In this blog, a bartender relates how she confiscated someone’s fake ID, then posted a scan of it on her blog. The person with the fake ID retaliated by issuing a DMCA takedown notice through blogspot to the bartender. The bartender asked some of her lawyer friends, who told her that a fake ID can’t be copyrighted because it’s a) illegal to make in the first place, and b) a derivative work of the government.
Other “legal opinions” in the comments of the blog and the fark thread where I found it are dubious as well (e.g. “the copyright is owned by the government,” “she didn’t register it anyway,” etc.).
So the question(s): If I reproduced my (legal) driver’s license in pencil, could I copyright it? If I created a real-looking ID that did not replicate any other state or federal ID, could I copyright that design?
Also, I know the federal government doesn’t own the copyright of things it creates. Does this apply to state governments as well? And, that being the case, would attempts to copyright derivative works be judged in a different way than with actual copyrighted works?
Also, please note I’m not planning to actually DO this for any purpose…I don’t advocate the use of fake IDs (I’m over 21 myself anyhow). I’m not asking how to break or “get around” the law…just what the law actually is. I’m a graphic designer/journalist by trade, so issues of copyright are interesting to me.
Copyright law protects original and creative expression. I don’t think you could argue that a government-issued identification card is either original or creative.
However, you could create an image of a government-issued identification card that is original and creative. But the closer the image is to an exact reproduction of the card, the less likely it is going to be considered creative expression.
So, if you created an exact duplicate of your ID: (1) It’s not original because it’s a copy of something else, and (2) it’s not creative because your goal was to create an exact duplication of something.
First, one doesn’t “copyright” an item. Copyright attaches automatically when the work is fixed.
Second, the only thing you created was the drawing. Could someone make a photocopy of the drawing? Nah, there’s probably enough originality in sketching to give you some rights. The question would be how much of the work is protected.
Could someone steal your idea and make a sketch of your license? Sure. You didn’t create the license, so you don’t have any rights in it. Ditto taking a photo of it and posting it on a website. That might violate other laws, but not copyright.
You could have some rights in portions of the license, sure. It’d depend a lot on what it looked like.
It is my understanding the copyright exists the moment a work is created. However, enforcing copyright protection requires registration of the work before pursuing infractions of the copyright.
Unless the kid already registered his copyright for his fake ID prior to taking action, how can a DMCA takedown notice have any force to it? What if the bartender called the bluff by attempting to register the fake ID registration on their own, and succeeded? Would the DMCA notice have any validity to it? It sounds like the blogger web site never asked for proof of actual copyright infraction before informing the blogger to remove the image.
One can register right before filing a copyright infringement lawsuit. However, in such cases, the copyright holder’s remedies (i.e., how much money can be recovered) are limited.
I can’t recall off the top of my head whether the DMCA requires an actual copyright registration or just a good faith statement that there exists a valid copyright interest. In the first case, one could just file before sending notice. In the latter, no registration is required.
There’s nothing magic about a registration. A registration can’t confer rights where they don’t exist even when the real rights holder has not registered. Only the registration of the actual creator of a work author will be considered valid. In this case, if the OP does hold a valid copyright interest (and that’s the question under discussion), the bartender’s registration would not trump it.
Well, there you go then. Thanks for doing the footwork there. I’m having trouble tearing myself away from and outside author article (and the SDMB) to refer to one of the many copyright references that surround me.
Cribbing two good points from another discussion I read on this.
Whoever took the picture used for the fake id has the copyright for that.
Assuming that the rest of it was copied diretly from a government-issued id, isn’t all IP that the government creates put into public domain? In that case, the derivative work of the id would be validly copyrightable (unless the fact that it’s illegal makes it uneligible.)
One thing that I don’t think has been considered is that he should own the copyright on the picture used for his ID, assuming it was an original picture.
Good point. The photo might have some marginal copyright protection. I was assuming that the ID had been altered–not made from whole cloth. If the kid took the photo, he might have some protection in the photo. If a state employee took it, the kid doesn’t own the copyright on the photo.
There is no similar provision for works of state governments.
Any new creative work, sure. So far, we haven’t discussed much that is creative or new. Simply copying a public domain work won’t make it original. If the alteration involves originality, that’s a different story. It’s certainly a possiblity.
Aren’t things like the FBI logo copyrighted? Similarly, aren’t state ID designs copyrighted to prevent flea market hucksters from selling IDs that are exact replicas of real IDs? Or is that a matter of criminal law? When I was a doorman at a bar in Austin, TX, I would occasionally see IDs issued by the “Texas Department of Identification”. There isn’t one and real IDs are issued by the Department of Public Safety. Also on the back of a real one, there is a word “Directive” that is missing the dot over the first “i”. I was under the impression that this was a copyright thing, like fake streets on copyrighted maps.
While there might be some kind of copyright protection applicable, this kind of thing would not be primarily addressed by copyright law, but rather by some kind of fraudulent representation provision in criminal law or a generalized provision barring misrepresentation or impersonation of a government official.
Just as a matter of speculation, that might be a method of identifying a fake card, but I doubt that it has anything to do with copyrightability.
Right. The fact that an official document like an ID isn’t protected by copyright doesn’t mean it’s ok to make a fake one or alter a legitimate one. Its almost always a crime to do so.
Logos are not generally eligible for copyright protection. A logo is generally an indicator of the origin of goods and/or services, and therefore would be eligible for trademark rather than copyright protection. However, the FBI logo in particular would be ineligible for either protection (as indicated by Gfactor) based on their status as an arm of the United States Government.
Generally speaking, false identification papers are handled as a matter of criminal law, rather than intellectual properties law. Every state (that I am aware of) has laws prohibiting the production and dissemination of fraudulent identification. The federal government very definitely has criminal sanctions against production and dissemination of fraudulent identification.
