| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2003 01:15:28 AM · #1 |
After following the discussion about the Future challenge //www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=37371&page=1 I began to wonder about copyright infringement. I make my living on Intellectual Property and have high regard for copyright laws. I really don't want to accidentally do anything illegal or put DPC.com in jepordy by posting something illegal. So here's my question:
Say I had a poster in my office that someone else created, I presume I could take a picture of my office (including the poster) and not be doing anything illegal. If I zoomed in, just on the poster and used that I would presume that this was copyright infringement.
My questions:
1. Are these assumptions correct?
2. If so, at what point have I done something illegal? If the poster is 80% of the shot? 100%? What if I zoom in a part of the poster?
Message edited by author 2003-08-08 01:15:49. |
|
|
|
08/08/2003 06:18:07 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
08/08/2003 06:32:49 PM · #3 |
The issue is not how much, but to what use it is put.
For personal use, educational, critical, journalistic, or satirical use you are essentially free to incorporate anything into your image.
What you may not do is reproduce the image for profit, or in a libelous/slanderous way or one which will dilute the economic value of the image to the copyright holder.
In general, subject to DPC restrictions, you can incorporate any image/object you want into a challenge entry, but may be restricted from selling prints of the image if it does infringe another's copyright.
If you visit the US Copyright Office you will find almost all of the documents, manuals, and forms available in Acrobat PDF format.
Another good resource is Nolo Press.
DPC has greater restrictions on how any pre-existing art -- yours or not -- may be used; this is a separate issue. Please re-read the rules and terms of service for these details.
Message edited by author 2003-08-08 18:34:40. |
|
|
|
08/08/2003 06:55:07 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
What you may not do is reproduce the image for profit, or in a libelous/slanderous way or one which will dilute the economic value of the image to the copyright holder. |
From what I've read, this is actually incorrect.
The 'for profit' bit is only used to calculate the damages associated with the infringement. It doesn't make it legal if you do it and give it away for free.
For an easy example, if I start making DVD copies of a star wars movie and give away 10,000 of them, just for the sake of it and I'm not doing it to profit in any way, it is still illegal.
Derivative works (where say some text is reused in a story, or images used in another image) are also very tightly controlled and only allowed at the discretion of the original copyright holder. So things like fan fiction that gets written using characters from a TV show or novel is also actually illegal under the copyright acts. Fair use is an extremely restricted subset, and certainly doesn't cover using it to make new art - you could maybe use a copy if you were discussing the image ,but not to build your own work from. That isn't fair use, that is a derived piece of work.
Message edited by author 2003-08-08 18:57:37. |
|
|
|
08/08/2003 07:02:17 PM · #5 |
My friend used to be art editor at a computer magazine.. They used to work on 20% don't know if that's the legal threshold or an in house one.. Ie if they did a montage they never made any one item owned by someone else greater than 20% of the total image.
I'm with Gordon on the damages front.. The not for profit thing just usually makes it not worth chasing someone as they're not making anything.. If for instance your 20% was an image of lady di and the other 80 showed her in a bad light then you can bet your donkey you'll get unwanted attention..
I think the law is there are no rules.. so be careful
Message edited by author 2003-08-08 19:03:27.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2003 07:03:26 PM · #6 |
That's exactly where the phrase "dilute the economic value to the copyright holder" I used below applies.
But I think someone would have a serious problem demonstrating that merely posting a contest entry here, as distinguished from a deliberately destructive act such as you describe, would cause them any monetary dimunition. I would counter with the show-biz maxim: Any publicity is good publicity (as long as they spell your name right). |
|
|
|
08/08/2003 07:07:29 PM · #7 |
I'll try and get around to gathering up the useful posts from the many versions of this thread, along with some links and documents, and put together a Copyright Intro of some kind ....
There was a recent thread (about photgraphing people?) which through the issue of photos taken in public places, had a pretty good summary of British copyright law. |
|
|
|
08/08/2003 07:15:59 PM · #8 |
this summary of myths about it
and
this brief introduction
are very useful for US law. Europe ain't so different.
E
|
|
|
|
08/08/2003 07:43:57 PM · #9 |
@GenE - I'll put together a copyright law primer between now and Tuesday. Do you think that someone would be so kind as to tack it?
If Frisca wants to do Canadian copyright law, we could work together on it. :)
M
|
|
|
|
08/08/2003 11:52:24 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
@GenE - I'll put together a copyright law primer between now and Tuesday. Do you think that someone would be so kind as to tack it?
If Frisca wants to do Canadian copyright law, we could work together on it. :)
M |
That would be super. I could do some editing or formatting if that's indicated, but I'm sure you'll get to it before I would. Send me an email if you want comments or suggestions. I'll try to find out how to get it posted as a site Tutorial. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:43:26 PM EDT.
