, the manuscript or the partiture, than to sell printings of the paintings, publications of writings in books or interpretations of the compositions in concerts, on vinyl or CD. An artist can sell his original piece of work and he can make a contract about the rights to use his work, but he can't loose the ownership of his intellectual property (the design, the plot, the melody...). The problem with the digital world is that it has become much easier for everyone to reproduce almost everything in a trice, without thinking about laws and how it should work for creatives to make a living from their creative work.

[walt.farrell]

10 hours ago, Victoria Lasher said:

I thought there was an additional benefit to the universal license.

 

The benefit is that it covers all three applications on all three OS families, with one, lower, purchase price. And it comes with some extra goodies if you're doing the upgrade from V1.

[mrs68tm]

4 hours ago, iconoclast said:

I would say, that one obvious difference is that glasses are made for drinking, while smileys are made to be inserted as symbols, meant to be used somewhere for communication, and nothing else. I think, it probably would be no problem, if you would upload a photo of a scene that contains those glasses somewhere, as part of the scene. If you would do the same with a photo that contains the smileys somewhere in the background or so, it would possibly no problem too.  If you upload photos of the glasses or smileys as design elements (a sort of clip art or so), it could cause legal problems, because you arrogate the intellectual property of the designer, without his permission.

It is about the rights of property, no matter what is the final destination of the product.

We can take pictures from any type of blue-jeans, without prior consent of the manufacturer, but for some badges we have to..

[iconoclast]

1 hour ago, mrs68tm said:

It is about the rights of property, no matter what is the final destination of the product.

We can take pictures from any type of blue-jeans, without prior consent of the manufacturer, but for some badges we have to..

You should better ask a lawyer before you get into troubles. In fact, the destination is a verry important point. As I already said, you can't buy the intellectual property on someones creative work. You can only get an easement. But you need the explicit approval of the author, in that case. Even if you buy a painting, you are not allowed to publish it. Physical property of a piece of art is a different thing from the copyright. You can proffer as many examples as you want - Jeans, Glasses, whatever you want - you will not change the fact that, if you use a design without permission of it's author, you are breaking the law. And if you do it come hell or high water, so you should do it on your own risk only, and not on a website like this. The operators know very well why they blocked "your" smileys.

Or, as my old professor said: "There is no better way to make money than if someone broke your copyrights, because in that case you are in the best thinkable bargaining position."

[jmwellborn]

@mrs68tm  Here is a website which may be of use to you, as you thrash through your issue.

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/pd-cc 

[PaulEC]

On 9/24/2023 at 6:25 PM, mrs68tm said:

I see no problem

On 9/24/2023 at 7:18 PM, mrs68tm said:

I am not a professional artist and I don't earn money from this activity

If, like a lot of people here, you were a professional and made your living from selling your artistic creations, you would be able to see the problem with people who ignore copyright laws, help themselves to other peoples work and expect to be able to do whatever they want with anything they can copy or download!

[Victoria Lasher]

On 9/25/2023 at 5:11 AM, PaulEC said:

Well, it's a lot cheaper than buying individual licences - that's a good enough "benefit" for me! 😁

I guess that was why I bought it.

[Victoria Lasher]

On 9/25/2023 at 8:49 AM, mrs68tm said:

It is about the rights of property, no matter what is the final destination of the product.

We can take pictures from any type of blue-jeans, without prior consent of the manufacturer, but for some badges we have to..

Yes, it's about the "rights of property" the designs are NOT your property, so you can NOT do whatever you want with them. The badges are yours, but the artwork on them is NOT.

You might take a picture of blue-jeans, but if you copy exactly a pair of designer jeans and then sell them, you are breaking the law.

All these examples you are trying to use, to try to compare to what you are doing, in order to try to justify your stealing someone else's designs, are irrelevant, none of those things are the same as what you are doing with someone else's artwork.