Got Some Questions for the PAD

When you talk to the people who besiege the government house in Bangkok you hear a lot of interesting things. I want to share some of them with you and ask some questions.

My first question is, how can the PAD, a lobby, not even a party, think they have the right to take politics in their own hands the way they do? They did not question the election in 2007, and now they fight against Samak with road blocks, government house, TV station and airport raids, thus harming not only the economy (scaring away foreign investors and tourists) but also the unity of the Thai people. As far as I know, the definition of democracy is that the majority of people decide what's happening (and when I talk about people I mean all Thai people, not just the Bangkok population). It does not imply that if a minority of people is not satisfied with the government they have the right to throw them out with measures that are far from the political stage. As I pointed out in a blog entry earlier, its behavior leads to the conclusion that PAD is actually an acronym for People Against Democracy. Now I add: The PAD is on a huge and irresponsible ego-trip, not thinking about the consequences of their actions.

The PAD's goal is actually noble. "We want to root out corruption entirely, and not just get rid of Samak but of all corrupt politicians" is what one protester told me. Good idea, and good luck. My question to the PAD is: But who would you put in charge then? And what exactly is your plan?

One man told me that the pro-government protesters got 1,500 Baht to come to the rally at Sanam Luang. I'm wondering if there's any difference to the PAD giving food, water, and ice away for free at the government house compound.

A retired navy officer told me that it costs the PAD between two and three million Baht (around USD 60,000-90,000 or EUR 40,000-60,000) to keep things going. But who's paying for the supplies? It appears that one key financier is the CEO of TPI POLENE, Prachai Leophairatana, who, according to insider information, donated 250 million Baht to the PAD about two weeks ago. But did he do that to save democracy, root out corruption, or for some other noble reason? Of course not. It's all about personal gain. During Thaksin's rule he lost major parts of his company TPI. Now he only owns the concrete branch--but with Thaksin/Samak's party being cut off and Prachai-friendly people in power there would be a real chance to get his whole company back (by the way, that was also the reason why he enstablished his own party just before the election in 2007).

Another thing that makes me worried is this: The PAD says they want to protest peacefully. Indeed, if you want to enter the government building compound, your bags are searched for weapons. But how come there are people running around with golf clubs? How come roads are blocked with tires?

However, what's even worse is the fact that the government is not really better. No clear line on both sides can't be good for Thailand.

Copyright FAQ

Please note: This article is based on U.S. copyright law. If you upload pictures to U.S.-based websites such as deviantART, flickr, myspace etc. this law applies to you, even if you do not live in the United States.

Advertisement




>> FIRST OF ALL: IS THERE AN EASY RULE HOW I CAN MAKE SURE THAT I DON’T GET INTO TROUBLE BECAUSE OF THE COPYRIGHT?

Yes! Be original and create everything yourself. And if you use stock material or material that is free for use, always cite the source where you got the material from. If possible, provide a direct link to the material (such as stock images or brushes), not just top-level domains. It’s just like writing a paper where you have to cite your sources in detail, too. Then you should be safe.


>> OK, BEFORE I READ WHAT IS FORBIDDEN—WHAT IS ACTUALLY ALLOWED?

Basically, a lot of things are allowed if you keep them private. For example, you can download any picture you want from the Internet and play around with it, alter it, practice manipulating and drawing techniques with it, copy it and so on—as long as you do it for your personal and private use only. However, it's a whole different matter if you go public and publish the original or modified picture on the Internet. If the material you copied from the net is not free to use, you will get into trouble because of copyright infringement. “Going public” refers to everything that is done outside your home (or hard disk!).

You can, however, copy and manipulate material for public use if you got them from the public domain such as a stock photo site or if the material is really declared as free to use. BUT: Always make sure that you read the copyright notices of those websites because you can only use their material if you comply with their terms and conditions. It may be that they offer their material for non-commercial use only or that you may only use the material if you do not manipulate it, for example.


>> WHAT CAN ACTUALLY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?

“Copyright protects ‘original works of authorship’ that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device” (copyright.gov). This means that any material including pictures stored on a hard disk, CD, film etc. is protected immediately after creation. A special choreography, for example, is not protected until being filmed, for example. Other things that cannot be protected are “themes, ideas, most titles, names, catch-phrases and other short-word combinations of no real substance“ (CIPO).


>> WHEN IS MY WORK PROTECTED? DO I HAVE TO REGISTER SOMEWHERE TO PROTECT MY WORK?

No. As soon as you have created a piece, you're the owner of it and thus the owner of the copyright. In over 140 countries of the world it is not necessary to register your work in order to assert the copyright. “The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright“ (copyright.gov). Note that it depends on your country how the copyright is handled.


>> DO I HAVE TO ADD A CERTAIN SIGNATURE WHATSOEVER TO MY PICTURES TO SHOW THAT I'M THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT?

In most countries, no. Usually, it’s not necessary to add a formal signature whatsoever to your pictures. However, it is recommended that you clearly show your ownership, for example by adding a (c) followed by your name and the date in a corner of your picture.
The U.S. Copyright Office: “A copyright notice is an identifier placed on copies of the work to inform the world of copyright ownership that generally consists of the symbol or word ‘copyright (or copr.),’ the name of the copyright owner, and the year of first publication, e.g., ©2003 John Doe. While use of a copyright notice was once required as a condition of copyright protection, it is now optional.”


>> PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DOMAIN WTF—ISN’T THE INTERNET A PUBLIC DOMAIN WHICH MEANS I CAN COPY ANY PICTURE I WANT?

No. If you leave the front door open, people are still not allowed to steal anything from inside your house even if they could access it easily, right? The same applies to the Internet: even if billions of people can access the Internet, the material it contains is not automatically placed in public domain. Public domain means that the material is everyone’s property. “Material found on the web may be copied freely only if the information is created by the federal government, if the copyright has expired or the copyright has been abandoned by the holder” (whatiscopyright.org). Read the copyright notices of the websites where you want to copy the picture from to make sure that you are really allowed to use it for publishing at another public website such as deviantART.com.


>> SO I CAN’T USE THE PICTURES FROM A PICTURE SEARCH ENGINE?

Right. Although picture search engines are really convenient, you are most likely to violate the copyright when you take material from them because all they do is link to other peoples’ websites and thus other peoples’ property.


>> IF I GET THE PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR TO USE HIS/HER WORK, CAN I THEN CLAIM THE COPYRIGHT FOR THIS MATERIAL?

No. The permission to use material provided by others does not make you the owner of it. Still, you have to cite the original source or the author’s name and give proper credits. Make sure you tell the public that the material you used is owned by someone else. In fact, “if you failed to properly protect someone else’s work that you are using and it turns out that someone else swiped it due to your misuse or negligence you may be subjecting yourself to a claim” (whatiscopyright.org). So, you can only claim the copyright for material that you really created yourself. For example, you take a photo and add some brushwork with brushes you downloaded from someone’s personal website. You can then add a “© 2006 Your Name” because you created the photo but you also have to add a “Brushes © Other Name” because you did not create the brushes.


>> TALKING ABOUT BRUSHES AND OTHER DOWNLOADABLES THAT ARE PROVIDED ON SOME PERSONAL WEBSITES: ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS? AFTER ALL, THE STUFF IS CLEARLY PROVIDED FOR FREE DOWNLOAD.

Depends. You should refer to the copyright notices and terms and conditions of the website you downloaded the material from. For example, you may use Photoshop brushes provided at an artist’s personal portfolio website but frequently the creators of the brushes demand that you give them the credits for their material. Otherwise you are not allowed to use them in public. For commercial use, you often have to pay a fee. So even if you may download material from a website, make sure that you comply with the conditions of using it later.


>> IF I MANIPULATE THE PICTURE OF SOMEONE ELSE SO THAT IT CHANGES COMPLETELY, DO I THEN HAVE THE COPYRIGHT FOR THIS PICTURE, WHICH IS MY WORK AFTER ALL?

No. You've already violated the copyright by copying the original picture, and by changing it you've violated the copyright one more time. Additionally, the new picture is not completely your work--obviously, the copied picture was your basis. And if you claim the new picture to be your own, you violate the copyright again, because you steal someone else's property.

In any case, if you want to use someone else's work which is protected by the copyright, you should ask the owner of the copyright for a written permission to use his work.

It's completely different with stock pictures or pictures which are explicitly marked as "free for use". Then manipulating etc. is legal, but make sure they are really free.


>>IS IT ALLOWED TO PUBLISH A DRAWING OR PAINTING WHEN ANOTHER ARTWORK HAS BEEN USED AS REFERENCE?

Similar to fan art, it depends if you use a copyrighted image as a reference. If you do, you may not publish your drawing in public. If you used a stock picture (i.e. a picture that is public domain) or a picture that you have taken yourself (i.e. you have the copyright), you can do whatever you want with your painting. Again, even if the reference picture is not your property, asking the author of the original work can enable you to use it in public if the author gives you permission. However, in such cases you still have to cite the source and give proper credits.


>> IS IT AT LEAST ALLOWED TO COPY A SMALL PART OF A PICTURE--FOR EXAMPLE THE SKY OR A TREE?

In most countries, copying small parts of images does not violate the copyright. However, since you chose this small part and consider it special, someone could indeed sue you for copyright infringement. If you want to be on the safe side, choose a free source.


>> WHAT ABOUT TAKING A PICTURE OF A MCDONALD'S SIGN--AM I VIOLATING THE LAW THERE?

Theoretically, yes. Logos and unique shapes are protected by the copyright, including that McDonald's sign, cars like a Rolls Royce, the French TGV, certain toys, Disney dolls and even the cypress on Pebble Beach or the Eiffel Tower (taken at night when its lights are on). If you then publish the picture or sell it (i.e. exploit it commercially), you're most likely to violate the law. If you want to take pictures of this kind of objects, you should at least be familiar with the laws of your country. Ask an expert.


>>DO I HAVE TO CONSIDER ANYTHING WHEN SUBMITTING FAN ART?

Indeed. Signature creation and fan art are probably the most common kinds of art that don't care about the copyright at all--simply because people believe that if everyone does it, it must be legal. However, this is wrong. Fan art by definition violates the copyright because it uses copyrighted characters as models. You may do some fan art for practice at home, for example, but as soon as you want to publish it in public, you violate the copyright. If you really want to publish your work, make sure that you have the explicit permission of the author of the characters that your work is based on. If you get the permission, you still cannot claim the characters to be your property because getting the permission to use material doesn't make you the owner of it. Therefore, you have to credit the original artist or cite the source. If you do not have the permission to use the copyrighted characters, you may not publish your picture in the Internet, sell it, enter a contest with it, or use it for any other purpose in public. Read more about this issue here.


>> WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT PICTURES. WHAT ABOUT JOURNALS AND THEIR HEADERS/OTHER GRAPHICS/CSS CODES?

Similar to using material for your picture, you must not use protected works for your profile site either. This includes protected codes as well as graphics. But of course, the page design and the graphics you created are copyrighted, too. If you want to use parts of other people's profile pages that they created themselves you have to get their permission first.


>> OK, BUT DIGITAL DATA IS TOO INSECURE AND CAN BE COPIED TOO EASILY. I REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MY WORK IS PROTECTED.

It’s true that digital data can be copied easily, and in fact, if you have to people with the same picture it’s really hard to prove who the real creator of the picture is. Time is the key here—so who publishes the work first is also the owner of the copyright. If you think that image metadata is too insecure (after all, metadata can easily changed with a hex editor), you can burn your work on a CD, put it in an envelope, seal it and send it to yourself by postal mail. Thus, you have an official timestamp on a tangible form of your work and can prove you’re really the one who created the piece first.

Or you do it the safe way, as the Canadian Copyright Office suggests: “Since you obtain copyright automatically, you are automatically protected by law. However, it is still a good idea to register your copyright and to indicate notice of copyright on your works“ and „registration gives you a certificate that states you are the copyright owner. You can use this certificate in court to establish ownership. (The onus is on your opponent to prove that you do not own the copyright.)“ So if you really want to be safe, you can register your work at the copyright authority of your country.

Advertisement


>> CAN I ASSERT THE COPYRIGHT FOR IMAGES PUBLISHED IN THE INTERNET?

Not directly, because you cannot check who has access to your website. In any case, read the policies of the webspace provider if you use free webspace, because it could be that you accept giving the copyright away.


>> CAN I BE PUNISHED IF I UPLOAD PICTURES ON THE WEB?

Yes. If your pictures violate the laws--because they're pornographic, for example--and you're bound to these laws (by submitting a picture at devaiantART, you’re bound to the laws of the U.S.), you can be sentenced. At least, the webspace provider can remove the pictures.


>> WHAT ARE ROYALTY-FREE IMAGES?

If you want to use royalty-free images, you pay a fee once and then you can use the pictures for your own--even commercial--purposes.


>> AND WHAT ABOUT STOCK IMAGES?

Stock pictures are usually free for private use. You can download them and do whatever you like with them. If you want to use stock images commercially, you frequently have to pay a fee. In any case, refer to the terms and conditions of the stock image website to check if there are any restrictions for using the stock.


>> IN THIS ARTICLE YOU QUOTED EXTERNAL SOURCES. SO YOU VIOLATED THE COPYRIGHT, RIGHT?

Not necessarily. The answer gives another quote: “The Copyright Act provides that any ’fair dealing’ with a work for purposes of private study or research, or for criticism, review or news reporting is not infringement. However, in the case of criticism, review, or news reporting, the user is required to give the source and the author’s, performer’s, sound recording maker’s or broadcaster’s name, if known“ (CIPO).



Sources and Further Information:


Canadian Intellectual Property Office: [link]

U.S. Copyright Office: [link]

What Is Copyright: [link]