Remember, Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires

Followed your link on IMA news to see your example.

As said on my other comment there, I am sure no one has interest or time to go through each and every image like this one. But since you are more or less asking, this actually does infringe the copyright, as far as I correctly understand this list of 'Copyright rules by subject matter' available at Wikimedia Commons:

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Noticeboards_and_signs

The point is that if this sign is from 1960s, then very likely there is not long enough time gone for this sign to become as public property.

And I seem to have done the same mistake:

www.ipernity.com/doc/serola/48532814/in/album/1226796

Well, it is then up to you (and me) whether we let these images stay, or remove them. Very likely not many others are interested. BUT, if taking the copyright rules word for word, then we both do infringe the copyright.

You may find also this upload of mine as interesting:

www.ipernity.com/doc/serola/48694564

There I have really tried to think it through, if I have right to use toys as subject. Copyright is tough, especially for photographers! It is so easy to infringe it without even noticing it.

Thank you for your reply, Sami! But, also like I said over on that other thread: Big corporations are getting more and more out of hand these days. It might be near impossible to take a photograph anywhere in this day and age that doesn't show something somewhere in the frame that is copyrighted by somebody else. What are we as artists to do about these kinds of absurdities?

What I as an artist can do is to get informed and learn to know my rights. Like my toy example shows, also an artist using well known toys as subjects on art can win the case.

However, what really worries me, and I guess also the IMA team is worried about, are those blatant cases. I give you an example.

Today I just discovered one user here at ipernity, who have republished a photo originally taken by Robin Loznak. What makes that case outrageous is that this ipernity user had even seen trouble to claim her/his copyright on the caption, with many words. This user had even added a broad frames and her/his signature on it. In my opinion such a behavior is morally and ethically wrong.

Personally I wouldn't become worried of photographing and publishing images of signs and possibly copyright protected artifacts from time to time, more or less by accident. If one is still most of the time posting entirely her/his own works, this is then perfectly alright. But to keep ipernity reputation good, we should keep those blatant cases at bay.

"But to keep ipernity reputation good, we should keep those blatant cases at bay."

True, true. People who do that are just wrong. It is wrong to steal.