of course you're right, it lasts for as long as Mickey Mouse needs it to!

I didn't see the original but I thought it was something that is current maybe I just assumed that as I skimmed. Are you a lawyer Henry? which j/d?

I'm gonna blow your mind OP. Sell it...but don't sign it.

I have an LLB but I don't work. IP was my area.

The assumption that it was something current isn't a bad one under the US system since when copyright was extended the legislation was retroactive but that isn't the case in many jurisdictions. Copyright used to be much shorter (life+25) so if the extension had not been retroactive a lot of stuff that is protected now wouldn't be under normal circumstances.

There was a thread on this before, but I can't find it. Must have been deleted. I'm 100% sure I've seen the image before.

If you mean the original, it's one of the most recognizable pieces of pop art in the world. You've probably seen it hundreds of times.

wat

This: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504.

Sad, but true. Probably the silliest saga in US legislation.

Of course I've seen the original. I'm talking about the OP's "remix".

I already responded to this once but you are grunching.

OP said he intended to give a copy to just two friends. If that was the extent of his piracy, it's very unlikely to be either caught or enforced. That was all I was saying, not suggesting that any commercial use would be ok (giving away with a purchase is commercial use). I then followed that suggesting he license it, as non-commercial use seems to range from free to cheap for Warhol, and I provided the link to the foundation with ownership rights.

I believe copyright laws changed in 2006 for digital media, original works of art, photographs, ideas, stories, ect....

As soon as the "work" is created the implied copyrights are automatically given to the original creator. There are no more registrations necessary, BUT you can still register it so you are listed by law as the original creator.

Now, I believe there is another law change dealing with digital media whereas if the the artist changes the original copyrighted image / likeness by more than 30% and does not show any Trademarked logos or names than it is to be deemed a new "original work". This is the law that the street wear clothing guys hang their hats on when they are producing the Jordan or Lebron James Shirts without permission.

So OP, you drew the black full sized Marilyn? And you also were the person who put the text 'Marilyn' in? All I can say is it's a shame that copyright protection exists to prohibit the proliferation of your art.

Registration was never necessary. Copyright has always existed independent of registration from the time of creation.

No.

Actually yes it was. Up until about 10 years ago you had to register your copyrights to protect your photographs and Architectural Drawings.

This has always been the case, with non-digital or digital works. Copyright is automatic to the creator, always has been. And there's nothing implied about it. Registration has nothing to do with the ownership rights, now or ever.

Edit: I see I'm late.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/5982260...in/photostream

Yes. I put the 'Marilyn' in it so no one would steal my picture . But i decided, **** all these ******ed laws. Art should be about sharing with everyone and not about making the most money.

FWIW i created the image while listening to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJVQJ4-n_cA&ob=av2e

Pretty much had it on repeat the entire time lol.


BTW, if anyone has any solid ideas for any images to create im up for suggestions. I recently got into this so im trying anything and everything at the moment.

Sent them an email. Thanks for this!

No. The United States joined the Berne Convention in 1989 so at least since 1989 registration was not needed for either and copyright would be granted at the time of creation. I'm positive that was the case for photographs pre-1989. Architectural drawings were not explicitly protected prior to 1989 but were offered some limited protection because the courts decided to treat them as scientific drawings.

^ this is right. Registration has not been required for protection.

Ahh Berne and TRIPS... I wrote a big paper on international IP law for my LLM, good times...

As long as you are not in a public place that requires quiet conversation (if not silence) such as a library or church.

lol, OP put the marilyn name across it so nobody would steal his pic. as if anyone would? also the ironing is delicious.

Registration is necessary to sue for infringement under the DMCA and whatever year the most recent copyright act is.

There are some instances, where the registration has to pre-date the infringement to be able to sue. Don't remember which ones exactly, would have to look back over my outline.

Is this true? Was this the end effect of the Shepherd Fairy Obama Hope poster thing or another case?

Not exactly.
DMCA didn't change ownership rights to original works at all, and registration is never required to sue for actual damages or to stop the infringer from using your work. However, registration allows you also recover statuatory damages without proving any actual losses. You can't recover statuatory damages, at least for digital/online infringements, unless you registered.

It can't be made any more clear, registration is NEVER required for you to own your original work (which is automatic) or for you to sue for actual damages. It just might be harder to prove.