| Forgot Password?

Multiple Instagram Accounts for Your Design or Illustration Studio? Instagram Rolls Out Support

Posted by Rebecca Blake on February 10, 2016

Instagram logoInstagram has rolled out multiple account managment. The change is a boon to designers and illustrators who manage both personal and professional Instagram accounts. Users can download the latest version of the app (Instagram 7.15), and add additional up to five additional accounts. From there, changing between accounts is just a simple tap. The app identifies which account is active with the profile picture, so users know where they’re posting.

While Instagram can be a self-promotion asset to artists, the Guild does caution that uploading copyrighted work to the app poses a risk. In 2013, the Guild joined ASMP and other photographers’ organizations in protesting Instagram’s wide-ranging terms of use, which grant the service broad usage rights to sublicense images and videos uploaded to the platform. Before posting original artwork, the Guild urges designers, illustrators, and photographers to read “The Instagram Papers” and understand the rights they’re giving away when using the platform.

Instagram mulitple accounts management image

The DMCA Notice: “Take Down” is Letting Down Artists

Posted by Rebecca Blake on February 03, 2016

Since the DMCA notice procedure was written into law in 1998, it’s proven to be of limited effectiveness in combating copyright infringement online. “DMCA” stands for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, an ambitious law passed by Congress in an attempt to address, among other things, the piracy of copyrighted materials.  The DMCA notice procedure creates an avenue for copyright holders to have their infringed work removed from a website by contacting the website hosting company or ISP (Internet service provider). However, the notice procedure has come under fire from all sides.

The DMCA law implemented two 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties. To bring the US compliant with those treaties, the law criminalized the creation of systems to circumvent digital right management measures, and raised penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. OSPs (online service providers), including ISPs, were concerned that they would be penalized for copyright infringement conducted by users of their systems. The concern was justified; by US law, anyone participating in copyright infringement or distribution of infringed work is liable. The DMCA “notice and take down process” creates a safe haven for those companies.

Essentially, OSPs are required to publish the contact information for a designated DMCA agent responsible for processing DMCA notice requests. Copyright holders can contact the OSP through the agent, and if their take down notice complies with the statutory requirements, the OSP is required to take down the infringing work. Doing so renders the OSP not liable for any infringement. The process also provides a means for the individual posting the content to appeal the take down with a counter notice. (For a instructions on how to issue a take down notice, see our article “Hey, That’s My Work on Their Web Site!” in our Tools + Resources.)

The problem with the DMCA take down notice is that it puts the burden on copyright holders to police the Internet, only to see the infringed work crop up repeatedly. In fact, the DMCA procedure has been termed “take down Whac-A-Mole.”  Part of the problem is that the DMCA law did not anticipate peer-to-peer networking, which permits data transfer between users without an intermediate server. Peer-to-peer file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent have long been sources for pirated material such as films, music, books, graphic novels, software, etc. An additional problem is that OSPs have no incentive to police content before receiving a take down notice, since prior knowledge that content may be infringing would forfeit their safe harbor exemption. This concern was raised by Professor Sean O’Connor while testifying at a House Judiciary Committee hearing in 2014. (Read David Kluf’s recap of the hearing on Trademark and Copyright Blog.)

Professor Sean O’Connor

Professor Sean O’Connor being introduced at the House Judicary Committee hearing on the DMCA Take Down Notice. (screen capture from the hearing video)

For their part, technology companies complain that the DMCA take down procedure is rife with abuse, and fails to recognize fair use exemptions. During the House testimony, Paul Semienski, General Counsel for the parent company of  WordPress, cited examples of a DMCA notice being used to squelch criticism, and stated that the counter notice process to appeal a takedown is largely inefficient. Reports of abuse of the take down process appear to be exaggerated, though. On the NSU legal blog, Steve Carlisle pointed out that Semienski only cited three examples of abusive uses of the notice. Google in its transparency report states that 97% of the takedown notices were removed, meaning that at most, Google challenged only 3% of the notices, which could have been abusive. By those statistics, at the time of the hearing hearing, Google was receiving up to 6.3 million legitimate notices in one week. 

Paul Semienski, General Counsel for WordPress

Paul Semienski testifying at the Judiciary Committee hearing. (screen capture from the hearing video)

Overall, Google counsel Katherine Oyama has expressed satisfaction with the DMC notice procedure. She testified at the Judiciary committee hearing that, despite the rapid growth in the number of take down notices received by Google reporting infringement on its search engine, the company was able to speed up its response time. She also recommended that rather than amending the take down procedure, means for copyright holders to police and monetize their work (such as through Google’s Content ID system) should be developed.

As proof of the success of the DMCA take down process, Google cites the extreme number of notices it processes – 560,000,000 in 2015 alone. Many of those take down notices are most likely handled by automated systems implemented by major copyright holders such as recording companies and film studios. However, as independent filmmaker Ellen Siedler reports on her blog, Vox Indie, the take down process provided by Google is an onerous 8-step procedure. Additionally, Google does not publish the contact information for their DMCA agent as is required by law. The result is a Gordian knot of a process that deters individual rights holders and probably reduces the number of take down notices Google receives.

Katherine Oyama, Google Counsel

Katherine Oyama at the Judiciary Committee hearing. (screen capture from the hearing video)

A solution mentioned by many advocates for copyright holders is modifying the existing process to a “take down and stay down” notice. Carlisle describes that process as “[o]nce a DMCA notice is filed, all files with that ID need to be taken down, not just one on one website. New postings that match that ID need to be blocked.” The result will be that repeat postings of pirated material will be blocked, the overall number of DMCA notices will decline, and OSPs will need to allocate fewer resources to process them. Dropbox has already in place a similar process. Files uploaded to Dropbox are assigned a unique code number, and, if a DMCA notice is filed on that code number, Dropbox disables further public sharing of the file.

“Take down and stay down” has its detractors. Techdirt describes the proposal as “The Rebranding of SOPA,” the hugely unpopular anti-piracy legislation that was dropped a few years ago. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) describes take down and stay down as “filter everything.” And Google’s Oyama describes the process as “problematic.” The leading reason given for the opposition to take down and stay down is concern with abusive notices, despite the fact that they represent a tiny percentage of the overall number of notices.

NYPL Adds Public Domain Images to Digital Collections for Reuse by Artists

Posted by Rebecca Blake on February 02, 2016

The New York Public Library (NYPL) has added over 674,000 public domain images to their on online database of digital collections. The public domain database includes prints, photographs, maps, video, and manuscripts, which can be downloaded in high resolution. The NYPL statements on the collection indicate that the materials are out-of-copyright, and the public is invited to “go forth and reuse!”. However, a closer look at the NYPL selection process indicates that some images may not be public domain, or may have additional rights assigned, and artists are cautioned to proceed carefully before using the images.

The collection was developed with the NYPL Labs, an interdisciplinary team within the library with the mission of positioning the Library’s collections for the digital age. The NYPL Digital Collections overall provide a great resource of research, educational, and reference material for designers and illustrators. Visitors to the Collections can search by keyword, scroll through recently uploaded items, or browse collections such as Fashion, Nature, For Designers, or Book Arts and Illustrations. For illustrators needing reference material for historic projects, for example, illustrations of 1930s era farm life, the search features and collections can be a tremendous aid. To select for public domain images within a collection, the user checks the “Show Only Public Domain” filter selection. This filters for only images the NYPL believes are out-of-copyright.

NYPL Public Domain filter selection

Above: When in a collection, be sure to select for only public domain images to view images the NYPL has flagged as available for reuse.

While the newly added materials are described as “public domain” (items for which the coyright has expired or doesn't exist), the Library doesn’t commit to that legal designation. The Library legal team utilizes services such as reverse image searches and the Catalog of Copyright Entries to research the copyright status of items before release. However, because of changes in US copyright law, and the lack of provenance on many images (in particular photos), the NYPL demurs to definitively state the items are public domain. Instead, their blog post on the public domain additions clarifies that the legal team was unable to find copyrights to the items, and states that the Library is unable “to guarantee that we have not made a mistake in either the facts or the law.” The rights statement on the public domain images reads “We believe that this item has no known US copyright restrictions.” The statement also warns that the items may be additionally restricted: “The item may be subject to rights of privacy, rights of publicity and other restrictions.”

NYPL public domain image rights statement

In celebration of the release, the Library is inviting the public to apply for a “Remix Residency.” The NYPL Labs is accepting proposals to reuse and remix from the collection to create “transformative, interesting, beautiful new uses of our digital collections.” As examples of such uses, they’ve provided links to sample NYPL public domain remixes, such as “Navigating the Green Book,” an exploration of travel guides that showed restaurants, hotels, and other establishments open to African Americans during the age of segregation. NYPL Labs is accepting proposals through the end of February. Recipients of the residency will receive a $2,000 stipend, consultation with the Lab’s staff and curators, and workspace in the NYPL research rooms.

Designer Jonathan Barnbrook Releases David Bowie “Blackstar” Graphics for Noncommercial Use

Posted by Rebecca Blake on January 29, 2016

In remembrance of David Bowie, designer Jonathan Barnbrook has released the graphics used on Bowie’s last album, Blackstar, for non-commercial use. Barnbrook announced the release via Twitter, and on Bowie’s Facebook page. The Facebook post describes the release as a tribute to Bowie: “Barnbrook loved working with David Bowie, he was simply one of the most inspirational, kind people we have met. So in the spirit of openness and in remembrance of David we are releasing the artwork elements of his last album ★ (Blackstar) to download here free under a Creative Commons NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.” 

The post encourages fans to use the artwork for t-shirts, tattoos, and other artwork, but cautions that the license prohibits the use of the elements in anything that will be sold. 

Barnbrook is an award-winning designer and typographer based in London. His studio has designed books, corporate identities, CDs, websites, and motion graphics, and distributes original typefaces through VirusFonts. Barnbrook worked closely with Bowie on a number of projects, including the design of packaging and collateral for the albums Heathen, The Next Day, Nothing has Changed, and Blackstar. In an interview with Dezeen magazine, Barnbrook acknowledged that the Blackstar album design marked Bowie’s mortality: “The Blackstar symbol [★], rather than writing ‘Blackstar’, has as a sort of finality, a darkness, a simplicity, which is a representation of the music.” 

Below: Some of the graphics available for download. © Jonathan Barnbrook

Blackstar graphics © Jonathan Barnbrook

Design Community Dismayed by Decision to Crowdsource Tokyo Olympics Logo

Posted by Rebecca Blake on January 22, 2016

At first it seemed that the Tokyo Olympics were on track for building a strong identity for the 2020 games. In July 2015, the Tokyo 2020 Organizing Committee unveiled a logo designed by Kenjiro Sano, a compilation of flat shapes that created a stylized Didone T, combined with a red sun identifier for Japan. The logo was an homage to the simple graphics created for the 1964 Tokyo Summer and 1971 Sapporo Winter Olympics, and was a refreshing contrast to the energetic, hand-script driven identities created for the Beijing, London, and Rio Games. However, the development of the Tokyo Olympics identity went into a tailspin when Belgian designer Olivier Debie accused Sano of plagiarizing Debie’s logo for the Théâtre de Liege.

The Tokyo Olympics Logo vs Theatre de Liege logoWhen Debie and the Theatre filed a joint plagiarism lawsuit against the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the Tokyo Olympic Committee scrapped Sano’s logo. However, the committee’s solution to finding a logo was equally controversial. In mid-October, the committee announced it was crowdsourcing the logo design via a contest, essentially resorting to spec work. The winning logo designer would be awarded 1,000,000 Japan yen ($8,250) and two tickets to the opening ceremony, but would relinquish all rights to the logo in perpetuity. Numerous designers and arts organizations reacted with dismay, and the AIGA issued an open letter asking the committee to reconsider its decision.  

AIGA’s letter to the Tokyo Olympic Committee, written by former executive director Ric Grefé, referenced AIGA’s opposition to spec work. First, the letter pointed out that the contest asked designers to contribute hours of unpaid work in the hope of being compensated. Secondly, by opening the contest to the general public rather than limiting it to trained designers, the Committee was disrespecting the design profession and devaluing the work of designers. Third, the reward offered for the winning logo is far below a fair fee for a mark that will generate vast licensing income. Grefé concluded by pointing out that the copyrights for the logo should properly reside with the designer, and not with the committee “in perpetuity.”

Grefé’s eloquent letter pointed out that the logo contest belies Japan’s strong design history: “Japan has a universally admired graphic design profession and legacy, imbued with stunning visual imagery, strong typography, yet simplicity, directness, and elegance in its highest and best form… we believe that you are compromising one of the powerful messages others in the world perceive as emerging from Japan: a strong graphic and visual design tradition, innovative visual explorations, and respect for every profession.”

Despite the controversy, the Tokyo Olympic Committee proceeded apace with the logo contest, garnering 14,599 submissions. (That resolve was not a huge surprise. The logo for the Tokyo Olympic candidate city bid had been crowdsourced similarly.) In early January, the committee announced that they had narrowed the selection to four submissions, which are undergoing an intensive review to ensure that the designs do not infringe on copyrights or trademarks. 

The committee also responded to AIGA’s letter, stating that they felt the contest process was “a good opportunity” to engage the Japanese people. By engaging the President of the Tokyo University of the Arts to chair the selection committee, and involving 20 designers who are members of the Japan Graphic Designers Association (their equivalent of AIGA), they felt they were providing enough oversight to ensure the selection of a high quality design. Lastly, the Committee pointed out that the transfer of intellectual property rights complied with the Olympic Charter issued by the IOC, and has been standard practice for Olympic Committees.

In their follow-up on Eye on Design on January 17, AIGA opined that the Tokyo Olympic Committee simply didn’t understand the issue with work on spec. AIGA concluded that while they hadn’t expected the Committee to end the contest, they hoped that other organizations would “use their power and influence to create  change for the greater good in the future, and not just make the decision that benefits them at a particular moment, regardless of the wider, global implications.”

In the meantime, the Tokyo Olympic Committee plans to unveil their final selection in March. Sano, the designer of the original Tokyo logo, continues to insist that he did not plagiarize Debie’s logo. Debie, however, has withdrawn his lawsuit, citing prohibitive legal costs. Debie’s potential to recoup his costs may have been hampered by his failure to register the Theatre’s logo design as a trademark.

Below: The logo design contest requires applicants to show their submissions in a variety of formats. 

Tokyo Olympics logo submissions requirements

Previous Page   Next Page

How to Start your Very Own Communication Design Business!

Start Your Own Design Business - booklet cover - image

Digital Download

Enter your email address below to receive a FREE download of "Starting Your Own Communication Design Business" written by Lara Kisielewska. 

By signing up you will receive our monthly newsletter and occasional e-mails about our advocacy work. You will have the option to opt out at any time.

 

Guild Webinars

Webinar Banner image by Rebecca Blake

Looking to keep up with industry trends and techniques?

Taking your creative career to the next level means you need to be up on a myriad of topics. And as good as your art school education may have been, chances are there are gaps in your education. The Guild’s professional monthly webinar series, Webinar Wednesdays, can help take you to the next level.

Members can join the live webinars for FREE - as part of your benefits of membership! Non-members can join the live webinars for $45. 

Visit our webinar archive page, purchase the webinar of your choice for $35 and watch it any time that works for you.

 


Share

Follow Us