copyright of protein image?

[Magus2727]

I am rather new to folding but am excited to be part of the effort
I work for a printing company and have created the protein molecule on the download section of the main site using adobe illustrator. I wanted to print these out and possibly sell them at cost to those who wanted them.

It does not appear to have any © or ® identifying if any such restrictions apply.

If there are those that are here that represent the university and those affiliated with folding who may know the answer or may be able to point me in the right direction it would be appreciated.

Thank you!

Chris Miller

[toTOW]

See Vijay's answer here : viewtopic.php?p=131578#p131578

[Magus2727]

Some what confusing since I have created an image that is very similar but is created by me none the less. Its not just a save image from the one on the site rather using the image as a "stencil" if you will.... it wont have the reflection's nor the exact same colors...

I can have text at the bottom indicating I am not affiliated with the university.

[Magus2727]

this is what I made in Illustrator...

[k1wi]

While your 'version' might be a derivative of the offical model/image, it would still be in breach of the copyright.

In addition, any originally created item in the US post- 1989 has copyright, regardless of whether it has a notice or not.

[Magus2727]

The fair use statute:

The doctrine of fair use developed over the years as courts tried to balance the rights of copyright owners with society's interest in allowing copying in certain, limited circumstances. This doctrine has at its core a fundamental belief that not all copying should be banned, particularly in socially important endeavors such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research.

Although the doctrine of fair use was originally created by the judiciary, it is now set forth in the Copyright Act. Under the Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Would be non-profit would do for free or for the cost of the sticker and shipping
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
A simple graphic of a "Protein" which consists of 5 solid colors and circles
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
General idea although different application and overall look is diminished
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
There is no market to devalue if any thing it will bring awareness to the efforts that Stanford is trying to accomplish.

After doing a few hours of looking I found the 1989 statute on copy right and also realized that the page as a whole has a 2009 copy right on it also.

So if I inverted it it and manipulated it some more... I just find it hard to see how this image being as generic as it is.

It generally is not that hard to get a release of the image... if this place has gotten away with it,

Code: Select all

http://www.squidoo.com/folding-at-home 

either they are forced to say that it is copyrighted but don't enforce it.

I don't see how with this effort being about us as individuals helping and getting the word out so more people will do it, they would welcome some sort of image that could be put on a vehicle that will cause people walking by or such what is that, "o let me tell you about Folding @ Home..."

I don't want to sounds on the defense or be though of as stubborn even though I think i am at times If I was to hand these out for the cost of a postage stamp so people could Proudly display them I think it would be welcomed by the University of Stanford and those in this research. If I am told no, then I would strongly suggest that they hand them out or provide them if a individual provided a donation. I know many people who would donate 5,10, 20 bucks for a few stickers.

[k1wi]

Based on what you've said above, if you were to argue fair use, you would probably need to seek professional legal counsel & be prepared to mount a legal case.

IMHO, it would be quite hard to actually succeed in a Fair Use case based on the above, because what you are suggesting (ie using a 'like' version of the FAH logo) is reducing F@H/Stanford's control and ability to control how it's used. Knowing what I do about universities, they really like to keep control of as much as they can

I doubt inverting it or manipulating it much more will allow you to get around the derivative point; it will still be based on the Stanford/F@H logo. (just like inverting the McD's M and changing the colour would get you into trouble in most situations short of Parodying it)

What would be a different story would be if Stanford contracted you to provide the stickers @ cost, for their distribution...

[Magus2727]

Well... I sent a very nice letter to Prof. Vijay Pande so we shall see what options may be given.

Since I am just a lowly folder trying to get stickers made for no-profit if any thing a loss to me I don't have any funds to higher any sort of legal consul.

Hope I can get things worked out... wonder though on a side topic of copy right.... the 1989 deal mentioned any "Published" work did not need to have a C or a specified Copyright attachments... does a webpage count as a "publication" in that tense? I know many sites go through extra programing so you can right click save-image-as or when printed from the page provide water marks behind it.

I know there have been issues with naming and giving rights for genes for certain traits or such, if this is what the molecule looks like given a single generic protein structure can it's structure and widely accepted and used color coding of atoms/cells be copyrighted?

[Wrish]

A simple graphic of a "Protein" which consists of 5 solid colors and circles

The semblance is way too identifiable. Just copying the semblance isn't fair use. Selling T-shirts with the modified logo is not fair use. Selling them at cost is still not fair use. So I wouldn't do this without the permission of the legal department.

Think about this. If later they decide to sell T-shirts to help with donations, and you already have a bunch of similar looking shirts sold at cost, how have your actions impacted their ability to solicit contributions?

[k1wi]

I hear ya (I don't want to be seen as playing devils advocate or taking a position on either side - and everything said is in my own capacity)

From Vijay's post (that ToTwo posted earlier) the issue lies with Stanford University owning the copyright & control over who uses it and who doesn't and Vijay being unauthorised to grant permission. In one form or another the control of IP/Copyright is a hot topic of contention @ universities around the world.

I've seen this topic pop up every now and again here on the forums, but the answer is generally the same.

Regarding your side topic of copyright, my understanding of 'publication' is that the Internet does indeed count. The reason that many sites "go through the extra programming so you can right click save-image-as or whatever when printed from the page provides water marks behind it" is because some people on the internet don't respect Copyright....

Given that the logo is a stylised, I doubt you'd be able to question it's copyright on your final point of question.

k1wi

[bruce]

Contact the legal department at Stanford and ask what they would charge you for a license to use that specific copyrighted material. (I have no idea what they'll say, but it might be interesting.) Vijay isn't part of Stanford's legal department so he can't give you permission. He has to follow University policy.