Copyright Notice - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/07/2007 05:12:50 PM · #176

Originally posted by Gordon:

I never did mention why I dislike this so much. I copy images every day. I take them from photographers web sites and save them on my computer.

I'd much rather be able to link to the image (but flash sites don't let you link to images - one of the reasons I really dislike flash sites in general - imagine actually wanting to be able to point someone to an image or return to see it again - what a silly idea!)

If I can't link to it, I'd like to be able to save it off. All else fails, I printscreen save it, paste and crop it and save it that way. But that's a pain.

I have a growing archive of scrapbooked images from a wide variety of sites that I use for inspiration. It lives beside a whole host of things torn out of magazines or scanned in too.

Anyway, just an example of why someone might legitimately want to save an image.

"Legitimately" being largely defined by the fair use clause of the US copyright code.

Your usage COULD be found to be outside the "fair use" exemptions since you are reproducing copyrighted works in their entirety. Simply saving a file on your computer is actually an act of reproduction, just like "publishing" it to the web is an act of reproduction.

And here we're into "reproduction" in additional form of copyright violation, in addition to the "lack of credit" is a different type.

02/07/2007 05:15:30 PM · #177

Originally posted by nards656:

Your usage COULD be found to be outside the "fair use" exemptions since you are reproducing copyrighted works in their entirety. Simply saving a file on your computer is actually an act of reproduction

Though, by the same logic, web browsers are also doing that automatically. Any images on my machine are already, by definition, on my machine (in the cache, in the display buffers etc) I'm just moving it around.

If VCRs are allowed, web browsers are allowed and I'm allowed to tear pages out of magazines, this is also legitimate. It is also an educational/ research use - which is explicitly allowed in your link above.

Otherwise I'd better have my memory wiped each time I look at an image, in case I get an idea from it...

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 17:17:20.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/07/2007 05:27:45 PM · #178

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by nards656:

Your usage COULD be found to be outside the "fair use" exemptions since you are reproducing copyrighted works in their entirety. Simply saving a file on your computer is actually an act of reproduction

Though, by the same logic, web browsers are also doing that automatically. Any images on my machine are already, by definition, on my machine (in the cache, in the display buffers etc) I'm just moving it around.

If VCRs are allowed, web browsers are allowed and I'm allowed to tear pages out of magazines, this is also legitimate. It is also an educational/ research use - which is explicitly allowed in your link above.

All FOUR of the considerations must be considered. If the nature of the work is such that copying it for educational purposes completely destroys the value of the original, I would be inclined to believe that the "educational use" exemption does not apply. As well, copying educational materials for educational purposes is not covered by fair use. That's covered by item 4. It says ALL those things must be considered. Ya can't pick and choose.

VCRs are allowed but there are still relevant laws. You can't copy movies, for instance, then take 'em back to the rental store.

fotomann_forever

02/07/2007 05:31:37 PM · #179

Originally posted by nards656:

VCRs are allowed but there are still relevant laws. You can't copy movies, for instance, then take 'em back to the rental store.

Yes, you can copy movies (for backup purposes) that you have bought. This debate was brought o in the 80's with cassette tape, where it was found legal to reproduce cassettes or from album(or other media) to cassette for personal use. But, you do have to have a LEGAL copy of the original.

02/07/2007 05:35:34 PM · #180

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Right - but I have a legal copy of the original - the site sent it to me when my browser asked for it. If the originator didn't want a copy on my computer, they wouldn't put it on a publically available website.

and the fair use clauses describe what is allowed, then goes on to define the greyer areas.

i.e., the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Anyway - as I said, the copyright owner has already given me a copy of the image, without any means for them to revoke that copy. I'm not making a copy in that respect, I'm just retaining it.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/07/2007 05:51:04 PM · #181

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by nards656:

VCRs are allowed but there are still relevant laws. You can't copy movies, for instance, then take 'em back to the rental store.

Yes, you can copy movies (for backup purposes) that you have bought. This debate was brought o in the 80's with cassette tape, where it was found legal to reproduce cassettes or from album(or other media) to cassette for personal use. But, you do have to have a LEGAL copy of the original.

Uh, Leroy, I was talking about rental movies. You can't back those up. You can't even show them at church. You can't use them for education. There are specific laws that apply. Gordon has not purchased these images he is referring to. He has been granted a limited license to view them, and according to most copyright statments, ANY reproduction is prohibited. Is it a legal COPY? I don't personally think so. I think he's relying on the fact that Microsoft/Linux technology works in a certain way and claiming that by default he now owns a legal copy which he can back up for his own purposes. I don't think that "backup copy" stuff applies to EVERYTHING. Video tapes were ruled as an exemption due to the likelihood of a tape being eaten or simply wearing out, not because the owner had a right to two copies, but because they were a mechanical device that could FAIL and the owner shouldn't be required to buy it twice.

02/07/2007 05:53:59 PM · #182

Originally posted by nards656:

He has been granted a limited license to view them, and according to most copyright statements, ANY reproduction is prohibited.

Except of course, those statements aren't actually legally valid, due to the fair use clauses, which have been upheld in these sorts of situations for a variety of media.

fotomann_forever

02/07/2007 05:55:22 PM · #183

Originally posted by nards656:

Uh, Leroy, I was talking about rental movies. ...

Wasn't arguing... mostly backing up what you had said.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/07/2007 06:02:07 PM · #184

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by nards656:
He has been granted a limited license to view them, and according to most copyright statements, ANY reproduction is prohibited.

Except of course, those statements aren't actually legally valid, due to the fair use clauses, which have been upheld in these sorts of situations for a variety of media.

---=awww nevermind.

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 18:02:52.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/07/2007 06:02:36 PM · #185

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by nards656:

Uh, Leroy, I was talking about rental movies. ...

Wasn't arguing... mostly backing up what you had said.

Gotcha, musta read it wrong. My bad.

fotomann_forever

02/07/2007 06:04:33 PM · #186

Let me add one thing: I'm not persoanlly worried about Gordon's type of activity. It would be hard to track at the very least. I don't often do it (well maybe few of Cindi's pics ;-) but I'm not against it (for my photos).

Now, if I were to find that Gordon placed them in his share folder for Kazaa, I might be inclined to push suit.

Another case that has been brought up very recent;y is that an e-mail is circulating with a DPCers image in it. Definitely hard to press suit there, which is the reason we need to do more to slow down theft at the source.

*Gordon, I used you hypothetically, since you brought it up/

02/07/2007 06:08:24 PM · #187

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I actually checked in to the legality of doing this before I started doing it. If google is allowed to do it as a commercial entity and redistribute the results (i.e., the google cache) then I can certainly do it for personal usage. Google's image cache & search features were ruled as fair use. The fact that they profit from it wasn't even a consideration. Also the fact that they save the entire image (and associated web page) was ruled as not a factor.

It doesn't matter if you track it or not - the ruling in google's case was if the originator didn't stop people obtaining copies freely (i.e., by not putting them on the web) then they've given an implied license for people to download, store & view them (as that is what web viewing actually is)

They lost a subsequent ruling for caching images that were being sold to mobile phone users, but that's because they were re-distributing the exact same material that was for sale - the redistribution in that case was the key part.

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 18:10:09.