This image was sent to me by a good friend who stayed at the hotel.

I called De Spring Hotel in Kuantan immediately and they put the blame on Seagull Signcraft as they said that Seagull Signcraft also located in Kuantan was the one who came up with the design.

I made it for Hush Puppies last year for their Hari Raya campaign. And they used it for 2 months with a licence usage for poster printing, newspaper ads and money packets. They even put it online on their website, of which I think that leads to other companies stealing this image for their own profit and that includes Seagull Signcraft.

Again, images found on the Internet are not free to use. It is like window shopping, you can only see but cannot take or use. You have to pay for it.

Again and again, below is the information of what you cannot do ut of images found on the Internet or search engine like Google, Bing and what not:

1) If it doesn’t have a copyright notice, it’s not copyrighted. The default you should assume for other people’s works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure. It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn’t post that either.

2) If you don’t charge for it, it’s not a violation. False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that’s main difference under the law. It’s still a violation if you give it away — and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property.

3) If it’s posted to Internet, it’s in the public domain. False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, “I grant this to the public domain.” Those exact words or words very much like them.

4) It doesn’t hurt anybody — in fact it’s free advertising. It’s up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don’t rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that’s not too hard to do.

I am taking action now. Will update the matter on my twitter and Facebook. Stay tune.

I tell this over and over and over again until the infringers and thieves understand.

This issue has been going on forever and many people are not aware about copyright or do not really understand the meaning of Copyright. Or do not understand the meaning at all.

According to Encarta Dictionary:

copyright [ kóppi r?t ] – creative artist’s control of original work: the legal right of creative artists or publishers to control the use and reproduction of their original works.

Basically, copyright automatically protects images found on websites. Artists do not have to register their works in order to protect them and a copyright symbol or notice does not have to be included with an image in order for it to be protected.

While browsing the Internet looking for reading material, I found this great article by Brad Templeton, 10 Big Myths about Copyright Explained. Brad gives full consent to share about this issue.

Here are some myths that I copied that I thought relevant to my context:

1) If it doesn’t have a copyright notice, it’s not copyrighted. The default you should assume for other people’s works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure. It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn’t post that either.

2) If you don’t charge for it, it’s not a violation. False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that’s main difference under the law. It’s still a violation if you give it away — and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property.

3) If it’s posted to Internet, it’s in the public domain. False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, “I grant this to the public domain.” Those exact words or words very much like them.

4) It doesn’t hurt anybody — in fact it’s free advertising. It’s up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don’t rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that’s not too hard to do.

I am pledging to all bloggers to help me bust this infringement issue. Here is a banner you can share on your blog. You may also copy this article and link it back here. You may also share this article on twitter and facebook.

To share this banner; just copy paste the code below on your sidebar:

<a href="https://emilayusof.com/2013/08/copyright-on-images-found-on-internet/" target="_blank"><img src="https://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq205/emilayusof/copyright-campaign.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo copyright-campaign.jpg"/></a>

Sometimes it sadden me that people just ripped something they like from the Internet without reading the proper notice that appears along with it like “this image is subject to copyright”.

This happened to me recently and below was the conversation:

21:39
Emila Yusof
Hi, can you kindly remove the profile picture? It is my illustration that I did for Hush Puppies only. They paid me the licensing fee and somehow posted it on their website without the copyright notice that I want them to post.  If you still want to use this illustration, you need to pay me the usage fee.

21:41
Emila Yusof
Here is the link to prove that it is mine: https://emilayusof.com/2012/06/artwork-for-hush-puppies-malaysia/

23:41
Spore Mini Shop
Da remove pon…
Bak kata org msia…loghat sgt sampai need to pay the usage fee…tak heran sgt pun…i amik pun kat google..bkn ceroboh kat mane2 website org….
(I removed already. Like the Malaysian likes to put it ‘fussing much’; that one has to go the the extend and pay to use the image. I don’t really give a care, I took it from Google, not taking from other people’s website.)

00:01
Emila Yusof
Thank you. Saya cakap dengan baik. Kalau tak boleh terima, terpulanglah.
Di google setiap image search akan disertai dengan ‘image is subject to copyright’.
(Thank you. I asked you nicely and if you cannot accept it, what can I say. When you search images on Google. it will state “image is subject to copyright.)

01:49
Spore Mini Shop
Da la…takle bawak mati pon bende tu…harta dunia jer…tu pon nk kecoh sgt…
(Enough…you cannot take the image to your grave…so why the fuss…)

It seems that copyright issue is not important here in Malaysia as copyright violations happen everyday. Recently, my friend Sha saw a furniture ad in local newspaper featuring my Raya Em’s doll illustration. I bet if I asked, the person behind it would tell me they did not know that the illustration has its owner. This has always been the case. People (graphic designers included) actually did not know that taking artworks/illustrations/images/drawings from the Internet is wrong (unless the terms stated it can be used commercially.)

Some people would even have the face to say, “if you don’t want your images violated, do not upload on the Internet.” This kind of remark is saddening. Instead of apologising, they prefer to condemn the effort for putting up images, even when the terms of usage is stated clearly on the blog…even when they searched for images, the terms “this image is subjected to copyright” will popped up together with the search. In my case, I put it up because I am a freelance illustrator. I promote my work on the Internet. When I put it up on the Internet, it doesn’t mean that anybody can take it or use it for free without my consent. I am not that stingy with my illustrations, I offer it for personal use to accompany articles with the terms; ask me first, credit my name and link to my blog, as per my terms-of-use page. I also offer some free banners for personal use to use without seeking my permission.

On one recent case, my Merdeka Girl illustration has been integrated in Merdeka sales ad. I e-mailed the owner, left messages on his/her facebook and but no reply. I checked back few days later and thankfully, the illustration has been taken out. But sorry seems to be the hardest word; no words at all from the violators. Courtesy and copyright awareness are lacking in my own country. What can I do about it? Reaching to all through my blog or my FB page? By phone calls? E-mails? I tried all. When I was about to give-up, a good friend, Linda, said to me, “Lets talk to the press.”

And so we did. Our plea to let people know that taking images from the Internet for commercial use is WRONG has been published in Berita Harian, a local Bahasa Melayu newspaper that has millions of readership throughout Malaysia. I hope this time, it will not fall on deaf ears/blind eyes. I am trying my best to create awareness about copyright and hopefully it gets into the mind of half of the readership, if not all. I know some people can still be ignorant even if we try to educate them.

So, yeah. I will continue to raise the issue everytime my rights on my own images/illustrations have been violated. In below article, we also highlight the rights that illustrators (image owners, this can apply to photographers as well) that they might not know of.

To get yourself educated about copyright, please visit MyIPO website.

Berita Harian, 28 Julai 2012. Click to view larger version.

P/S My agent has wrote to the furniture owner and we’ll see whether there’s a reply or not.

This time around, I am writing in BM because those infringers of my artworks were all locals.

Bila kita mencipta karya lukisan, foto, rekabentuk dan penulisan, secara automatiknya, kita memiliki hakcipta keatas karya-karya tersebut. Atas dasar itu, kita mempunyai hak untuk menyiarkan karya-karya tersebut kepada orang awam, juga memanfaatkannya dari segi kewangan. Dalam ertikata lain, kita berhak menjual atau memberi lesen kepada yang berminat untuk menggunakan bahan-bahan tersebut samada untuk kegunaan peribadi juga komersil. Kita juga mempunyai hak untuk menghalang seseorang dari mencuri atau menggunakannya.

Melalui pengalaman yang telah saya lalui, kesedaran ini amat kurang di Malaysia berbanding negara-negara lain. Karya saya telah beberapa kali dicuri untuk kegunaan peribadi juga komersil oleh pemilik-pemilik blog dan juga designer yang bekerja di syarikat-syarikat yang boleh dikatakan agak berjaya. Contoh paling ketara adalah karakter-karakter yang saya cipta seperti emsdoll, raya girl dan merdeka girl.

Karya teratas (poster ika dan isk) telah dicuri oleh designer  dan menjual kepada pelanggan. Dia telah menggunakan teknik ‘trace’ semula. Dalam kes karya bunting kahwin fizza dan rashid, designer mendapat rujukan imej dari pelanggannya, fizza. Fizza mengambil gambar tersebut tanpa izin. Kedua-dua designer dan pelanggan telah meminta maaf daripada saya.

Dalam kes ini pula, designer yang mempunyai Hons. Art & Design, telah mencuri karya ini dan dua lagi emsdoll untuk ditampal pada kalendar yang diedarkan untuk pelanggan syarikat tempat dia bekerja. Dia telah dipecat dan saya mendapat pampasan.

Untuk karya yang ini pula, saya sendiri telah terjumpa berpuluh cetakan fotostat yang telah digantung di kaunter pembelian tiket di Genting Highland semasa sambutan hari kemerdekaan. Saya telah menghubungi pihak berkenaan dan mereka menurunkan cetakan tersebut dengan segera dan meminta maaf.

Karya ini telah dicuri (mungkin oleh designer atau pencetak poster) dan karakter saya telah diubah tetapi kebanyakkan hasil cipta saya seperti riben, corak pada baju kanak-kanak perempuan, corak pada sampin baju melayu kanak-kanak lelaki, ayam dan anak ayam, pelita adalah semua hasil kerja saya.

Karya ini telah dicuri oleh saya tidak pasti samada pemilik kad perniagaan ini atau designernya. Menurut kata pemilik kad perniagaan, designer di syarikat cetakan itu yang memberi pilihan design untuk kad perniagaannya.

Karya ini telah dicuri oleh seorang wanita yang mahu membantu tunangnya menjalankan perniagaan mug. Dia menggunakan foto dan illustrasi saya tanpa kebenaran.

Karya ini dicuri oleh seorang mahasiswa yang sedang belajar di universiti ketika itu. Dia telah mengedit illustrasi saya dan menjadikannya banner header untuk blog miliknya.

Mengambil karya-karya dari internet dan meletakkannya di dalam blog atau memanfaatkannya untuk tujuan komersil tanpa mendapatkan kebenaran dari si pencipta atau si pemilik adalah salah disisi undang-undang. Ada yang mungkin berkata, “Ala, dah letak di internet, saya ambil je la. Kalau tidak, tak payahlah siarkan di Internet!” Ada juga yang mungkin berkata, “Saya gunanya untuk tujuan peribadi, nak cetak atas kad kahwin je, tak menguntungkan mana-mana pihak pun.”

Ingat, perangai seperti ini akan membuatkan anda terjebak ke dalam tuntutan saman oleh pencipta.

Disini saya memetik kata-kata penulis Nisah Haron:

Pelaksanaannya tetap tidak boleh dijalankan, jika pihak yang teraniaya (contoh dalam kes Puan Emila ini) tidak mengambil tindakan. Undang-undang itu tidak bergerak dengan sendirinya. Undang-undang yang sedia ada juga tidak bermakna, jika manusia tidak mahu ambil tahu dan peduli.

Seperti dalam kes Puan Emila Mohd Yusof. Karyanya dicetak rompak. Dia buat ‘bising’ dan meminta ganti rugi daripada pihak yang telah mengambil karyanya tanpa izin. Tuntutan itu ialah sebahagian daripada hak beliau yang telah digariskan oleh undang-undang. Itulah pelaksanaan yang dimaksudkan. Kalau dibiarkan, pihaknya akan rugi kerana Puan Emila sudah menegaskan dirinya adalah pemilik hak cipta karya.

Langkah berikutnya, jika tuntutan itu tidak diendahkan, beliau boleh buat laporan polis dan seterusnya kes itu boleh dibawa ke mahkamah. Itu juga satu pelaksanaan. Namun, tindakan mesti dibuat daripada pemohon. Demikian, sistem perundangan berfungsi di negara kita dan kebanyakan negara di dunia.

Hakikat hak cipta tidak perlu didaftarkan (hanya perlu ditegaskan seperti dalam buku atau blog – dengan meletakkan logo (C)) tidak bermakna sesiapa sahaja boleh mengambil tanpa izin lagi percuma.

Ini juga tidak bermakna pihak yang mengambil tanpa izin itu boleh didenda begitu sahaja. Harus ada permohonan dan mengikut prosedur.

Jadi, sebelum anda ingin mengambil bahan-bahan dari Internet, dapatkan kebenaran dari pencipta atau pemiliknya. Pada hakikatnya, tidak semua benda dalam dunia ini percuma, ini termasuk segala jenis hasil penulisan (kecuali yang telah disahkan tersenarai di Public Domain), perisian komputer (termasuk perisian cetak rompak yang anda beli), gambar (termasuk gambar peribadi artis atau pelakon), poster, peta, lukisan, grafik, gambar iklan, strip kartun, karakter kartun seperti semua  kartun Disney, Hello Kitty, Domo, Upin & Ipin, Mamat, Angry Birds dan seumpamanya, filem, drama, iklan dan sebagainya.

Ingat, hormati hakcipta orang lain dan minta kebenaran untuk menggunakannya. Atas budi bicara pencipta atau pemilik, anda mungkin boleh menggunakannya secara percuma (dengan memberi kredit nama juga pautan kepada pencipta) atau membayar lesen untuk penggunaan secara peribadi atau komersil.

Dalam apa jua keadaan, DAPATKAN KEBENARAN DARI PENCIPTA ATAU PEMILIK.

Untuk memahami secara lanjut mengenai hakcipta, anda boleh dapatkan buku hasil tulisan Nisah Haron yang bertajuk KARYA KITA HAK KITA. Pembelian boleh dilakukan secara online di kedai buku Ujana Ilmu.

Kredit gambar: Ujana Ilmu dan Nisah Haron

Sekian, terma kasih kerana membaca.

I tell this over and over and over again until the infringers and thieves understand.

Below article is from m previous post entitled Copyright of Images found on the Internet.

This issue has been going on forever and many people are not aware about copyright or do not really understand the meaning of Copyright. Or do not understand the meaning at all.

According to Encarta Dictionary:

copyright [ kóppi r?t ] – creative artist’s control of original work: the legal right of creative artists or publishers to control the use and reproduction of their original works.

Basically, copyright automatically protects images found on websites. Artists do not have to register their works in order to protect them and a copyright symbol or notice does not have to be included with an image in order for it to be protected.

While browsing the Internet looking for reading material, I found this great article by Brad Templeton, 10 Big Myths about Copyright Explained. Brad gives full consent to share about this issue.

Here are some myths that I copied that I thought relevant to my context:

1) If it doesn’t have a copyright notice, it’s not copyrighted. The default you should assume for other people’s works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure. It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn’t post that either.

2) If you don’t charge for it, it’s not a violation. False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that’s main difference under the law. It’s still a violation if you give it away — and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property.

3) If it’s posted to Internet, it’s in the public domain. False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, “I grant this to the public domain.” Those exact words or words very much like them.

9) It doesn’t hurt anybody — in fact it’s free advertising. It’s up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don’t rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that’s not too hard to do.

To read the full version, pleas visit Brad Templeton, 10 Big Myths about Copyright Explained.