Isang Maikling Patnubay sa Mga Legal na Suliranin Maaaring Harapin ng Mga Disenyo ng graphic

Kung nag-subscribe ka sa isang serbisyo mula sa isang link sa page na ito, maaaring makakuha ng komisyon ang Reeves and Sons Limited. Tingnan ang aming pahayag ng etika.

Ang pagiging isang taga-disenyo sa ika-21 siglo ay mas mahirap kaysa noong unang panahon. Sa wala pang 20 taon nakita namin ang aming industriya na mabilis na umunlad at sa karamihan ay nakapipinsala. Minsan, ang mga mas maliliit na studio ng disenyo ay nagsagawa ng mga virtual na monopolyo sa rehiyon upang matugunan ang mga pangangailangan ng mga lokal na maliliit na negosyo, na may malalaking negosyo na natutugunan ang kanilang mga pangangailangan ng mga superstar ng pambansang disenyo. Ngayon lahat tayo ay nakikipagkumpitensya sa isang pandaigdigang marketplace na pinamumunuan ng isang halo ng mga ahensya, freelancer, at freelancer na nagpapanggap bilang mga ahensya.

One of the biggest challenges for designers of the modern era is that they need to have a good understanding of the relevant laws that apply to this industry. Laws are becoming increasingly complex, licensing terms are getting stricter, and it’s more easy than ever to detect infringements.

But as a designer on your way up in the world, you probably don’t have time to undertake a full course in legal studies, nor is it very likely that you will have sufficient financial resources to hire a team of lawyers to constantly watch your six. So with that in mind, we’ve put together this brief guide to the most important legal matters that it would be good for a designer to know about.

Bago kami magsimula, isang salita ng pag-iingat

Please be aware that we are not—surprise, surprise—lawyers ourselves, and what you’re about to read in the paragraphs that follow should not be regarded as a substitute for qualified legal advice. Furthermore, laws can vary greatly between different regions, and thus what might be valid in one territory is not necessarily valid in another.

Sa kabila nito, mayroong isang bagay na tinawag na Berne Convention na maaaring ipakahulugan bilang isang uri ng alituntunin sa paggabay para sa batas sa internasyonal na copyright (ngunit sa 171 na mga bansa na pumirma dito). Ang Berne Convention ay nilikha noong 1886, at sa mga susunod na ilang dekada, dumaraming bilang ng mga bansa ang naging mga lumagda. Ang Estados Unidos ay isa sa mga huling bansa na sumali bilang isang bansang Berne Convention, naghihintay sa buong 113 taon upang mailagay ang panulat sa papel. Dahil dito sa karamihan ng maunlad na mundo, at isang napakalaking bahagi ng umuunlad na mundo, ang copyright ay kinikilala sa buong mundo na nagmula sa tagalikha ng isang nai-publish na akda sa oras ng paglikha nito, nang hindi kinakailangan ng mandatory registration ng copyright.

Ano ang mahalaga

Para sa mga tagadisenyo, kasama ang normal na mga priyoridad sa ligal

  • Pagprotekta sa iyong trabaho mula sa pagsasamantala
  • Tinitiyak na ikaw ay medyo nababayaran para sa iyong trabaho
  • Pag-iwas sa hindi sinasadyang paglabag sa batas

The bad news is that all of these things are actually not that easy to achieve. The approximately good news with regard to the last of them is that prosecutions are relatively rare occurrences even in the post-DMCA world, and accidental violations are very hard to prosecute anyway. Lack of intention is often a valid defense in a copyright lawsuit or criminal proceedings related to a copyright violation. So if you’ve slipped up and somebody bothers to pursue you all the way to court for it, you don’t necessarily need to lose any sleep worrying about it.

Hindi lahat ay maaaring may copyright

Maaaring mayroon ka gotten all excited about the fact that the Berne Convention promises that you’ll automatically get copyright the moment your create something, but that’s mostly because the Berne Convention was created in 1886 before all that greed and corruption had a chance to take hold of the corporate world.

Most large companies today, regardless of their financial wealth, are almost completely morally bankrupt. They’ll do just about anything to make a buck, and that’s because the laws have evolved in a way that compels them to do so, even if the individuals who are part of the whole would perhaps have pause for thought. It’s because companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders that supersedes moral responsibility, at least in theory.

Consequently the scope of the Berne Convention wasn’t broad enough to encompass the full spectrum of what might constitute a “work”. Significantly, for something to be a copyrightable work, it must be substantially original, unique, and uncommon. Thus it is easy for the author of a song to copyright the song, but impossible to copyright a single line of the song.

The shorter a written work is, the less likely it is to be substantially original and unique, and so copyright doesn’t work for things like titles and slogans. For things like that, we have trademark law, where a work doesn’t necessarily have to be unique, but simply needs to be used in a unique context.

Ang mga kinakailangan para sa disenyo ng grapiko ay pareho. Ang isang ilustrasyon o larawan ay maaaring ma-copyright, ngunit dapat itong maging kakaiba. Hindi mo maaaring, halimbawa, ang copyright ng isang paglalarawan na nagtatampok ng hindi hihigit sa isang simpleng asul square, dahil asul squares ay hindi malaki natatangi o orihinal.

Ang website ng Mga Kasosyo sa ICM nagtatapon ng ilang magagandang halimbawa ng mga posibilidad sa copyright at imposible, at syempre ang mga halimbawa ay ginagamit dito sa ilalim ng patas na paggamit mga probisyon

doc87img01

So let’s look at each specific element in turn and step through the copyright that could be applied. We can start with color scheme of the logo, which is also used as the background for the page content.

As explained earlier, one solid block of color wouldn’t be sufficient to establish copyright. But what about the combination of these three colors in their exact ratios?

doc87img02

Actually it would be unlikely for this to stand up to either copyright protection or trademark protection because it simply isn’t original enough that somebody couldn’t use it without that being attributed to a coincidence. If a court were to uphold copyright for this combination of colors, it would create problems in the wider community, and so that would not credibly happen.

Paano kung idinagdag namin ang mga titik ng lagda sa mga bloke?

doc87img03

This is more likely to be protected by copyright and trademark laws, but it’s not guaranteed. If somebody created a similar work, it could be argued that it was simply a coincidence. The court would need to look at several factors, including the degree of similarity (in the case of copyright) and whether it would lead to identity confusion or a deceptive implication of association (in the case of trademarks).

Ang paggawa nang eksakto kung saan iginuhit ang linya sa ganitong uri ng isyu ay hindi madali. Tingnan ito halimbawa:

doc87img04

Palaging gumawa ng malaking bagay si Coca Cola tungkol sa tinatawag nilang "ribbon device" na isang nakarehistrong trademark ng kanilang kumpanya. Gayunpaman tingnan kung ano ang mangyayari kung tatanggalin mo ang lahat ng mga salita mula sa parehong mga label:

doc87img05

Magbawas ng kaunting kulay at gaan mula sa label na Coca Cola:

doc87img06

At pagkatapos ay i-flip ang swoosh sa label na Pocari Sweat, at nakukuha namin ito:

doc87img07

Kung ang puting bahagi ng flip ng Pocari Sweat na label ay i-crop at ilipat sa label ng Coca Cola, magkakasya ito sa loob ng puting laso kung nakaposisyon nang tama. Isipin kung ano ang gusto mo tungkol dito, ngunit ang isang tao sa hindi bababa sa isa sa mga kumpanyang ito ay dapat na nagpasya na walang peligro ng isang asosasyon na maling naisip mula sa pagkakatulad na ito.

While we’re on this subject, consider the evolution of the Pepsi logo from its 1970s look to how it looks today. The bisecting white stripe sa pamamagitan ng tricolor disc ay na-reoriented at naging lalong parang ribbon sa paglipas ng mga taon. Dapat may ilang dahilan kung bakit maputi ang taba stripes ay nakikita bilang "sa bagay" ng mga tagagawa ng inumin.

What we can learn from the Pocari Sweat example is that if we simply made a blue Coca Cola can, we’d clearly be infringing on both copyright and trademark. If we have some similarities but it’s different enough, then it’s probably going to be fine. The copyright holder or trademark owner might sue you anyway, just for the heck of it, but they’d be counting on intimidation in order to secure victory over you rather than having a valid case.

Returning to our original ICM example, let’s consider the logo in its entirety:

doc87img08

Ngayon sa wakas mayroon kaming isang bagay na malinaw na naiiba mula sa iba pang mga disenyo at iyon ay may natatanging mga katangian na maaaring hindi mapalagay na protektahan ng mga batas sa copyright at trademark. Habang ang mga pagkakatulad ay maaaring umiiral sa isa o dalawang mga kadahilanan, ang posibilidad ng lahat ng mga kadahilanan na naroroon bilang isang resulta ng pagkakataon ay magiging microscopic.

Kung binago ang mga kulay, hindi iyon makakagawa ng anumang pagkakaiba mula sa isang pananaw ng paglabag sa copyright.

doc87img09

Or if only the words were modified, that wouldn’t make a difference either.

doc87img10

The only difficulty is in terms of enforcement. Also the fact that some similarities are permitted can create problems too. For example, Thailand’s domestic cola product, EST, has a completely different label from Pepsi:

doc87img11

Yet the similarities of font and color are sufficient that many Thai people believe that they’re the same product. In fact EST is slightly sweeter and has less after-taste, but the company that makes it (Sermsuk Public Company) previously did bottle Pepsi under contract for 70 years from 1952 until 2012. Perception is everything, and EST is usually a fraction cheaper than Pepsi, which can be an important distinction in a developing economy. EST now exports to Malaysia and Indonesia, and it may not be long before it becomes a global presence.

So you can copyright and trademark things, but it doesn’t necessarily give you absolute protection, and it’s difficult to enforce. Some other examples:

  • Maaari mong i-copyright ang isang disenyo ng kalendaryo, ngunit hindi ang format ng bahagi ng kalendaryo
  • Maaari kang mag-copyright ng isang libro at ang disenyo ng pabalat, ngunit
  • kapag nailapat na ang takip sa libro, wala na itong magkakahiwalay na mga karapatan
  • ang libro ay maaaring magkaroon ng magkakahiwalay na mga karapatan, at maaaring ibenta ng isang bagong disenyo ng pabalat
  • Maaari mong copyright ang nilalaman ng isang libro, ngunit hindi ang istilo ng nilalaman
  • Maaari kang mag-copyright ng mga plano sa pagbuo, mga guhit ng arkitektura, at kahit na mga pisikal na gusali
  • You can’t copyright anything which is already in public use
  • You can’t copyright anything which you didn’t create without permission from the creator

Pagbabayad para sa iyong mga disenyo

When you design anything for a specific client, on the understanding that they’re going to pay you before using the work, you absolutely have a right to collect your payment. There’s a catch, though, which is clients don’t always want to pay, and they could have a bit of an advantage because it’s highly unlikely you will have registered your copyright.

Wait…. what are we talking about here? Didn’t we just go over how the Berne Convention protects a copyright work from the moment of its creation? Well, yes indeed it does. You no longer have an obligation to register copyright in order to protect your interests in a work that you create, provided that you can prove you created it first. However when copyright isn’t registered, you can’t take any punitive action against somebody who violates the copyright. All you can do is order them to stop violating, and if they persist, then you may possibly have a claim against them.

Kung nakarehistro ang iyong copyright, gayunpaman, nakakakuha ka ng kakayahang mag-demanda para sa mga pinsala pati na rin sa pagkuha ng isang order na "itigil at iwaksi". Kung ang paglabag ay tiyak na sinadya at mapagsamantala, ang korte ay malamang na magdagdag ng mga mapinsalang pinsala sa tuktok ng mga aktwal na pinsala.

Bukod sa mga isyu sa copyright, dapat mo ring isaalang-alang ang pagkakaroon ng isang kontrata para sa anumang bagay na lampas sa pinakasimpleng mga trabaho. Sa ganitong paraan kung magpasya ang kliyente na hindi magbayad at gamitin ang disenyo, mayroon kang pagpipilian na mag-demanda para sa paglabag sa kontrata at paglabag sa copyright. Ngunit tandaan na ang isang kontrata ay gumagana sa parehong paraan. Kung hindi mo naihatid ang ipinangako, maaaring kasuhan ka ng kliyente para sa paglabag sa kontrata.

Pag-iiwas sa problema

Maraming paraan na maaaring magdala ng kaguluhan sa kanilang sarili, kabilang ang:

  • Mga paglabag sa lisensya ng software
  • Mga paglabag sa lisensya ng font
  • Paglabag ng kontrata
  • Lumilikha ng isang nakakasakit na disenyo

With so many excellent free software applications available for designers, there is absolutely no excuse for software license violations. Either pay for your software or use the free ones. If you get caught using software that you haven’t paid for, you absolutely deserve the consequences.

Font licensing is a little more tricky. For one thing, many font creators don’t do the most sterling job of defining their license terms, and sometimes the demands they make are somewhat unreasonable. Nonetheless, if you want to use what they’ve created, you’ll have to abide by whatever conditions come with the use. What you need to do here is read the license terms very carefully before you commit to using a font to make sure you aren’t in danger of being sued.

Ang paglabag sa kontrata ay tinalakay nang mas maaga. Panatilihin lamang ang iyong mga pangako Nalalapat iyon kahit na hindi ka pa nababayaran, hangga't ang hindi pagbabayad ay hindi mismo isang paglabag sa kontrata ng bahagi ng kliyente.

Sa wakas nakarating kami sa totoong mga nakakatuwang bagay, nakakasakit na disenyo. Ito ang mga disenyo na lumilikha ng moral na pagkagalit, nakakasakit sa pagiging sensitibo ng publiko, o sa ilang paraan ay lumalabag sa batas. Ang isang halimbawa ay isang disenyo na nagtataguyod ng hindi pagpayag sa lahi o relihiyon, o na nagtatangi sa mga tao batay sa edad, kasarian, o sekswalidad.

Depending on where you live and the nature of your employment, you may not be personally liable for an offensive design that you create on behalf of somebody else. There are vicarious liability laws that could push all the liability to your employer. If you’re self-employed and hire out to clients, you could be covered by vicarious liability if your business is structured as a limited liability company (but not if you’re a sole trader or in a partnership). This limits your legal liability to the amount of paid up capital in your business, which in some countries can be legally as low as $1.

No matter what, though, it’s never a good idea to intentionally create an offensive design, even when a client requests it. That’s just a foolish path to go down. Legal liability is only one consideration, but you also should think about the damage it can do to your reputation, and the possibility of attracting a personal vendetta laban sa iyong sarili.

Bogdan Rancea

Si Bogdan ay isang founding member ng Inspired Mag, na naipon ang halos 6 na taong karanasan sa panahong ito. Sa kanyang bakanteng oras gusto niyang mag-aral ng klasikal na musika at galugarin ang visual arts. Medyo nahuhumaling rin siya sa mga fixies. Nagmamay-ari na siya ng 5.

Comments 0 Responses

Mag-iwan ng Sagot

Ang iyong email address ay hindi nai-publish. Mga kinakailangang patlang ay minarkahan *

Marka *

Ang site na ito ay gumagamit ng Akismet upang mabawasan ang spam. Alamin kung paano naproseso ang data ng iyong komento.