On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Anna Alia Algawam wrote:

To Whom It May Concern,

Excuse me if I address it to the wrong person, which I probably do. I am representing a tour operator company registered in Poland. We want to create our logo via Glimp. We want to use it later wherever posible including all possible means for commercial use. COuld you please confirm we are allowed to do so

You are allowed and, in fact, encouraged to do so :)

Alexandre

Yes, you can. If you go to "Help" menu in GIMP (2.8), and click on "About", then Click the "Licence" it says you can use GIMP however you like under the terms of the GNU GPL ver 3 or later.

Documentation is here, for your legal staff: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/#GPL

For a logo, however, I recommend using a program called "Inkscape", since in general, you want a professional logo to be scalable vector format.

Inkscape is also FOSS software usable for commercial purposes under the GNU GPL:

Get it from:
Inkscape.org

You can also use GIMP for the design, and then convert it to vector with Inkscape, or with the help of a professional graphic designer, such as myself (I use GIMP/Inkscape for all my professional logo work). :D

Good luck!

-C

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Anna Alia Algawam wrote:

To Whom It May Concern,

Excuse me if I address it to the wrong person, which I probably do. I am representing a tour operator company registered in Poland. We want to create our
logo via Glimp. We want to use it later wherever posible including all possible
means for commercial use. COuld you please confirm we are allowed to do so, if
not, indicate us please which criteria should we fulfil to be able to use glimp
for logo ?

best,

Anna Alia Algawam Project Manager

Blue Green Tour sp. z o.o. Chmielna 11, 1st. floor
00-021 Warsaw

Office : +48226572279 Fax. : +48226927462
Mobile : +48 696434645

E-mail : alia.algawam@bgtour.pl General
Inquiry : bgtour@bgtour.pl
Skype : Blue.Green.Tour
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Some off list concern was raised about the GPL being primarily applied to restrictions for selling and redistributing the GIMP software, however, the GPL v3 does speak about program output as well:

"*2. Basic Permissions.*

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. "
Applied to GIMP, this essentially means that as long as you own the (c) to the materials used in your logo/image, your work is protected under the GPLv3 licence, when output by GIMP.

Conversely, It is important to note that you can not take other peoples (c) materials, process them with GIMP and claim (c) over the new work. For example, if you take a picture of Micky Mouse off the internet, put a gradient background behind it in GIMP, and use the new image to make a T-shirt or logo of it, you are still violating the copyright of the original owner of the Micky mouse image you took.

The creators of all Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) have created this software to use for free, for everyone, without limitation, discrimination, etc. This includes use for business. To say the output can not be used for sale or other business purposes would be discrimination, and would violate the very idea of FOSS.

An example of a violation of this idea can be seen in Adobe selling "non-commercial" licences for Photoshop. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that FOSS was created to get rid of. Software that limits your rights to your own creative works, are a violation of your rights. This is a major reason why FOSS software is so attractive. It guarantees your rights are preserved.

It is also worth noting that in most countries, intellectual property rights are automatically applied to anything you make, and it is entirely up to you how much protection you want for your idea/graphic. In the case of a logo, you will want to register it as a Registered Trademark after you are done creating it with GIMP/Inkscape.

There is nothing in the GPL that forbids this, and again, the whole idea behind FOSS is freedom to create/modify/and do whatever you like with your own works.

Hope this clarifies things a bit. :)

-C On 30 May 2014 12:24, "Anna Alia Algawam" wrote:

To Whom It May Concern,

Excuse me if I address it to the wrong person, which I probably do. I am representing a tour operator company registered in Poland. We want to create our
logo via Glimp. We want to use it later wherever posible including all possible
means for commercial use. COuld you please confirm we are allowed to do so, if
not, indicate us please which criteria should we fulfil to be able to use glimp
for logo ?

best,

Anna Alia Algawam Project Manager

Blue Green Tour sp. z o.o. Chmielna 11, 1st. floor
00-021 Warsaw

Office : +48226572279 Fax. : +48226927462
Mobile : +48 696434645

E-mail : alia.algawam@bgtour.pl General
Inquiry : bgtour@bgtour.pl
Skype : Blue.Green.Tour
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:06 AM, C R wrote:

Some off list concern was raised about the GPL being primarily applied to restrictions for selling and redistributing the GIMP software, however, the GPL v3 does speak about program output as well:

"*2. Basic Permissions.*

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. "
Applied to GIMP, this essentially means that as long as you own the (c) to the materials used in your logo/image, your work is protected under the GPLv3 licence, when output by GIMP.

This isn't correct. Anything you make with GIMP does not need to be under the GPL.

The clause you point out is specifically for programs that include GPL'ed content in their output. It does not apply for gimp. If you own the photos you started with, then you own the output.

(IANAL, and the above is not legal advice.)

-- drawoc

I don't believe I said it *needed* to be covered under the GPL, only that it is, according to the GPL.
Intellectual property rights are such that unless you've explicitly waived the rights to your own work, you own whatever you make regardless of what tools you've made it with. Some software includes such clauses that restrict what you can do with the output (Adobe's Student Licence, and Apple's eBook Licence, are good examples). The GPL v3 does not contain any such restrictions, and protects the user's right to run the unmodified program, and further asserts acknowledgement of fair use provided by copyright law.This addresses to some degree the main fear people have when using software for commercial purposes: "Will the makers of this software turn around and sue me for using something I made with it, for commercial purposes. The answer, based on the clause I pointed out is "No".

Perhaps it would be better to include something in the GIMP's "about" screen that puts this to bed. Something to the effect of: "This software can be used to produce works for commercial or non-commercial purposes, without limitation in the spirit of FOSS."

I am not a lawyer either, but my intent is to offer something with more substance than a "yes" answer with no qualifying information, which is what the entirety of the internet seems to erroneously accept as "legal advise". The above is my understanding of the GPL based on my own research into the matter, and having worked in the graphics industry for some years. I do not claim to be an "authority" on the matter. Certainly, if anyone wants proper legal advise, lawyers would be best.

-C

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Michael Henning wrote:

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:06 AM, C R wrote:

Some off list concern was raised about the GPL being primarily applied to restrictions for selling and redistributing the GIMP software, however,

the

GPL v3 does speak about program output as well:

"*2. Basic Permissions.*

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of

copyright

on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are

met.

This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. "
Applied to GIMP, this essentially means that as long as you own the (c)

to

the materials used in your logo/image, your work is protected under the GPLv3 licence, when output by GIMP.

This isn't correct. Anything you make with GIMP does not need to be under the GPL.

The clause you point out is specifically for programs that include GPL'ed content in their output. It does not apply for gimp. If you own the photos you started with, then you own the output.

(IANAL, and the above is not legal advice.)

-- drawoc

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Michael Henning wrote:

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:06 AM, C R wrote:

Applied to GIMP, this essentially means that as long as you own the (c) to

the materials used in your logo/image, your work is protected under the GPLv3 licence, when output by GIMP.

The clause you point out is specifically for programs that include GPL'ed content in their output. It does not apply for gimp. If you own the photos you started with, then you own the output.

(IANAL, and the above is not legal advice.)

I'm going to assume that you are also not a native English speaker. You appear to be interpreting the word "protected" to mean "covered". This was not the author's intent, as evidenced by the later statement:

To say the output can not be used for

sale or other business purposes would be discrimination, and would violate the very idea of FOSS.

GPL compilers can produce executables that are not GPL, and GPL image editors can produce images that are not GPL.

GPLv3 creates ambiguity in that it implies that programs that are covered by the GPL can produce output that is also covered by the GPL. The answer to the question of then that can happen comes from the GPL FAQ:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL

The answer is "Only when the program copies part of itself into the output." This is still vague, so we can go to a better question by assuming the opposite intent:

"Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? [...]"

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput

Here, the answer is:

"In general this is legally impossible; [...]"

So, to be succinct, the output of Free Software, even GPLv3 Free Software, is not covered by the GPL, per the GPL FAQ.

Chris

Wow,
in few words Anna - yes you can produce content using Gimp, and you can use then your product without any restriction - you can sell your artwork, you can use your artwork as part of other commercial products.

2014-06-01 2:48 GMT+03:00 Christopher Curtis :

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Michael Henning < drawoc@darkrefraction.com>
wrote:

On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:06 AM, C R wrote:

Applied to GIMP, this essentially means that as long as you own the (c)

to

the materials used in your logo/image, your work is protected under the GPLv3 licence, when output by GIMP.

The clause you point out is specifically for programs that include GPL'ed content in their output. It does not apply for gimp. If you own the photos you started with, then you own the output.

(IANAL, and the above is not legal advice.)

I'm going to assume that you are also not a native English speaker. You appear to be interpreting the word "protected" to mean "covered". This was not the author's intent, as evidenced by the later statement:

To say the output can not be used for

sale or other business purposes would be discrimination, and would

violate

the very idea of FOSS.

GPL compilers can produce executables that are not GPL, and GPL image editors can produce images that are not GPL.

GPLv3 creates ambiguity in that it implies that programs that are covered by the GPL can produce output that is also covered by the GPL. The answer to the question of then that can happen comes from the GPL FAQ:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL

The answer is "Only when the program copies part of itself into the output." This is still vague, so we can go to a better question by assuming the opposite intent:

"Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? [...]"

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput

Here, the answer is:

"In general this is legally impossible; [...]"

So, to be succinct, the output of Free Software, even GPLv3 Free Software, is not covered by the GPL, per the GPL FAQ.

Chris _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 07:46 +0200, Anna Alia Algawam wrote:

Good morning guys, it is 7:44 in the morning in Poland. I highly apreciate your comments and help. Since I am thinking about starting my own business in a year or two- I need to finish project firts, I am also thinking if you are aware of any service with pics for commercial use and by commercial use I mean : website and catalogue that would be printed in maaany opies, I guess finally around thousands of copies ?

First, note that it helps to change the subject of the email message if you change the topic - I'd stopped reading this thread, thinking it answered.

Second...

Yes, there are probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of stock image companies around the world. I run a very small one myself - http://www.fromoldbooks.org/ - as a spare time income and interest thing.

Some of the largest -
. alamy.co.uk (can be expensive though) . istock.com
. shutterstock.com
. dreamstime.com
. getty images
Many many more.

Beware of free image sites for commercial use - usually you have to pay at least a little money so that you can say you had a legitimate right to use the image, if the image turns out to have belonged to someone else. Unfortunately it's common for people to take an image and sell it or post it on a free site saying it was their own.

It's not a good time to get into being a stock image company in general, but there are niche markets that can be successful.

Liam

Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:

Beware of free image sites for commercial use - usually you have to pay at least a little money so that you can say you had a legitimate right to use the image, if the image turns out to have belonged to someone else. Unfortunately it's common for people to take an image and sell it or post it on a free site saying it was their own.

This one is legit: http://www.freeimages.com/ ( formerly http://sxc.hu and recently purchased by Getty )

Some of the photos do have restrictions (eg, 'Author must be notified if the image is used in a public work' ), but the majority are free as in beer and speech.

A lot are "amateur", but I've found some surprisingly excellent photos on there.

HTH, Chris

On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 22:10 -0500, Chris Mohler wrote:

This one is legit: http://www.freeimages.com/ ( formerly http://sxc.hu and recently purchased by Getty )

Some of the photos do have restrictions (eg, 'Author must be notified if the image is used in a public work' ), but the majority are free as in beer and speech.

Well, you have t be careful even with sxc.hu/freeimage, or any site with user-supplied content such as deviantart.com, and the difficulty is that if someone uploads an image that isn't theirs, you may end up being liable, or having to take down your image. I've even sent a takedown request myself once, when someone used one of my pictures to promote/endorse a service that I despise, without paying and without credit and without permission.

I agree there's a lot of good stock there, but you still have to be careful and do due diligence, especially for commercial work. The terms of service says:
[[
Freeimages cannot be held responsible for any copyright violations, and cannot guarantee the legality of the Images stored in its system. If you want to make sure, always contact the photographers. You use the site and the photos at your own risk!
]] http://www.freeimages.com/help/7_2

The US government NOAA site has a lot of images (mostly wildlife and nature) that are free and for sure unencumbered.

I'm not really trying to scare people :-) so much as that for something like a catalogue business (mentioned by Anne) it can work out much cheaper to use paid images where someone else guarantees the licensing. It can take anywhere from a few minutes to several hours of work to check up on an image; I do it for the images I sell because I usually only have to do it once for a whole book, although even there I sometimes mark images as non-commercial use only because there's some doubt. In one case I'd love to get permission to use some images but the artist's niece is the sole survivor of the family and the publisher of the book relied to my letter to say they aren't sure where she lives, they think in a nursing home...

Best,

Liam

Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml