| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/13/2005 07:09:01 PM · #1 |
This thread is intended to continue (and relocate) the discussion of copyright law and the doctrine of Fair Use, its legality and morality.
Have fun!
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 07:37:09 PM · #2 |
Guess they weren't as fired up as they thought they were. ;)
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 07:47:27 PM · #3 |
There is an awesome article in the latest Popular Science magazine (I just got it today) about copyright and other fraud of digital photographs. I can't find it online but as soon as I do I'll get a link over here. If anyone else finds it please post it. something everyone on this site should read.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 07:59:25 PM · #4 |
Would be easier to continue if there was half a clue as to what we're s'posed to be continuing ...
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 08:03:37 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by bod:
Would be easier to continue if there was half a clue as to what we're s'posed to be continuing ... |
Sorry... there was a debate of the Fair Use provisions of copyright law that started in this thread. In an attempt to keep the thread on topic I split off the copyright discussion here.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 08:10:43 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 08:33:48 PM · #7 |
From this forum.
It is my contention that many DPCers post photographs taken by other photographers (not on the DPC) without permission in the forums. Some claim that since it is for âeducational useâ so copyrights laws need not apply. I feel that although it MIGHT be technically legal, it is morally wrong ignoring their intellectual property.
I feel that the same discussions can take place without the grabbing of images by placing a link to a site that has the proper authority/ copyright for said images. I feel that this use of the images disrespects the original photographers rights. Many disagree, including SC members, which is probably why it was actually moved (it wasnât that far off topic).
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 09:47:24 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I feel that the same discussions can take place without the grabbing of images by placing a link to a site that has the proper authority/ copyright for said images. I feel that this use of the images disrespects the original photographers rights. |
What about thumbs that link to a page (not just the picture)?
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 09:49:43 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I feel that the same discussions can take place without the grabbing of images by placing a link to a site that has the proper authority/ copyright for said images. I feel that this use of the images disrespects the original photographers rights. |
What about thumbs that link to a page (not just the picture)? |
Then you have to not only copy the file from the host site, but modify it as well, and host the altered image yourself. Now you're starting to talk copyright infringement ... |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 09:50:16 PM · #10 |
So my debate training would respond with the following:
What moral code are you invoking to state that such activity is "morally wrong"? Can you defend this code? What would your response be to someone who says, "To hell with your code, I disagree."? Do your own actions match such a strict intepretation of propriety? (i.e. photocopying textbooks, magazines, borrowing other people's logons, recording television, ripping CDs...)
It's quite easy to set the bar just below your feet (we all do it), but what happens when someone sets the bar above your head? |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 09:51:43 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
What about thumbs that link to a page (not just the picture)? |
To get a thumb one would have to grab the image then resize it in an editing program. I really don't see why one can't discuss an image that is not appearing in the forum window? Another browser window could be opened to the copyrighted site. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 09:52:29 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
What about thumbs that link to a page (not just the picture)? |
Then you have to not only copy the file from the host site, but modify it as well, |
Why would I have to do that?
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 09:56:10 PM · #13 |
| Where are you going to get the thumbnail file from? |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 09:58:16 PM · #14 |
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of âfair use.â Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered âfair,â such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
(source: //www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-09-13 21:59:14.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 10:06:11 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So my debate training would respond with the following:
What moral code are you invoking to state that such activity is "morally wrong"? Can you defend this code? What would your response be to someone who says, "To hell with your code, I disagree."? Do your own actions match such a strict intepretation of propriety? (i.e. photocopying textbooks, magazines, borrowing other people's logons, recording television, ripping CDs...)
It's quite easy to set the bar just below your feet (we all do it), but what happens when someone sets the bar above your head? |
I'm definitely not morally perfect and would never claim to be. However I wouldn't and haven't done any of your examples except for recording television and that was just to time shift. But that is not really the point.
I also would never bring this issue on a general topic forum, but this is a photography site. You would think that photographers, more than anyone else, would respect the intellectual rights of other photographers.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 10:11:00 PM · #16 |
| Just because I don't share every detail of your individual moral values system doesn't mean I don't "respect" the rights of other photographers. I wish you would quite characterizing it as such. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 10:11:02 PM · #17 |
| Fair enough. I was just trying to get at the underpinnings of why you consider such activity to be immoral. You concede they are legal (at least, as you say, technically) and then go on to say they are morally wrong. Unless I am just going to accept your position as a moral authority I need to know what moral law, precedent or idea you are invoking to make such an action wrong. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 10:17:08 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Where are you going to get the thumbnail file from? |
From the web site I stole it from. If it has one.
Like this large thumb.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 10:20:00 PM · #19 |
| So, morally or legally, how is that any different than posting the image at some other size? |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 10:27:12 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So, morally or legally, how is that any different than posting the image at some other size? |
Because it actually links it to the website it was taken from thereby potentialy benifiting the photographer or website owner.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 10:27:14 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So, morally or legally, how is that any different than posting the image at some other size? |
Probably relevant in consideration of (at least) factors 3 and 4. |
|
|
|
09/14/2005 11:46:07 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So, morally or legally, how is that any different than posting the image at some other size? |
Because it actually links it to the website it was taken from thereby potentialy benifiting the photographer or website owner. |
Ah but you have to remember to make the distinction between linking to a site, with creditation to the author, or just inserting an image in a discussion (including a thumb that just leads to a jpeg). That sort of hotlinking doesn't benefit the site or photographer, as there's no incentive or means to browse further - and bandwidth costs money.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 11:53:42 AM · #23 |
If the photograph comes from outside DPC, then there is no legal or (in my view) moral right for displaying it or a thumbnail on this site without the copyright holder's permission.
I don't see the problem with either linking, or asking the photographer's permission. |
|
|
|
09/14/2005 12:51:51 PM · #24 |
I pretty much agree with the point hyperfocal is trying to make. Not sure if I would call it a moral issue but it is certainly an ethical one. Linking (with or without a thumb) to the page where a photo is displayed with info about it including the photogrpaher's name, is a more ethical thing to do than just grabbing the image and posting it. Simply using the shot and saying it is not yours is disrespectful of the person who made it. In the dpc environment we almost always think about who was the photpgrapher.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 01:51:04 PM · #25 |
When someone posts an image on the internet, they fundamentally must be authorising a certain level of copying by their actions: for a third party to access the image itself a number of copies must be made - on the hosting web site server, every router used to transmit the image, and the third parties computer where the image is recorded in various degrees of permanency in order to display the image.
The internet is designed to permit data to be made accessible to others. Access is enabled by use of http addresses. The addresses are not secret, so by making data available by http address, there is implied authority for anyone to use that address and access the image. Again, there is implied authority to communicate an address onwards to another person, and one form of communication is a hyperlink.
From that, it can be deduced that a publisher of an image on the internet impliedly authorises others to hyperlink to the page where that image is located.
However, that is to miss the point somewhat: the issue will depend in every case upon the facts. There are situations in which a simple hyper link is not permissible. For example, the first case in the UK concerning copyright abuse and the internet related to the Shetland News, which published news stories via its website, paid for by advertising. A competitor linked to the Shetland News website stories, bypassing the front page where the Shetland News maintained its advertising presence and clickthrough counters etc, thereby depriving it of revenue. The Shetland News essentially won the case.
This is a simple (and simplified) version of the issues that arise: most websites and ISPs purport to implement specific terms into your use of the website, not rely on implied terms. The technical issues can be quite challenging. However, the overriding feature of any case is the financial dynamic and the intention of the parties.
Is the data made available commercially (if commercial, your actions are more culpable)?
If so, by your actions are you causing the other person to incur an expense, reducing the value of their assets, or depriving them of a profit (if yes, your actions are more culpable)?
If you are causing the other person a cost/loss/expense, is that within the scope of their intention when publishing the data (if outside the scope of their intention, you are more culpable)?
Do you intend to cause the other person a cost/loss/expense (if you have malevolent intent, you are more culpable)?
These factors will be more important than getting caught up in technicalities about hyperlinking v cross posting v thumbnails v fair use (which would have very little application in this context).
Message edited by author 2005-09-14 13:52:11.
|
|
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: 04/16/2025 05:51:17 AM EDT.
