copyright
Copy Right Image
<p>Scenario 1:
Artist B buys a line image of a cat licenced on a stock image website by Artist A. (licence terms-free to distribute, modify but must credit original artist).
Artist B colours it and then places it on a creative commons clipart website without crediting the original artist. (Image can be used free for commercial use except merchandising, no accreditation required).
Person C uses Artist B's image from the clipart website without the knowledge of Artist A.
Is Person C infringing on Person A's copyright by using B's image? Is Person B allowed to post their image on the clipart website?</p>
<p>Scenario 2
Artist B uses Artist A's clipart to make their own version of the animal. They place this on a creative commons stock site-(free for commercial, no attribution required).
Artist C uses Artist B's version in their own work, publishes and later finds that Artist B based their work on A's clipart. Artist A cannot be located and the work is only visible on a couple of free for personal use clipart websites. The work seems to be an orphan work. It cannot be ascertained if Artist B has permission to make the derivative. What is the legal position of Artist C (assuming no fair use/fair dealings)?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>

<p>In both scenarios B is infringement on A's copyright by failing to comply with the license terms (no attribution). B therefore cannot grant the rights that B's posting claims to grant.  C may not use B's work in reliance  on B's license, since B did not have the rights to grant. A could issue a takedown against B's work or C's work, 9or could sue either for infringement. However, since C acted in good faith, damages awarded to A against C would probably be minimal, and most artists in A's position would not sue C.</p>
<p>Note that since C's work is also directly derivative of A's, C can probably comply with A's license simply by providing proper attribution to A. At that point, C would be in compliance, not infringing, and there would be no case against c for currant actions. In theory there could be a suit against C for past infringement, but this would be unlikely in practice unless there had been significant provable economic damage.</p>

<p>In scenario 1, Artist C is violating Artist A's copyright conditions. He might be requested to remove his work from the public domain if A finds out. However he's unlikely to be sued directly, because the actual copyright infringement was done by Artist B, who didn't hold on to A's license and <em>deliberately</em> used an incompatible license for his derivative work. C was acting in good faith. B might even be liable for any damage done to C (i.e. missed income).</p>
<p>Scenario 2 isn't different, except that now C found out himself that B had been violating A's copyright/license terms. C's work still is technically violating A's copyright, but again he should probably sue B for the copyright violation.</p>
