|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/01/2005 10:43:44 AM · #51 |
For me, I do not find much issue cross-posting an image in a forum.
Though in truth, one should always endeavor to link to the providing source. To me, this is very much akin to the "press'" right to post photos. It is a public information and discussion source. And yes, the lines are blurry.
But to me there is a lot of difference between posting or exalting an image or flash movie, etc in a discussion thread and using it in a personal fashion or in such a way as to claim it your own.
I think a big part of the problem we have with copyrights is inaccessibility. Almost every fan page with images is technically a copyright infraction. However, no means is provided for said users to accomplish such legally. And in truth, no financial loss occurs when someone uses images of say "Star Trek" to make a fan site. In fact, usually, it's the other way around. That site actually is more likely to add financial benefit by increasing interest.
I think so much of this comes from outdated laws. And laws that have been updated only to take advantage of the consumer and common individual.
And unless the law has regards for the consumer, the consumer will not have regards for the copyright holder. The copyright holders (such as RIAA) are adding more and more rights and control to themselves. But the more they doing so the less respect the general population has for those laws.
IMHO, copyrights and patents will eventually be greatly reduced from their current (comical) form.
I mean, a good example is Apple and their iPod. Microsoft took a patent out on an MP3/digital audio player that provides menu, etc. Apple's iPod infringes on this patent. Microsoft wants $10 per iPod sold. Now here's the funny. The patent claim was filed AFTER the iPod was released. None of this should even be allowed. And although Apple would surely win such a case due to prior art the cost of going to court is way to expensive. Furthermore, since Apple & Microsoft have some patent sharing agreements it is likely in the end that Microsoft will waive the fee in agreement to sharing. Apple doing this would seem foolish, except for the fact that Microsoft will now be charging all it's competitors $10 or more for each player they release. That means competitor's units will be more expensive. But Microsoft will be the one that looks evil so Apple won't get any negative publicity. Microsoft will likely release a portable media version of it's pocket OS and waive the license for anyone who uses their device. The end result reducing competition to just Apple & Microsoft units or adding price to rivals.
Now mind you, I think all of the claims are bunk because I had a Diamond Rio 300 which IMHO is enough prior art to dismiss all the claims. But in today's intellectual property rights world - it's a nightmare.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 11:11:59 AM · #52 |
We have had this discussion before, and I would simply point out that the law works very well: the image can be copied, reproduced, hot linked, cross posted, whatever, if the terms on which it was made available permit it.
If you want to be clear about the terms on which you let people access your images, include a statement on your website saying what people can and cannot do with them. In commercial websites, that statement is normally found in the terms and conditions of the web site. If people abuse your permission, you can take practical preventative steps (aka riot), or, if it is worth it, legal steps to recover the loss you have incurred (eg recover the costs of the bandwidth from the bandwidth "thief"). Simple (and the principles are not "blurry")!
Copyright law is merely the bit of law that says that an image is property, capable of being governed by law. It is not some overarching demon that governs how an image may be dealt with, though it provides a default position in the absence of explicit terms.
And you are confusing various types of intellectual property law in your post.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 11:25:23 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
For me, I do not find much issue cross-posting an image in a forum.
Though in truth, one should always endeavor to link to the providing source. To me, this is very much akin to the "press'" right to post photos. It is a public information and discussion source. And yes, the lines are blurry.
But to me there is a lot of difference between posting or exalting an image or flash movie, etc in a discussion thread and using it in a personal fashion or in such a way as to claim it your own.
|
I don't think that any of what you wrote actually relates to the topic at hand which is that it costs money to host photos/graphics/etc. and it's not polite to pull them from someone else's server for your own use, whatever that may be. Which, technically, applies to the "who beats who" thread as well because DPC threads have a tendency towards high traffic and ripping off other people's bandwidth isn't nice! |
|
|
|
09/01/2005 11:29:20 AM · #54 |
No, because both copyright and patents are "intellectual property rights" and both have been aggravated toward the holders having more and more increased power and control without the dictated limits that were first established.
Example: audio recordings (copyright)
Before the DMCA I could as a DJ convert my music CDs to MP3's and store them on a hard drive thus eliminating the need to carry several suitcates and/or leave music tracks at home.
When they put the DMCA into effect I lost the right to do so. I have legally paid for the music. I have bought the actual hard copy CD and paid for a license. I have also purchased the recording equipment to do such. But, in doing so, I commit an act that can land me in prison with a felony charge.
This doesn't even bear the question of why we have to pay a recording license fee to begin with. We already pay a performance fee...which is fair and right.
Second, radio stations have never been obligated to pay the recording fees to RIAA. But web based radio stations are forced to pay exhorberant fees to RIAA for recordings. Why? Because of the caching that computers due over the web for audio casts. Radio stations, which often use digital delays, do not have to pay.
On top of that, RIAA, paid millions of $$$ to congressmen so that they would be put in charge of royalty collection for online radio stations. Now, every radio station that broadcasts much pay RIAA. However, in the case of many college radio stations who broadcast a large amount of independent music...none of that money actually reaches the musicians and copyright holders. It's a big marketing scam.
Our copyright laws in the U.S. are unjust. Our patent system is in an obscene state being applied without common sense.
Entities like RIAA are using "piracy" and "copyrights" as an excuse to prevent fair-use by individuals.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 01:39:20 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by mk:
I don't think that any of what you wrote actually relates to the topic at hand which is that it costs money to host photos/graphics/etc. and it's not polite to pull them from someone else's server for your own use, whatever that may be. Which, technically, applies to the "who beats who" thread as well because DPC threads have a tendency towards high traffic and ripping off other people's bandwidth isn't nice! |
Agreed - politeness (and to a certain extent, the law) dictates paying for your own hosting costs where you wish to publish material in a post, unless you have explicit permission from the relevant third party. For theSaj - that is basic contract law, not copyright law.
Intellectual Property law is only relevant here so far as to make an intangible item capable of being the subject of a bundle of rights.
Your comments on the DMCA, RIAA and other policies are criticisms of very specific elements of certain parts of IP law. They do not make the whole of intellectual property law invalid, comical, outdated or inapplicable, any more than DeBeers' cartel on diamond operations artificially maintaining prices to the detriment of competition and consumers makes all property (chattel) law comical, outdated, or suitable for reform. Or Donald Trump's exploitation of and campaigning/lobbying for real estate rights invalidating all real property law. The bit that should be debated is whether certain elements of the law should be revised or better implemented, not whether wholesale reform is necessary.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/19/2025 03:02:15 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/19/2025 03:02:15 PM EDT.
|
