Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Copyright/fair-use of other people's images

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 4:57:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift an
image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that image to
another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and post the
new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without any
knowledge or consent of the photographer? No intention to profit.

Pbase has a clear policy that you should not upload any images to their site
if you are not the copyright owner for that image, IIRC. Tinypic.com, OTOH,
does not go into very much detail on this issue in their TOS.

Other scenario:

Can you lift a photo of a politician from a government site, alter the image
in a negative way (such as the George W Bush mock images with white powder
under his nose), and post it on your own website? Is this legal? Again, no
intention to profit.

Do different jurisdictions have different ways of dealing with these issues,
or is there a universal standard?

Would someone please explain "fair use" in the context of publishing other
people's images on the web? I've read the statutes. Can someone please
break it down?

Thanks in advance. For the record, the examples above are strictly
hypothetical scenarios. I have no plans to do any of those things.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:15:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 1/14/05 12:57 AM, in article 34p8s2F4ennt7U1@individual.net, "True211"
<true211@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift an
> image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that image to
> another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and post the
> new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without any
> knowledge or consent of the photographer
Why would you want to do this? It seems like a rather nasty thing to
do..have you been asked to review the work? Are you a professor offering
critiques for you class, or are you just being presumptuous?
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 12:09:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"True211" <true211@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:34p8s2F4ennt7U1@individual.net...
> Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift an
> image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that image to
> another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and post the
> new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without any
> knowledge or consent of the photographer? No intention to profit.
>

This is what I teach my students, which is what our legal beagles told us to
teach. The intent and common application of intillectual property laws
(copyright laws) in the U.S. are to protect the ownership rights of the
person who creates the idea, image, etc. Those rights include the right to
control when and where an image or idea is shown or published.

In practice, fair use doctrines have been applied to words, ideas, and to
data from research studies to say that a person may use the words, ideas, or
data of another in a non-income producing manner without their permission
*if* they give attribution. So, it can not be for monitary profit and there
must be attribution.

As fas as I know, and I could be wrong, these fair use doctrines have not
been applied to creative works, including images and music. In fact, the
courts have held that the mere presence of creative works in your personal
posession without having paid for their use is a violation of the law.
(Remember Napster?)

These are federal laws in the U.S. The laws in other countries differ; but,
as I understand it, International conventions hold that the laws of the
country in which the publisher of the material resides apply, regardless of
the location where you view the images. BTW, resides has been determined to
be where they are incorporated, not where the servers happen to be.

Anyway, that's my understanding. I am not an attorney, but I am an academic
very concerned with the protection of my own intillectual property and with
teaching my students to respect the right of others.

Walt Hanks
Related resources
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 12:25:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"nck" <tremont600@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BE0D300C.4701%tremont600@bellsouth.net...
> On 1/14/05 12:57 AM, in article 34p8s2F4ennt7U1@individual.net, "True211"
> <true211@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift an
> > image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that image to
> > another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and post
the
> > new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without any
> > knowledge or consent of the photographer

> Why would you want to do this?

Did you read my entire post? ... specifically, the part where I said that I
have no intentions of doing any of these things?

I asked about these specific examples for a reason.

In the first case, there is a user in a newsgroup I read who occasionally
downloads images from other photographers, uploads those images to
TinyPic.com, and posts the Tinypic URL with a (often extremely negative)
review of that image. Tinypic hosts the image as a direct URL to the file,
with no text available for photographer credit or a copyright notice.

> It seems like a rather nasty thing to
> do..

I feel the same way. When I confronted this photographer about it, he cried
"fair use".

> have you been asked to review the work? Are you a professor offering
> critiques for you class, or are you just being presumptuous?

See above.

Reference: see thread "This is just too lame" in rec.photo.equipment.35mm.
January 14, 2005 12:29:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"True211" <true211@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:34p8s2F4ennt7U1@individual.net...
> Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift an
> image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that image to
> another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and post the
> new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without any
> knowledge or consent of the photographer? No intention to profit.
>
> Pbase has a clear policy that you should not upload any images to their
site
> if you are not the copyright owner for that image, IIRC. Tinypic.com,
OTOH,
> does not go into very much detail on this issue in their TOS.
>
> Other scenario:
>
> Can you lift a photo of a politician from a government site, alter the
image
> in a negative way (such as the George W Bush mock images with white powder
> under his nose), and post it on your own website? Is this legal? Again,
no
> intention to profit.
>
> Do different jurisdictions have different ways of dealing with these
issues,
> or is there a universal standard?
>
> Would someone please explain "fair use" in the context of publishing other
> people's images on the web? I've read the statutes. Can someone please
> break it down?
>
> Thanks in advance. For the record, the examples above are strictly
> hypothetical scenarios. I have no plans to do any of those things.

This is not a statement for or against fair use. I have never (to the best
of my recollection) relied on fair use myself but my opinion is that it's
protection should be used *very conservatively*. Fair use is a *very*
contentious issue even if ethical considerations are excluded. Anyone hoping
to use it as a shield may well need good lawyers and deep pockets. A
definition of Fair Use:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Over...
Sign,
me
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 12:33:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 1/14/05 8:25 AM, in article 34q33rF3f8psrU1@individual.net, "True211"
<true211@gmail.com> wrote:

> Did you read my entire post? ... specifically, the part where I said that I
> have no intentions of doing any of these things?
>
> I asked about these specific examples for a reason.
>
> In the first case, there is a user in a newsgroup I read who occasionally
> downloads images from other photographers, uploads those images to
> TinyPic.com, and posts the Tinypic URL with a (often extremely negative)
> review of that image. Tinypic hosts the image as a direct URL to the file,
> with no text available for photographer credit or a copyright notice.
My apologies...for some reason the whole of your post was not on the piece I
read. I will reform.
That is pretty mean on his part. I tell you, (off topic here a little)
those "critique" sites where you can post stuff and INVITE comments can be
pretty scary. I noticed when I was using it I got a LOT of good,helpful
input, then there were a couple of power-freaks who would trash anything
anybody put up. I further noticed that they posted nothing TO the group
except these scathing comments...no work of their own etc. When you put
stuff out there, you have to expect somebody with time on their hands and
axes to grind to use your stuff for a moving target!
Again, apologies for misquoting/misunderstanding you.
Bet that user is the same idiot from the "critique" forum!!!
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:11:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Nd6dnYadjsEGT3rcRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> "True211" <true211@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:34p8s2F4ennt7U1@individual.net...
> > Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift an
> > image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that image to
> > another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and post
the
> > new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without any
> > knowledge or consent of the photographer? No intention to profit.
> >
>
> This is what I teach my students, which is what our legal beagles told us
to
> teach. The intent and common application of intillectual property laws
> (copyright laws) in the U.S. are to protect the ownership rights of the
> person who creates the idea, image, etc. Those rights include the right
to
> control when and where an image or idea is shown or published.
>
> In practice, fair use doctrines have been applied to words, ideas, and to
> data from research studies to say that a person may use the words, ideas,
or
> data of another in a non-income producing manner without their permission
> *if* they give attribution. So, it can not be for monitary profit and
there
> must be attribution.

Sorry, but that's wrong. There are instances in which protected works can
be exploited commercially, but still come within fair use. Additionally,
attribution is irrelevant and not required.

>
> As fas as I know, and I could be wrong, these fair use doctrines have not
> been applied to creative works, including images and music.

And that's also wrong. Fair use doctrine applies to protectable expression,
regardless of medium. There are numerous cases which apply fair use
doctrine to visual and musical works.

> In fact, the
> courts have held that the mere presence of creative works in your personal
> posession without having paid for their use is a violation of the law.
> (Remember Napster?)

And that's also completely wrong. It is not a violation to merely have an
unauthorized copy of protected expression. The Napster defendants were
liable for making and distributing unauthorized copies, two rights which are
reserved to copyright owners under the Copyright Act.

>
> These are federal laws in the U.S. The laws in other countries differ;
but,
> as I understand it, International conventions hold that the laws of the
> country in which the publisher of the material resides apply, regardless
of
> the location where you view the images.

Yes and no. In order to be a Berne Convention signatory, a country's laws
must be harmonized with specific requirements of Berne. It is for that
reason that, for example, the US has dropped the notice requirement for
protection upon publication.

> BTW, resides has been determined to
> be where they are incorporated, not where the servers happen to be.

Again, it depends. The test isn't residence, but personal jurisdiction. In
the US, personal jurisdiction is a constitutional, and fairly arcane. As a
rule, however, it means "wherever the defendant can be found."

>
> Anyway, that's my understanding. I am not an attorney,

Whereas I am.

>but I am an academic
> very concerned with the protection of my own intillectual property and
with
> teaching my students to respect the right of others.

With all due respect, there are a number of misconceptions regarding IP
protection in your post.


>
> Walt Hanks
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:37:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> writes:

> "True211" <true211@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:34p8s2F4ennt7U1@individual.net...
> > Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift an
> > image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that image to
> > another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and post the
> > new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without any
> > knowledge or consent of the photographer? No intention to profit.
>
> This is what I teach my students, which is what our legal beagles told us to
> teach. The intent and common application of intillectual property laws
> (copyright laws) in the U.S. are to protect the ownership rights of the
> person who creates the idea, image, etc.

You either need to get new legal beagles, or go back and ask them for
clarification. Ideas are explicitly not covered under U.S. copyright
laws:

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

TITLE 17--COPYRIGHTS

CHAPTER 1--SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT

Sec. 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,
now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid
of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following
categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Those rights include the right to
> control when and where an image or idea is shown or published.

Not exactly. The key word missing from your summary is "publicly".
Copyright holders do not have any exclusive rights under U.S. copyright
law to control non-public showings. There are exactly six exclusive
rights that go along with copyright, and they're clearly laid out in
17USC106.

DVD players do not let you skip certain segments of the DVD. The
industry would like you to believe that this is because copyright
holders have a right to control what parts you do or don't
skip/fast-forard/etc. They don't have any such right. It's all because
of agreements between DVD player manufacturers and the MPAA.

> As fas as I know, and I could be wrong, these fair use doctrines have not
> been applied to creative works, including images and music. In fact, the
> courts have held that the mere presence of creative works in your personal
> posession without having paid for their use is a violation of the law.
> (Remember Napster?)

Napster was about copying and distributing, not possession.

It sounds like you're saying that original poster's scenarios could not
be fair use because they involve creative works. That simply isn't
true. The nature of the copyrighted work is only one factor in
determining fair use. Those scenarios sound like critique and satire to
me, which are generally fair use.

Title 17 doesn't define fair use, but gives the courts factors to
consider in each individual case. An informative discussion can be
found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

> Anyway, that's my understanding. I am not an attorney, but I am an academic
> very concerned with the protection of my own intillectual property and with
> teaching my students to respect the right of others.

That's a very worthy goal. I'd suggest reading through Title 17, at
least chapter 1, to see what it does and doesn't say. I'm not a lawyer
either, but I found it very accessible.

I hope you have discussions about ethics and not just legalities.
Critiquing a photo publicly without telling the author about the
critique may be fair use and perfectly legal, but sounds unethical to
me, especially if the original photo was on a site with a comment
facility where the original photographer could have benefited from the
critique.

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Let your digital photos organize themselves.
Sign up today for a 7-day free trial.
January 14, 2005 1:37:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Bruce Lewis" <brlspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nm9y8ewowc9.fsf@home-on-the-dome.mit.edu...
> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > "True211" <true211@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:34p8s2F4ennt7U1@individual.net...
> > > Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift
an
> > > image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that image
to
> > > another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and post
the
> > > new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without
any
> > > knowledge or consent of the photographer? No intention to profit.
> >
> > This is what I teach my students, which is what our legal beagles told
us to
> > teach. The intent and common application of intillectual property laws
> > (copyright laws) in the U.S. are to protect the ownership rights of the
> > person who creates the idea, image, etc.
>
> You either need to get new legal beagles, or go back and ask them for
> clarification. Ideas are explicitly not covered under U.S. copyright
> laws:
>
> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>
> TITLE 17--COPYRIGHTS
>
> CHAPTER 1--SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
>
> Sec. 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
>
> (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
> original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,
> now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,
> reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid
> of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following
> categories:
> (1) literary works;
> (2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
> (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
> (4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
> (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
> (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
> (7) sound recordings; and
> (8) architectural works.
>
> (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
> authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
> operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
> which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > Those rights include the right to
> > control when and where an image or idea is shown or published.
>
> Not exactly. The key word missing from your summary is "publicly".
> Copyright holders do not have any exclusive rights under U.S. copyright
> law to control non-public showings.

If a site isn't password protected it is public. IIRC this has been ruled on
by the courts. In addition, copyright holders do have control of
distribution public or otherwise, one example is the warning at the start of
all movies.

> An informative discussion can be
> found here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Urban legend edited by who knows who. IMHO that is not a good source for
info about fair use. Look here:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Over...
Sign,
me
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:37:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:10uft1tbd390ha9@corp.supernews.com...
> "Bruce Lewis" <brlspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nm9y8ewowc9.fsf@home-on-the-dome.mit.edu...
> > "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> > > "True211" <true211@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:34p8s2F4ennt7U1@individual.net...
> > > > Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift
> an
> > > > image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that
image
> to
> > > > another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and
post
> the
> > > > new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without
> any
> > > > knowledge or consent of the photographer? No intention to profit.
> > >
> > > This is what I teach my students, which is what our legal beagles told
> us to
> > > teach. The intent and common application of intillectual property
laws
> > > (copyright laws) in the U.S. are to protect the ownership rights of
the
> > > person who creates the idea, image, etc.
> >
> > You either need to get new legal beagles, or go back and ask them for
> > clarification. Ideas are explicitly not covered under U.S. copyright
> > laws:
> >
> > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> >
> > TITLE 17--COPYRIGHTS
> >
> > CHAPTER 1--SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
> >
> > Sec. 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
> >
> > (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
> > original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,
> > now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,
> > reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid
> > of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following
> > categories:
> > (1) literary works;
> > (2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
> > (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
> > (4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
> > (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
> > (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
> > (7) sound recordings; and
> > (8) architectural works.
> >
> > (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
> > authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
> > operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
> > which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > > Those rights include the right to
> > > control when and where an image or idea is shown or published.
> >
> > Not exactly. The key word missing from your summary is "publicly".
> > Copyright holders do not have any exclusive rights under U.S. copyright
> > law to control non-public showings.
>
> If a site isn't password protected it is public.

Yes, so? Public distribution is one of the rights reserved to a copyright
owner. However, making copies is another right -- even if a site is
password-protected, and not publicly accessible, it is still copyright
infringement to post an unauthorized copy on a website, private or not.


> IIRC this has been ruled on
> by the courts. In addition, copyright holders do have control of
> distribution public or otherwise, one example is the warning at the start
of
> all movies.

Yes, though the warning at the start of all movies isn't the law, but rather
a notice by the IP owner.

>
> > An informative discussion can be
> > found here:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
>
> Urban legend edited by who knows who. IMHO that is not a good source for
> info about fair use.

Agreed.

> Look here:
>
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Over...

Fair use is an arcane equitable doctrine (meaning judge-made law) which has
been codified in the U.S. Copyright Act. However, despite the codification,
it remains an equitable doctrine, meaning it is fact-specific and determined
by the judge, and then only when it is raised in the context of a defense to
copyright infringement. That determination may be based on all, some or
none of the enumerated fair-use factors. Whether a specific use is likely
to be found a fair use is not something that a lay-person can readily
determine.


> Sign,
> me
>
>
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:58:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

me wrote:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
>
> Urban legend [...]

A review of the document reveals no glaring errors to my inexpert eyes
(but see below). Please point to an "urban legend" found therein.

> [...] edited by who knows who.

You click on the "history" link near the top and it tells you who has
made the changes. You can even compare versions. What more do you
need?

> IMHO that is not a good source for info about fair use. Look here:
>
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Over...

This page is titled "When to use a release", and its contents do not
even use the phrase "fair use".

Maybe you meant:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Over...

except the contents of this document (and its children) seem to be in
fair accord with the wikipedia reference you denigrate. So if this was
the document you meant to reference, and if Wikipedia is a nest of
urban legend, then why isn't fairuse.stanford.edu?
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 3:15:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105729134.616111.150300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> me wrote:
>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
> >
> > Urban legend [...]
>
> A review of the document reveals no glaring errors to my inexpert eyes
> (but see below). Please point to an "urban legend" found therein.

I took a quick look at the site. It's not bad with respect to copyright
fair use but, unfortunately, it is superficial. There are a number of niche
doctrines which have evolved as concommitants of fair use. For example, the
wikipedia article states, "A teacher who prints a few copies of a poem to
illustrate a technique will have no problem on all four of the above factors
(except possibly on amount and substantialit." As applied, however,
educational fair use in this context is also limited as to quantity, and
considers whether or not the proposed use is spontaneous or part of a
planned lesson.

The section on trademark fair use is misleading, or simply wrong in a number
of respects -- far too many to go into here.




>
> > [...] edited by who knows who.
>
> You click on the "history" link near the top and it tells you who has
> made the changes. You can even compare versions. What more do you
> need?
>
> > IMHO that is not a good source for info about fair use. Look here:
> >
>
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Over...
>
> This page is titled "When to use a release", and its contents do not
> even use the phrase "fair use".
>
> Maybe you meant:
>
>
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Over...
>
> except the contents of this document (and its children) seem to be in
> fair accord with the wikipedia reference you denigrate. So if this was
> the document you meant to reference, and if Wikipedia is a nest of
> urban legend, then why isn't fairuse.stanford.edu?
>
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 3:16:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

True211 wrote:
> Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift
> an image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that
> image to another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for
> examples), and post the new URL with a negative review of that image
> - all of this, without any knowledge or consent of the photographer?
> No intention to profit.
>
> Pbase has a clear policy that you should not upload any images to
> their site if you are not the copyright owner for that image, IIRC.
> Tinypic.com, OTOH, does not go into very much detail on this issue in
> their TOS.
>
> Other scenario:
>
> Can you lift a photo of a politician from a government site, alter
> the image in a negative way (such as the George W Bush mock images
> with white powder under his nose), and post it on your own website?
> Is this legal? Again, no intention to profit.
>
> Do different jurisdictions have different ways of dealing with these
> issues, or is there a universal standard?
>
> Would someone please explain "fair use" in the context of publishing
> other people's images on the web? I've read the statutes. Can
> someone please break it down?
>
> Thanks in advance. For the record, the examples above are strictly
> hypothetical scenarios. I have no plans to do any of those things.

Fair use is always a sticky issue. To gain a good understanding of that
issue, I suggest rather than reading the statute you read case law, and lots
of it. Hypothetical situations are going to only give you guesses, case law
will give you real answers.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 3:16:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eKOFd.661$re1.488@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> True211 wrote:
> > Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift
> > an image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that
> > image to another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for
> > examples), and post the new URL with a negative review of that image
> > - all of this, without any knowledge or consent of the photographer?
> > No intention to profit.
> >
> > Pbase has a clear policy that you should not upload any images to
> > their site if you are not the copyright owner for that image, IIRC.
> > Tinypic.com, OTOH, does not go into very much detail on this issue in
> > their TOS.
> >
> > Other scenario:
> >
> > Can you lift a photo of a politician from a government site, alter
> > the image in a negative way (such as the George W Bush mock images
> > with white powder under his nose), and post it on your own website?
> > Is this legal? Again, no intention to profit.
> >
> > Do different jurisdictions have different ways of dealing with these
> > issues, or is there a universal standard?
> >
> > Would someone please explain "fair use" in the context of publishing
> > other people's images on the web? I've read the statutes. Can
> > someone please break it down?
> >
> > Thanks in advance. For the record, the examples above are strictly
> > hypothetical scenarios. I have no plans to do any of those things.
>
> Fair use is always a sticky issue. To gain a good understanding of
that
> issue, I suggest rather than reading the statute you read case law, and
lots
> of it. Hypothetical situations are going to only give you guesses, case
law
> will give you real answers.

As Joseph correctly indicates, fair use is an intensly fact-specific
doctrine, and only familiarity with the case law would allow for an accurate
prediction. However, another concern is right of publicity, which is a
creature of state law and will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.



>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
>
>
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 3:16:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

True211 wrote:
> Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift an
> image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that image to
> another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and post the
> new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without any
> knowledge or consent of the photographer? No intention to profit.

Sounds like you're trying to interpret "fair use" for less than
altruistic reasons.

>
> Pbase has a clear policy that you should not upload any images to their site
> if you are not the copyright owner for that image, IIRC. Tinypic.com, OTOH,
> does not go into very much detail on this issue in their TOS.

Copyright does not need a notice. All images are the copyrighted
property of their owners. By default, it is the property of the creator
of the work at the moment it is made. (By contract it may become the
property of someone else).


>
> Other scenario:
>
> Can you lift a photo of a politician from a government site, alter the image
> in a negative way (such as the George W Bush mock images with white powder
> under his nose), and post it on your own website? Is this legal? Again, no
> intention to profit.

Write to the government site. They might be granting public domain
automatically. OTOH, the US Fed takes its IP rights very seriously.

Making changes to an image of a person in a way that is clearly parody,
is, in the US anyway, considered free speech. Be careful of what might
be considered parody or defamation. Be careful of the source of the image.

A famous Annie Leibovitz photo of actress Demi Moore pregnant on the
cover of Vanity Fair (great photo) was parodized in the poster for a
Leslie Nielson movie. AL sued and lost. ... goes to show how far
people will go to protect their IP (or presumed dignity).

http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/lei...

>
> Do different jurisdictions have different ways of dealing with these issues,
> or is there a universal standard?

It varies, in general the "western democracies" have somewhat similar
systems.

> Would someone please explain "fair use" in the context of publishing other
> people's images on the web? I've read the statutes. Can someone please
> break it down?

An example is an exerpt from a book. The critic may, without
permission, cite a passage from the book (or show a clip from the movie,
or play a section of music) and this is considered 'fair use' in the US.
(But to avoid all doubt, these articles often have 'used with
permission' notices).

wrt photo sites, one could say, "here are three samples from the photogs
fantastic (wretched) collection on dung beetles." OTOH, why not use a
link instead of a copied image?

>
> Thanks in advance. For the record, the examples above are strictly
> hypothetical scenarios. I have no plans to do any of those things.

Sure. But if you do, spent $100 and consult a lawyer for 20 minutes.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 3:31:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Bruce Lewis" <brlspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nm9y8ewowc9.fsf@home-on-the-dome.mit.edu...
> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> "True211" <true211@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:34p8s2F4ennt7U1@individual.net...
>> > Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift an
>> > image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that image
>> > to
>> > another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and post
>> > the
>> > new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without any
>> > knowledge or consent of the photographer? No intention to profit.
>>
>> This is what I teach my students, which is what our legal beagles told us
>> to
>> teach. The intent and common application of intillectual property laws
>> (copyright laws) in the U.S. are to protect the ownership rights of the
>> person who creates the idea, image, etc.
>
> You either need to get new legal beagles, or go back and ask them for
> clarification. Ideas are explicitly not covered under U.S. copyright
> laws:
>

Copyright laws are only one example of intellectual property law. There are
also patent laws. And, when ideas are expressed in a literary form, they
are copyrightable. This has been extended, rather far it might seem, to
include published research in academic journals. There are mountains of
case law on this.

Under fair use, you can use the results of my research, my words in
describing that research, even how I organized the report of my research,
but you must give attribution. And the purpose can not be for monitary
gain. All of these elements are intillectual property.

When a manufacturer wants to use my wife's data in developing a new
instrument for measuring the physics of the middle ear, they have to get her
permission and pay her and the University where her research was performed.
When a for-profit developer of safety programs wants to use my data on
driver fatigue, they at least have to get my permission (wouldn't mind
getting paid either).

>> Those rights include the right to
>> control when and where an image or idea is shown or published.
>
> Not exactly. The key word missing from your summary is "publicly".
> Copyright holders do not have any exclusive rights under U.S. copyright
> law to control non-public showings. There are exactly six exclusive
> rights that go along with copyright, and they're clearly laid out in
> 17USC106.
>

An open website is public and the words "shown" and "published" suggest a
public presentation, do they not?

>> As fas as I know, and I could be wrong, these fair use doctrines have not
>> been applied to creative works, including images and music. In fact, the
>> courts have held that the mere presence of creative works in your
>> personal
>> posession without having paid for their use is a violation of the law.
>> (Remember Napster?)
>
> Napster was about copying and distributing, not possession.
>

You're splitting hairs. You can not have possession without either buying
or copying. And the recording industry successfully sued a lot of people to
enforce these laws. My children mistakenly got caught up in this and when I
received a letter asking me to cease downloading files, their fun ended very
abruptly.

> It sounds like you're saying that original poster's scenarios could not
> be fair use because they involve creative works. That simply isn't
> true. The nature of the copyrighted work is only one factor in
> determining fair use. Those scenarios sound like critique and satire to
> me, which are generally fair use.
>
> Title 17 doesn't define fair use, but gives the courts factors to
> consider in each individual case. An informative discussion can be
> found here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
>
>> Anyway, that's my understanding. I am not an attorney, but I am an
>> academic
>> very concerned with the protection of my own intillectual property and
>> with
>> teaching my students to respect the right of others.
>
> That's a very worthy goal. I'd suggest reading through Title 17, at
> least chapter 1, to see what it does and doesn't say. I'm not a lawyer
> either, but I found it very accessible.
>

Yes, but I know enough about the law to know that case law is more important
than statute law. And it is case law, as I understand it, that is paving
the way on internet uses of copyrightable material.

> I hope you have discussions about ethics and not just legalities.

Of course, but then again, they're freshman who have been taught to
plagiarize their entire academic career. "Go to this or that website and
put it in your own words," is a common instruction in today's schools. It
is also plagiarism. Believe me, it is an uphill battle.

Walt
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 3:31:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3NidnZgYm-mXn3XcRVn-3A@comcast.com...
>
> "Bruce Lewis" <brlspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nm9y8ewowc9.fsf@home-on-the-dome.mit.edu...
> > "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >> "True211" <true211@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:34p8s2F4ennt7U1@individual.net...
> >> > Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift
an
> >> > image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that image
> >> > to
> >> > another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and
post
> >> > the
> >> > new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without
any
> >> > knowledge or consent of the photographer? No intention to profit.
> >>
> >> This is what I teach my students, which is what our legal beagles told
us
> >> to
> >> teach. The intent and common application of intillectual property laws
> >> (copyright laws) in the U.S. are to protect the ownership rights of the
> >> person who creates the idea, image, etc.
> >
> > You either need to get new legal beagles, or go back and ask them for
> > clarification. Ideas are explicitly not covered under U.S. copyright
> > laws:
> >
>
> Copyright laws are only one example of intellectual property law. There
are
> also patent laws. And, when ideas are expressed in a literary form, they
> are copyrightable. This has been extended, rather far it might seem, to
> include published research in academic journals. There are mountains of
> case law on this.

Patents protect novel inventions and processes.
Copyrights protect the expression of ideas, though not the ideas themselves.
Academic journals contain protectable expression, i.e. it is copyright
infringement to copy the specific expression of the ideas contained in the
journal. The ideas themselves, however, are freely available for use by
anyone without restriction (unless they constitute inventions or processes
for which a patent registration has been obtained).

>
> Under fair use, you can use the results of my research, my words in
> describing that research, even how I organized the report of my research,
> but you must give attribution.

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. First, anyone can use the results of
your research -- those are ideas and are not protectable, except as patent.
Your ideas are freely available for use by anyone, with or without
attribution, except to the extent that such use constitutes patent
infringement.

The journal article in which you report your research constitutes expression
protectable by copyright. It can, in specific limited circumstances, be
used without your consent and without incurring liability for copyright
infringement pursuant to fair use doctrine. Fair use does _not_ require
attribution.

> And the purpose can not be for monitary
> gain.

And that's also incorrect (and, by the way, the word is spelled
"monetary" -- you've made that mistake twice). The character of a specific
use is one of the factors considered in determining whether something is
fair use, but it is non-dispositive, and there are numerous examples of uses
being held to be within fair use, even though they were for profit.

> All of these elements are intillectual property.

"Intellectual property."

>
> When a manufacturer wants to use my wife's data in developing a new
> instrument for measuring the physics of the middle ear, they have to get
her
> permission and pay her and the University where her research was
performed.

No, they do not. Data isn't protectable, either under copyright or patent.
The expression of the data as a specific sequence and arrangement _may_ be
protectable under copyright. Anyone accessing your wife's data pursuant to
a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA") would incur contractual liability for
unauthorized use. However, if your wife has published the data in an
academic journal (or even handed out a flyer at a lecture), the data
themselves may be used by anyone without infringing any intellectual
property rights of either your wife or her university.

> When a for-profit developer of safety programs wants to use my data on
> driver fatigue, they at least have to get my permission (wouldn't mind
> getting paid either).

Not if it's published. If you've kept it confidential, it is your trade
secret and you can sell the data as you wish.

>
> >> Those rights include the right to
> >> control when and where an image or idea is shown or published.
> >
> > Not exactly. The key word missing from your summary is "publicly".

Again, that's completely wrong. Title 17, Section 106 of the United States
Code specifies the exclusive rights reserved to copyright owners. Included
in these is the reproduction right and the right to prepare derivative
works, neither of which have a "publicly" qualifier, and both of which are
implicated by the OP's scenario.

> > Copyright holders do not have any exclusive rights under U.S. copyright
> > law to control non-public showings. There are exactly six exclusive
> > rights that go along with copyright, and they're clearly laid out in
> > 17USC106.
> >
>
> An open website is public and the words "shown" and "published" suggest a
> public presentation, do they not?

Read the statute.

>
> >> As fas as I know, and I could be wrong, these fair use doctrines have
not
> >> been applied to creative works, including images and music. In fact,
the
> >> courts have held that the mere presence of creative works in your
> >> personal
> >> posession without having paid for their use is a violation of the law.
> >> (Remember Napster?)
> >
> > Napster was about copying and distributing, not possession.
> >
>
> You're splitting hairs. You can not have possession without either buying
> or copying.

No, he is not splitting hairs. He's exactly right. "Buying" doesn't incur
liability. "Copying" does, as does "distributing." The Napster defendants
were liable for unauthorized copying (by downloading and saving protected
expression to their hard drives) and unauthorized distribution (by making
their music files available to others to download and save). They were
_not_ liable for unauthorized "possession."

As an intellectual property attorney, I have a small museum of interesting
infringements and knock-offs. Some I purchased, some were given to me. I
have incurred _no_ liability whatsoever, either by purchasing the
knock-offs, or accepting a knock-off as a gift.

> And the recording industry successfully sued a lot of people to
> enforce these laws.

Yes, but not for the reasons that you think.

> My children mistakenly got caught up in this and when I
> received a letter asking me to cease downloading files, their fun ended
very
> abruptly.

That is because "downloading files" is the act of creating an unauthorized
copy on your childrens' computer.

>
> > It sounds like you're saying that original poster's scenarios could not
> > be fair use because they involve creative works. That simply isn't
> > true. The nature of the copyrighted work is only one factor in
> > determining fair use. Those scenarios sound like critique and satire to
> > me, which are generally fair use.
> >
> > Title 17 doesn't define fair use, but gives the courts factors to
> > consider in each individual case. An informative discussion can be
> > found here:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
> >
> >> Anyway, that's my understanding. I am not an attorney, but I am an
> >> academic
> >> very concerned with the protection of my own intillectual property and
> >> with
> >> teaching my students to respect the right of others.
> >
> > That's a very worthy goal. I'd suggest reading through Title 17, at
> > least chapter 1, to see what it does and doesn't say. I'm not a lawyer
> > either, but I found it very accessible.
> >
>
> Yes, but I know enough about the law to know that case law is more
important
> than statute law.

Sorry, but that doesn't mean anything. They're both important, and you
can't ignore either.

> And it is case law, as I understand it, that is paving
> the way on internet uses of copyrightable material.

Only to an extent. Congress has enacted the DMCA (a very bad law, in my
opinion) which specifically addresses certain kinds of internet uses.

>
> > I hope you have discussions about ethics and not just legalities.
>
> Of course, but then again, they're freshman who have been taught to
> plagiarize their entire academic career. "Go to this or that website and
> put it in your own words," is a common instruction in today's schools. It
> is also plagiarism. Believe me, it is an uphill battle.

I've taught university as a doctoral fellow and have multiple graduate
degrees in addition to my JD. Believe me, I am very much pro academe. So,
please, do not teach your students the misconceptions which you have recited
here. I don't know your area of expertise, and I wouldn't presume to give
you advice about it. However, _my_ area of expertise is intellectual
property law, and I'm telling you that quite a bit of what you've said here
is wrong.

>
> Walt
>
>
>
January 14, 2005 4:29:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105729134.616111.150300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> me wrote:
>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
> >
> > Urban legend [...]
>
> A review of the document reveals no glaring errors to my inexpert eyes
> (but see below). Please point to an "urban legend" found therein.

Under "Common misunderstandings" it says "If a work isn't copyrighted it is
in the public domain and you can use it anyway." The error here is that all
IP is entited to copyright protection as soon as it is created.

> > [...] edited by who knows who.
>
> You click on the "history" link near the top and it tells you who has
> made the changes.

Point taken about the history. AFAIKT anyone can make edits so this is not a
text book of law.

> You can even compare versions. What more do you
> need?

A lot more that that If I'm going to risk my financial future on it. Your
milage obliously varies.

> > IMHO that is not a good source for info about fair use. Look here:
> >
>
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Over...
>
> This page is titled "When to use a release", and its contents do not
> even use the phrase "fair use".

Point taken but the title bar does say fair use.

> Maybe you meant:
>
>
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Over...
>
> except the contents of this document (and its children) seem to be in
> fair accord with the wikipedia reference you denigrate. So if this was
> the document you meant to reference, and if Wikipedia is a nest of
> urban legend, then why isn't fairuse.stanford.edu?

In news:34qgpjF4c4uemU1@individual.net PTravel who is a lawyer knowledgable
in such matters agreed with (or didn't dispute) my characterization of
Wikipedia. He also found no fault with my preference for
fairuse.stanford.edu. As I said above, YMMV. therefore we must agree to
disagree.
Sign,
me
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 5:02:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:34qi0pF4e6i0kU1@individual.net...
> I've taught university as a doctoral fellow and have multiple graduate
> degrees in addition to my JD. Believe me, I am very much pro academe.
> So,
> please, do not teach your students the misconceptions which you have
> recited
> here. I don't know your area of expertise, and I wouldn't presume to give
> you advice about it. However, _my_ area of expertise is intellectual
> property law, and I'm telling you that quite a bit of what you've said
> here
> is wrong.
>
>>

Thank you for your reply. Your explanations are certainly different than
what our attorneys at the University's we've taught at have expressed, but
that's a debate for another time and place. And between them and you, not
me. My degrees are in Health Science, not law.

As far as plagiarism is concerned, attribution is the key element. But
plagiarism and copyright infringement I would guess are not the same thing.
The bigger issue is, legal or not, that the work of others should be
respected, whether it is a statue, a new medical device, or an image on a
screen.

Walt
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 5:02:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5qidncJgWdTZinXcRVn-3Q@comcast.com...

<snip>

> Thank you for your reply. Your explanations are certainly different than
> what our attorneys at the University's we've taught at have expressed, but
> that's a debate for another time and place. And between them and you, not
> me. My degrees are in Health Science, not law.

I can, of course, not provide legal advice to non-clients, but if you want
to verify my credentials, do a google search on my name:

Paul N. Tauger


>
> As far as plagiarism is concerned, attribution is the key element. But
> plagiarism and copyright infringement I would guess are not the same
thing.

Exactly right. Plagiarism is an academic concept, not a legal one.
Non-infringing plagiarism isn't illegal.

> The bigger issue is, legal or not, that the work of others should be
> respected, whether it is a statue, a new medical device, or an image on a
> screen.

Well said -- I agree completely.

>
> Walt
>
>
January 14, 2005 6:16:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in

> This is what I teach my students, which is what our legal beagles told us
to
> teach. The intent and common application of intillectual property laws
> (copyright laws) in the U.S. are to protect the ownership rights of the
> person who creates the idea, image, etc. Those rights include the right
to
> control when and where an image or idea is shown or published.
>

A good example of Fair Use would be the showing the photo of Prince Harry in
his Nazi uniform. The shot was taken and published by a London tabloid.
Television news services all around the world showed it--and in every case I
looked at, what they did was to show the entire front page of the
newspaper--not just the photo.

It clearly gave proper attribution to the source, and it was fair use of the
image because it was newsworthy.

I suspect that the practice of merely "lifting" the image and reposting it
on another site would be a violation of the copyright owner's rights.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 6:16:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ynRFd.6657$C52.1877@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in
>
> > This is what I teach my students, which is what our legal beagles told
us
> to
> > teach. The intent and common application of intillectual property laws
> > (copyright laws) in the U.S. are to protect the ownership rights of the
> > person who creates the idea, image, etc. Those rights include the right
> to
> > control when and where an image or idea is shown or published.
> >
>
> A good example of Fair Use would be the showing the photo of Prince Harry
in
> his Nazi uniform. The shot was taken and published by a London tabloid.
> Television news services all around the world showed it--and in every case
I
> looked at, what they did was to show the entire front page of the
> newspaper--not just the photo.

There is a news media fair use exception, but it is very, very rarely
applied (the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination is one of the few
instances I can recall off the top of my head). I don't have an opinion
with respect to the Prince Harry incident because I missed both the incident
itself and the photograph of it. However, I can't think of any situation in
which showing the entire tabloid page would not infringe rights in the
photograph, whereas showing the photograph itself would.

>
> It clearly gave proper attribution to the source, and it was fair use of
the
> image because it was newsworthy.

Attribution is irrelevant to fair use. It is possible that use of the
photograph comes within fair use, but I'd have to know a lot more about the
circumstances. In any event, the mere fact that a photograph is published
in newspaper does not render other news-related uses of the same photograph
as fair use.


>
> I suspect that the practice of merely "lifting" the image and reposting it
> on another site would be a violation of the copyright owner's rights.

I can think of exceptions, but on its face, you're right.

>
>
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 7:15:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:57:30 -0500, "True211" <true211@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Would it be considered a copyright violation if someone were to lift an
>image from a photographer's commercial web gallery, upload that image to
>another hosting service (Tinypic.com or Pbase, for examples), and post the
>new URL with a negative review of that image - all of this, without any
>knowledge or consent of the photographer? No intention to profit.

My guess is that that would be illegal.

>Can you lift a photo of a politician from a government site, alter the image
>in a negative way (such as the George W Bush mock images with white powder
>under his nose), and post it on your own website? Is this legal? Again, no
>intention to profit.

Again, IMHO this is illegal. In fact, it may be a form of libel.

But hey... I ain't no lawyer!
January 14, 2005 8:54:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in
news:irrfu01ht8b2bq38aie226feri1817kd82@4ax.com:

>>Can you lift a photo of a politician from a government site, alter the
>>image in a negative way (such as the George W Bush mock images with
>>white powder under his nose), and post it on your own website? Is
>>this legal? Again, no intention to profit.
>
> Again, IMHO this is illegal. In fact, it may be a form of libel.
>

This might not be. First, a lot of things (everything?) produced by the
Federal Government are public domain, so it's possible that a photo of
George Bush is not copyright. It's also possible that it was produced
under a contract with a commercial photographer, and that it is
copyright.

As far a libel, there is a different standard for public figures. It
would probably make a difference whether you tried to pass it off as
factual material, or as political speech, too.

Bob
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:42:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in
news:34qi0pF4e6i0kU1@individual.net:

Thank you for taking your time. It is very enlightening
to hear from someone that not only guesses - but also knows :) 

I might not in particular like the Copyright law. But what you
write has a ring of truth to it. Unfortunately :) 

> Copyrights protect the expression of ideas, though not the ideas
> themselves.

Ah! This is the essence of what I find problematic.

If you push the button on your camera, whatever it points
at, you have copyright to the picture. Thus you can produce
thousands of copyrighted pictures in no time at all,
and without any "expression of ideas" IMHO. And all over
the globe this, more or less, is done millions of times
each day.

The need for protecting all those random pictures does not
exist IMHO.

But ... there is a need for protection. For professionals
living on their pictures and for artists that want to
protect their "expression" from being used in an unwanted
way. And for other reasons.

I think it is more reasonable that the professional and the
artist or anyone have some means to actively protect their work.


/Roland
January 14, 2005 11:42:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DEDCD969B01klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in
> news:34qi0pF4e6i0kU1@individual.net:
>
> Thank you for taking your time. It is very enlightening
> to hear from someone that not only guesses - but also knows :) 
>
> I might not in particular like the Copyright law. But what you
> write has a ring of truth to it. Unfortunately :) 
>
> > Copyrights protect the expression of ideas, though not the ideas
> > themselves.
>
> Ah! This is the essence of what I find problematic.
>
> If you push the button on your camera, whatever it points
> at, you have copyright to the picture. Thus you can produce
> thousands of copyrighted pictures in no time at all,
> and without any "expression of ideas" IMHO. And all over
> the globe this, more or less, is done millions of times
> each day.
>
> The need for protecting all those random pictures does not
> exist IMHO.
>
> But ... there is a need for protection. For professionals
> living on their pictures and for artists that want to
> protect their "expression" from being used in an unwanted
> way. And for other reasons.
>
> I think it is more reasonable that the professional and the
> artist or anyone have some means to actively protect their work.
> /Roland

It is the responsibility of the artist to protect his IP, in court if
necessary.
Sign,
me
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:42:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DEDCD969B01klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in
> news:34qi0pF4e6i0kU1@individual.net:
>
> Thank you for taking your time. It is very enlightening
> to hear from someone that not only guesses - but also knows :) 
>
> I might not in particular like the Copyright law. But what you
> write has a ring of truth to it. Unfortunately :) 
>
> > Copyrights protect the expression of ideas, though not the ideas
> > themselves.
>
> Ah! This is the essence of what I find problematic.
>
> If you push the button on your camera, whatever it points
> at, you have copyright to the picture. Thus you can produce
> thousands of copyrighted pictures in no time at all,
> and without any "expression of ideas" IMHO.

The "idea" of a picture is the composition and arrangement of content.

> And all over
> the globe this, more or less, is done millions of times
> each day.
>
> The need for protecting all those random pictures does not
> exist IMHO.

Why? As it happens, I just returned from vacation in Europe. I brought my
digital camera, and took quite a few pictures which, to me, capture the
character of what I saw -- that is the "idea" of the photograph. Why
shouldn't I have a copyright in the pictures that I took?

>
> But ... there is a need for protection. For professionals
> living on their pictures and for artists that want to
> protect their "expression" from being used in an unwanted
> way. And for other reasons.

Well, that's what copyright does.

>
> I think it is more reasonable that the professional and the
> artist or anyone have some means to actively protect their work.

Well, that was, and is, the intent of copyright, from the Statute of Anne,
on through Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

>
>
> /Roland
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:42:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:12:02 -0800, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
wrote:

>The "idea" of a picture is the composition and arrangement of content.

Nope. That's the expression of an idea, which once fixed in
a tangible medium or transmitted is protected by copyright
law.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:42:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message
news:53mgu05o8m14v8dva2ee4jk1h89lkj4b0j@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:12:02 -0800, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The "idea" of a picture is the composition and arrangement of content.
>
> Nope. That's the expression of an idea, which once fixed in
> a tangible medium or transmitted is protected by copyright
> law.

You have taken my comments out-of-context. Obviously (and as I stated
previously) ideas are unprotectable by copyright. My post was in response
to the poster who thought that there were no "ideas" embodied in
photographs.

>
> --
> Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
> Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
> address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:42:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:34r794F4fi5h6U1@individual.net...
>
> "Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message
> news:53mgu05o8m14v8dva2ee4jk1h89lkj4b0j@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:12:02 -0800, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The "idea" of a picture is the composition and arrangement of content.
>>
>> Nope. That's the expression of an idea, which once fixed in
>> a tangible medium or transmitted is protected by copyright
>> law.
>
> You have taken my comments out-of-context. Obviously (and as I stated
> previously) ideas are unprotectable by copyright. My post was in response
> to the poster who thought that there were no "ideas" embodied in
> photographs.
>

OK, I can't hold it in. I know the practice of law is the organized
splitting of hairs, but could either of you please explain how an
unexpressed idea could possibly be known or available for use? If I
understand you correctly, once I express my idea, either as an image,
written work, or some other form, and do so in a tangible medium, it is at
least copyrightable. Is that correct?

Then, given the state of technology, could you describe how an idea could be
expressed, and hence available for others to use in some way, and not be
copyrightable? I mean, if the internet is a tangible medium, and the
airways are a tangible medium, then when I present at a conference and my
voice is broadcast throughout the room by FM system, is that a tangible
medium. And why wouldn't notes or a poster be tangible media, if a simple
photographic print is?

Sorry, it has just been bothering me all night. Oh, BTW, does your email
address indicate your name? You did invite us to look up your credentials.

Walt
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 2:01:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"True211" <true211@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:34q33rF3f8psrU1@individual.net...
SNIP
> In the first case, there is a user in a newsgroup I read who
> occasionally downloads images from other photographers,

Which is a copyright infringement, unless used for personal study
etc..

> uploads those images to TinyPic.com,

Which is an infringement of copyright, because the right to distribute
is an exclusive right of the copyright holder.

> and posts the Tinypic URL

Which (posting a link) by itself is allowed if the url is pointing to
a public site.

> with a (often extremely negative) review of that image.

Can't judge.

> Tinypic hosts the image as a direct URL to the file, with no
> text available for photographer credit or a copyright notice.
SNIP

> When I confronted this photographer about it, he cried
> "fair use".

He's wrong, but the copyright holder is the only one that can do
something about it.

Bart
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 2:01:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:41e8411f$0$6207$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "True211" <true211@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:34q33rF3f8psrU1@individual.net...
> SNIP
> > In the first case, there is a user in a newsgroup I read who
> > occasionally downloads images from other photographers,
>
> Which is a copyright infringement, unless used for personal study
> etc..

There is no "personal study" exception to copyright infringement liability.
As a matter of law, creating an unauthorized copy infringes copyright.

>
> > uploads those images to TinyPic.com,
>
> Which is an infringement of copyright, because the right to distribute
> is an exclusive right of the copyright holder.

Right, unless a specific use is a fair use.

>
> > and posts the Tinypic URL
>
> Which (posting a link) by itself is allowed if the url is pointing to
> a public site.
>
> > with a (often extremely negative) review of that image.
>
> Can't judge.
>
> > Tinypic hosts the image as a direct URL to the file, with no
> > text available for photographer credit or a copyright notice.
> SNIP
>
> > When I confronted this photographer about it, he cried
> > "fair use".
>
> He's wrong, but the copyright holder is the only one that can do
> something about it.

Or the Justice Department, if it rises to the level of criminal copyright
infringement. Exclusive licensees and assignees also have standing to
pursue civil copyright infringement.

>
> Bart
>
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:08:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:34quhsF4frq3cU1@individual.net...
>
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:41e8411f$0$6207$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
SNIP
>> Which is a copyright infringement, unless used for personal study
>> etc..
>
> There is no "personal study" exception to copyright infringement
> liability.
> As a matter of law, creating an unauthorized copy infringes
> copyright.

There are probably differences per jurisdiction, but in the Dutch
version of the Copyright law (articles 16b, and 17), there are 3
regimes that allow making a limited number of copies.
The main one is (in an attempted translation, which is always tricky):
Multiplication for *personal* practice, study or use (with a further
differenciation with regard to the type of 'work' that is multiplied).
This is the only kind for which no payment is required.
The other 2 regimes are for copies by the government and by commercial
organizations, both of which require reimbursement of the copyright
holder.

Bart
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:53:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5qidncJgWdTZinXcRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
> Thank you for your reply. Your explanations are certainly different than
> what our attorneys at the University's we've taught at

If you have taught at a university, why can't you spell?
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:53:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 1/14/05 8:53 PM, in article tA%Fd.2205$Vx2.753@trndny01, "Ryan Robbins"
<redbird007@verizon.net> wrote:

> Your explanations are certainly different than
>> what our attorneys at the University's we've taught at
>
> If you have taught at a university, why can't you spell?

That is also the strangest sentence construction I have seen in a long time:
"than what our attorneys....etc"
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 6:31:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:41e86dbd$0$6203$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:34quhsF4frq3cU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
>> news:41e8411f$0$6207$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> SNIP
>>> Which is a copyright infringement, unless used for personal study
>>> etc..
>>
>> There is no "personal study" exception to copyright infringement
>> liability.
>> As a matter of law, creating an unauthorized copy infringes copyright.
>
> There are probably differences per jurisdiction, but in the Dutch version
> of the Copyright law (articles 16b, and 17), there are 3 regimes that
> allow making a limited number of copies.

My apologies for making that most fundamental and inexcusable of Usenet
errors -- forgetting that internet is worldwide in reach. My comments apply
only to US law. If I recall correctly, there are other nations as well that
permit limited personal use copying.


> The main one is (in an attempted translation, which is always tricky):
> Multiplication for *personal* practice, study or use (with a further
> differenciation with regard to the type of 'work' that is multiplied).
> This is the only kind for which no payment is required.
> The other 2 regimes are for copies by the government and by commercial
> organizations, both of which require reimbursement of the copyright
> holder.
>
> Bart
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 6:39:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qK-dnf6Nr5mN9nXcRVn-og@comcast.com...
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:34r794F4fi5h6U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message
>> news:53mgu05o8m14v8dva2ee4jk1h89lkj4b0j@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:12:02 -0800, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >The "idea" of a picture is the composition and arrangement of content.
>>>
>>> Nope. That's the expression of an idea, which once fixed in
>>> a tangible medium or transmitted is protected by copyright
>>> law.
>>
>> You have taken my comments out-of-context. Obviously (and as I stated
>> previously) ideas are unprotectable by copyright. My post was in
>> response
>> to the poster who thought that there were no "ideas" embodied in
>> photographs.
>>
>
> OK, I can't hold it in. I know the practice of law is the organized
> splitting of hairs, but could either of you please explain how an
> unexpressed idea could possibly be known or available for use?

It couldn't be, but that's not the distinction that was being discussed in
the last couple of posts. Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the
expression of ideas, i.e. you are free to make use of the idea embodied in a
particular expression, but you may not copy the expression itself.

> If I understand you correctly, once I express my idea, either as an image,
> written work, or some other form, and do so in a tangible medium, it is at
> least copyrightable. Is that correct?

If the expression of your idea is original and contains at least a modicum
of creativity, it is protected by copyright at the moment it is fixed in a
tangible medium.

>
> Then, given the state of technology, could you describe how an idea could
> be expressed, and hence available for others to use in some way, and not
> be copyrightable?

Sure. If I give an extempore speech, it is not protected by copyright until
it is recorded or simultaneously transmitted. If I show you an image on a
camera obscura (a device like a camera which has a ground-glass viewing
screen) the image is not protected unless it is recorded in some fashion.
An improvisational jazz group has no protectable interest in their music
unless it has been recorded or simultaneously transmitted.


> I mean, if the internet is a tangible medium,

The internet is not a tangible medium. Hard drives and non-volatile RAM are
tangible media.

> and the airways are a tangible medium,

The airways are not a tangible medium. There is, however, a statutory
exception to the fixation requirement for simultaneous transmission.

> then when I present at a conference and my voice is broadcast throughout
> the room by FM system, is that a tangible medium.

I'm at home now and don't have the statute in front of me, but my
recollection is that the simultaneous transmission exception involves public
broadcast, as opposed to merely using RF in some fashion.

> And why wouldn't notes or a poster be tangible media, if a simple
> photographic print is?

Notes and posters are tangible media.

>
> Sorry, it has just been bothering me all night. Oh, BTW, does your email
> address indicate your name? You did invite us to look up your
> credentials.

It doesn't, which is why I included my name, Paul Tauger, in my prior post.

>
> Walt
>
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 6:39:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

This is slightly off-topic, but it reminds me of a cautionary tale about
protecting the rights to your creative output.
When dancer/choreographer José Limon died, he naively left his dance company
his costumes, thinking that this conferred all the rights to his works. It
didn't, obviously, and the company had to spend years wrangling with his
surviving relatives (whom he barely knew, apparently) poor, illiterate
Mexican-americans who thought that choreographic rights were going to make
them rich and wanted huge amounts of money to allow the company to perform
the dances. As anybody who dances can tell you, it won't. This was told to
us to make us aware that your works have to be legally protected at all
times, including beyond your own lifetime.
(Now don't yell that I am characterizing Mexican-Americans...this
**particular** Mexican family happened to be very poor and illiterate - not
equipped to understand the realities of that other world into which they had
suddenly been tossed.)


On 1/14/05 9:39 PM, in article
Cf0Gd.11560$5R.1167@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "PTRAVEL"
<ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote:

>>>>> The "idea" of a picture is the composition and arrangement of content.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. That's the expression of an idea, which once fixed in
>>>> a tangible medium or transmitted is protected by copyright
>>>> law.
>>>
>>> You have taken my comments out-of-context. Obviously (and as I stated
>>> previously) ideas are unprotectable by copyright. My post was in
>>> response
>>> to the poster who thought that there were no "ideas" embodied in
>>> photographs.
>>>
>>
>> OK, I can't hold it in. I know the practice of law is the organized
>> splitting of hairs, but could either of you please explain how an
>> unexpressed idea could possibly be known or available for use?
>
> It couldn't be, but that's not the distinction that was being discussed in
> the last couple of posts. Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the
> expression of ideas, i.e. you are free to make use of the idea embodied in a
> particular expression, but you may not copy the expression itself.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 7:20:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Ryan Robbins wrote:

> If you have taught at a university, why can't you spell?

Maybe you could teach him how to spell 'ad hominem'.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 9:33:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:Cf0Gd.11560$5R.1167@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
(snipped)
>> And why wouldn't notes or a poster be tangible media, if a simple
>> photographic print is?
>
> Notes and posters are tangible media.
>
>>
>> Sorry, it has just been bothering me all night. Oh, BTW, does your email
>> address indicate your name? You did invite us to look up your
>> credentials.
>
> It doesn't, which is why I included my name, Paul Tauger, in my prior
> post.
>
>>
>> Walt
>>

Thank you very much Mr. Tauger. I have gained much from the exchange. I
will be very careful from now on about never expressing my ideas publicly
until they have been recorded in some form on tangible media.

Walt Hanks
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 9:57:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Alan Browne- wrote:

>
> Write to the government site. They might be granting public domain
> automatically. OTOH, the US Fed takes its IP rights very seriously.
>

Essentially all stuff (words, pictures, data) produced by
the Federal government is public domain. Course lots of it
is secret and spreading that around will .............
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:27:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Ryan Robbins writes:

> If you have taught at a university, why can't you spell?

Maybe it's an American university.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:31:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

nck writes:

> ... the company had to spend years wrangling with his
> surviving relatives (whom he barely knew, apparently) poor, illiterate
> Mexican-americans who thought that choreographic rights were going to make
> them rich and wanted huge amounts of money to allow the company to perform
> the dances.

Perhaps they should concentrate on making their own money instead of
trying to live off the lifetime labors of someone else.

I'm always surprised by the nerve of heirs of copyright holders.
Someone works hard all his live to create something, and then his heirs
want all the benefits without any of the effort. Poor and illiterate
people seem especially determined in their search for the pot o'gold
that provides income with no work.

> As anybody who dances can tell you, it won't. This was told to
> us to make us aware that your works have to be legally protected at all
> times, including beyond your own lifetime.

Dancing is a special case, or at least it was, because there was no good
way to record dances in a way that facilitated copyright protection. I
think someone finally invented a notation system that allowed this,
though (?).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

George E. Cawthon writes:

> Essentially all stuff (words, pictures, data) produced by
> the Federal government is public domain. Course lots of it
> is secret and spreading that around will ...

Will do nothing much, unless it is done deliberately for the purpose of
espionage, or unless it is done by someone who has signed an agreement
to keep such things secret. (This was going to be changed by statute
some years ago--I don't know if it ever happened, although in the
current repressive climate it probably did.)

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
January 15, 2005 12:48:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lukhu0t2hkmucu4a3qbhlngnarvugkcnut@4ax.com...
> Ryan Robbins writes:
>
> > If you have taught at a university, why can't you spell?
>
> Maybe it's an American university.

Maybe you could teach him how to spell pedantic.
Sign,
me
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:47:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Walt Hanks writes:

> Thank you very much Mr. Tauger. I have gained much from the exchange. I
> will be very careful from now on about never expressing my ideas publicly
> until they have been recorded in some form on tangible media.

Remember that the idea itself is still unprotected. Only your specific
expression is protected. So the idea of taking a picture of the Statue
of Liberty is not protected, but your specific photograph is
protected--so others can freely photograph the statue even if you were
the first to think of doing so, but they cannot make copies of your
photograph.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
January 15, 2005 3:47:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1j0iu0l8jvivveg6dv3fv2mub9boaa3klv@4ax.com...
> Walt Hanks writes:
>
> > Thank you very much Mr. Tauger. I have gained much from the exchange.
I
> > will be very careful from now on about never expressing my ideas
publicly
> > until they have been recorded in some form on tangible media.
>
> Remember that the idea itself is still unprotected. Only your specific
> expression is protected. So the idea of taking a picture of the Statue
> of Liberty is not protected, but your specific photograph is
> protected--so others can freely photograph the statue even if you were
> the first to think of doing so, but they cannot make copies of your
> photograph.

Thank you very much Mr. Mxsmanic for that recap, it was redundant.
Sign,
me
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:47:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Walt Hanks writes:
>
>> Thank you very much Mr. Tauger. I have gained much from the
>> exchange. I will be very careful from now on about never expressing
>> my ideas publicly until they have been recorded in some form on
>> tangible media.
>
> Remember that the idea itself is still unprotected. Only your
> specific expression is protected. So the idea of taking a picture of
> the Statue of Liberty is not protected, but your specific photograph
> is protected--so others can freely photograph the statue even if you
> were the first to think of doing so, but they cannot make copies of
> your photograph.

My niece went to Fairfield, Connecticut last year. I told her to say
hello to Paul Newman for me. She came back and gave me a picture of
herself holding a picture of the Statue of Liberty in front of the
Statue of Liberty. She told me it was Paul Newman's Mom, in the picture
she was holding.

My idea is to take a picture of my niece holding the picture of my niece
holding a picture of the Statue of Liberty in front of the Statue of
Liberty, in front of the Statue of Liberty.

I own the copyright of my picture of my niece holding the picture of my
niece holding a picture of the Statue of Liberty in front of the Statue
of Liberty, in front of the Statue of Liberty, right? My niece owns the
picture of herself holding a picture of the Statue of Liberty in front
of the Statue of Liberty, right?

Are we both infringers of the copyright of the taker-maker of the
picture of Paul Newman's mom?


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 8:58:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

George E. Cawthon wrote:
> Alan Browne- wrote:
>
>>
>> Write to the government site. They might be granting public domain
>> automatically. OTOH, the US Fed takes its IP rights very seriously.
>>
>
> Essentially all stuff (words, pictures, data) produced by the Federal
> government is public domain. Course lots of it is secret and spreading
> that around will


I'm really not sure about that. I can see where most of what they
produce should be. My experience is different, mainly defense related.
(And here in Canada the feds sell info, they don't give much away)

In all contracts I've negotiated with the US government they jealously
protect their data rights. Further, during performance of a contract
for the US gov't, the work you do that they pay for becomes their data.
Therefore identifying prior work that is applicable to the contract
requires careful documenting and acceptance by them.

The primary reason for the above is that they don't want to have to pay
again for the same work if the same kind of contract comes around again.
For example, if you develop an algorithm yourself, you can sell or
licence it as many times as you like to as many companies (or the US
gov't) as you like.

But if you develop it under a contract for the US gov't, they want to
pay only once. And that algorithm is not neccesarilly public domain
afterwards.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:56:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Kibo informs me that Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> stated that:

>Ryan Robbins writes:
>
>> If you have taught at a university, why can't you spell?
>
>Maybe it's an American university.

"Garcon! - Saucer of milk for table six!"

;) 

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
!