Forum Moderators: not2easy
My photos?
Uh-oh.
Trust me when I say that there's plenty of people that will take you to task, so choose your victims wisely. :)
Better yet, just get a digital camera and start taking your own photos.
That doesn't mean that you give up your copyrights, but remember I can type in any URL in my browser and who knows what images will be placed in my cache file when that pages loads. If I then go off line and look in that folder I will have copies of those images on my computer, which makes them my copies, and that does give me some fair use of them.
Did you know that at least one of the major photo libraries has a department dedicated solely to tracking down copyright infringers on the web?
Also, that photo libraries are, I'm told, looking at 'tagging' technologies so that copyright infringement/infringers can be more easily detected over the web (don't ask me how it'd work though!).
Point is, the move to stop copyright infringement on the web is gaining greater momentum. More advanced methodologies and technologies are being investigated and employed to hunt down those who believe that a little copyright infringing can't hurt anyone...
Syzygy
I mean I can understand if your page is filled with copyrighted material that could be a risk but putting one picture up every now and then on a blog or something seems reasonable.
OK ... so I'll just swing by your house every now and then and steal "just a little" from your place. I promise, I won't fill my living room with your stuff or anything. Perhaps just a sofa or a small TV ... K? :)
If you publish an article in a paper and I photocopy my copy of the paper, I haven't stolen anything. It isn't like you have been deprived of your property. You won't come downstairs in the morning and say
"Hey where is my article? I left it right here. It has been stolen!"
Not! If you publish it then anyone who ends up with a legit copy has the right to use it. Like it or not they even have the right to make 1 copy for themselves. So if you don't want your work to end up in the public domain... DON'T PUBLISH IT!
Once you do publish, anyone who aquires it legally has rights to use it. Just because you are the copyright holder doesn't mean you own every copy out there. If I get a copy then it is my copy, I can do almost anything I want with it. Except make a bunch of copies, becuase that is your right as the copyright holder, but that's it. It doesn't give you the right to tell everyone else what they can do with their copy.
Here's a good Rule of Thumb about copying:
"If you didn't make, write or shoot it, get permission to use it."
I suggest that you get a good understanding of what is Fair Use before you start down this road. Just adding commentary does not automatically qualify it as fair use, so you should really know what you are doing first.
jomaxx said: Here we go again with the "infringement is/isn't stealing" thing.
On the other hand, it sure feels like stealing when it happens to you. So I can well understand the impulse to use that term.
Eliz.
Imagine if you took a really nice black/white picture and it was beautiful. That is your image, you are the holder of the copyright to that image. Now that means you get to say who makes a copy and for what reason. Now if you copy that picture 100 times and sell them, and I buy one, then that is MY copy. Not yours. You sold me that copy, it is mine. I can do things with my copy. I can hang it in my living room. I can hang it in my restaraunt. I can't however make 50 copies and put them all on my menus in that same restaraunt because I am not the copyright holder, you are. But I can make 1 copy so that if anything happens to my copy I have a back-up. But you can't get mad if you come into my restaraunt and see the picture that I got from you on the wall.
The same is true of a website, if I go to your website and you place an image onto my computer, then that is my image. If I want to put it up on my site and say
"Look at this beutiful picture I got."
Then I feel that is my right. It is my image, you don't own all copies, you are just the copyright holder. Which gives you the right to make copies for distribution/profit. Once you give me your work though don't follow me around to make sure I use it the way you see fit. Unless you force me into a contract before giving me the work.
Again I am not trying to preach or start anything, just want to be the voice that is looking out for the spirit of the law. If we keep down this road of going after anyone trying to exercise their fair use of their own property, then soon you won't even be able to buy a song or a cd, you will have to pay per listen. And don't let them catching you humming a saong that is stuck in your head or you will owe for that as well. Imagine the next DRM rootkit that sony installs on your computer that counts how many times you listened to a sing or watched a DVD then sent you a bill.
Listen to "Can't always get what you want - Rolling stones " 10 times --- $8
Watched "Spiderman 2 DVD" 2 times --- $15
If you think that this is ridiculous it really isn't that far from what the RIAA and other gung-ho copyright nazis want. If you look at some of the motions being put forth you will see that this is the way they are trying to move things. And though it seems like some people here agree with this level of control, I do not. So let's keep the DMCA filings for really gross offenders, people who are profitting from your work and leave the poeple who are posting "for informations sake" alone, or simply use a cease and desists letter as a start. Enough of this, "I will ban you from SE" attidute that comes right out of the gate.
So while my posts on this subject may draw the ire of some, I am mearly trying to stall the movement towards me losing even more rights.
Pity. There you go again.
You know that the 'small prevailing though process' happens to be international Copyright Law. Yet you persist in posting your incorrect interpretations ad nauseam about intellectual property rights, referencing citations out-of-context, baffling and baiting people with specious statements --
And I know I'm whistling in the wind here.
Countless posters in countless threads have informed you of the facts and the law, both U.S., Canadian, Berne Convention, etc. Countless posters in countless threads have discussed things with you, debated with you, resisted taking your bait, tried to reason with you and help you understand legal reality. Countless posters in countless threads have also cleaned up after you and tried to straighten things out after you've given incredibly dunderheaded advice.
And yet you persist. Wow. Apparently negative attention is better than none.
I can only hope that those who inquire about copyrights do not take your advice.
Hang em all and hang em high. Nobody has any right to do anything with your work. Fair enough. I leave it alone.
Hang em all and hang em high. Nobody has any right to do anything with your work. Fair enough. I leave it alone.
And you continue to insist that you're in the right. But one of the reasons that so many people keep calling you out is that this is a forum largely populated by the owners of for profit websites. Any business that takes your 'advice' with respect to the legalities of copyrights could very well find themselves in serious legal jeopardy.
Let's not forget, you've already publicly admitted that the behaviour you're excusing is illegal in Canada [webmasterworld.com] (msg #22, 25, 35 and especially 44).
Bottom line for webmasters: copyright is a legal issue. Don't rely on advice in this area from anyone other than a qualified lawyer.
-b
All I continue to say is don't be so quick to call people theives and threaten their sites with being banned.
The first thing listed in the fair use clause is:
"the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes"
I think that this indicates that the law distingishes between someone trying to profit from your work, (Which I have said is wrong in that context), and trying to inform the public using the work of another by mearly "getting the word out" (Which I don't think is wrong)
Again this is all in my opinion, but what I find especially wrong is when people ask the question about "can I?" and without even asking in what context do they want to do this people get on here and call them theives and hint that if it were them they would "shut down the site". I think that is wrong. That is my point. There are situations where it is ok. Plain and simple.
Bottom line for webmasters: copyright is a legal issue. Don't rely on advice in this area from anyone other than a qualified lawyer.
This is without question the best advise.
Bottom line for webmasters: copyright is a legal issue. Don't rely on advice in this area from anyone other than a qualified lawyer.
Quite right Bedlam! And anyone who chooses to excercise what some would be lawyers consider "fair use" would be well advised to be absolutely certain that the letter of the law is on their side before "using" my materials. ;)
I hope you never find the cure for cancer Liane, what would you have us do to benefit from your findings or work? Would you allow people to teach others how to save themselves? Or would you go after them and shut them down as soon as they let other people know what you discovered?
In matters of copyright, consult an attorney.
Given the international nature of the web, digital rights and the current interpretation of copyright law in the courts, seeking professional advice is the best course.
