D
Dave Lewis
Guest
I'd be complimented if someone thought that much of one of my pictures, but I'd be put off if they didn't ask me first.
--
Dave Lewis
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is it legal/ethical ...
- Thread starter Ebbie
- Start date
--
Dave Lewis
ioannis
Veteran Member
Pictures that I like I sign, yeah I d be unhappy if someone presented it as theirs, otherwise I wouldn't really care much about it. If used for commercial purposes I d be unhappy because they are trying to save money off their sharholders who tend to be affluent anyway.
Yiannis
Canon Magnifier S
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
EF 50mm f/1.4
Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness that we deserve them. Aristotle
Yiannis
Canon Magnifier S
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
EF 50mm f/1.4
Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness that we deserve them. Aristotle
i usually save it in my pc so i forget where its from, but i never take credit for anything that didnt come from my cam.
PORTFOLIO SITE: http://kaizenbiz.com/jush ***
--
PORTFOLIO SITE: http://kaizenbiz.com/jush ***
discuws
Well-known member
Hello photoguynorth,
I agree with all your points and could not write it down better
But ICMP is saying:
So what is that copyright worth when you can and may copy parts for yourself?
In none of the books there was something what said you can copy for personal use without permission. So I doubt it's allowed to copy pages or passages from any book without permission.
I know this is very striktly but copyright is copyright and it is not how we want to read it, it is how it is mentioned. Protecting your material.
regards Walter
I agree with all your points and could not write it down better
But ICMP is saying:
I looked at many books here at my home and all my books are saying that the content is copyrighted and some say explicitly that nothing may be reproduced without permission.
So what is that copyright worth when you can and may copy parts for yourself?
In none of the books there was something what said you can copy for personal use without permission. So I doubt it's allowed to copy pages or passages from any book without permission.
I know this is very striktly but copyright is copyright and it is not how we want to read it, it is how it is mentioned. Protecting your material.
regards Walter
wooffy
Leading Member
First as to ethics... ethics are decided either by a profession (i.e. professional ethics) or by an individual. In this case I think its up to you to decide what you feel is ethical.
As to legal, there is no simple answer to that. People tend to forget that copyright laws are NOT the same everywhere, what is legal or not, accepted as fair use or not, or just plain a legal loop-hole varies greatly from one place to another (e.g. the recent Canadian court decision that having files in a P2P shared folder is not, itself, illegal). Using the images as you suggest probably IS illegal in many places, and fair-use clauses may or may not exist to provide you with a defense. You should consult an Inteleltual Property lawyer both in your jurisdiction and in the photographer's.
As a person who was worked in professional photography, I think there is nothing wrong with you copying an image for use on your desktop, or even making a small print of it. I find the capitalistic, money-grubbing, current views on intellectual property deplorable and against the best interests of art or artists. My web site carries the notice "These images may be used and distributed freely for non-commercial use provided my photo credit remains attached to the image." You want to use them? Take them!
The moral here is to never assume that you local laws are universal, and never confuse law with morality.
--Pat
http://www.patcroteau.com
As to legal, there is no simple answer to that. People tend to forget that copyright laws are NOT the same everywhere, what is legal or not, accepted as fair use or not, or just plain a legal loop-hole varies greatly from one place to another (e.g. the recent Canadian court decision that having files in a P2P shared folder is not, itself, illegal). Using the images as you suggest probably IS illegal in many places, and fair-use clauses may or may not exist to provide you with a defense. You should consult an Inteleltual Property lawyer both in your jurisdiction and in the photographer's.
As a person who was worked in professional photography, I think there is nothing wrong with you copying an image for use on your desktop, or even making a small print of it. I find the capitalistic, money-grubbing, current views on intellectual property deplorable and against the best interests of art or artists. My web site carries the notice "These images may be used and distributed freely for non-commercial use provided my photo credit remains attached to the image." You want to use them? Take them!
The moral here is to never assume that you local laws are universal, and never confuse law with morality.
--Pat
http://www.patcroteau.com
icmp
Senior Member
I just meant, instead of downloading then posting to request comment/opinion on 'how it was done' (re: the post I was trying to respond directly to)... I wasn't referring to downloading for use as a personal windows wallpaper, and the like.
icmp
icmp
bill1
Senior Member
"Fair use" allows you to copy, cite or quote portions of a text (in the latter cases you should reference the source). "Fair Use" is a US legal concept. Its very different in Europe and Australia. In the UK for example theres a large void between what you explicitly can do and what you can't.I agree with all your points and could not write it down better
But ICMP is saying:
I looked at many books here at my home and all my books are saying
that the content is copyrighted and some say explicitly that
nothing may be reproduced without permission.
The US situation is complicated by a nefarious piece of legislation known as the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act). I won't bore you with all the reasons why this legislation should be scrapped but in the context of this topic, suffice it to say that the DMCA infringes on many "FAir Use" principles when it comes to digital content.
As for photos, my feeling is that fair use is irrelevant. Fair use covers things like making copies of your own music and software for backup purposes or recording TV shows on a VCR. In one case it was decided you couldn't quote an article in full that was on a website but you could link to it. If someone has a photo on a site from which they're deriving advertising revenue then they could argue you're depriving them of revenue by copying the image. A stretch maybe but the point is you're making a complete copy of copyrighted material and with books, net news articles and other types of contents there is legal precedent disallowing that.
Copyright isn't absolute. For music for example you can copy it without the copyright owne'rs consent. Sound strange? Not really. There is a fixed royalty system built into legislation to allow this. In practise noone does because the negotiated rates are always lower. The point is that someone could copy music you own without your permission if they really wanted to.
Copyright isn't absolute.
You can make excerpts of any book, magazine or other publication. Thats covered in fair use. Its a grey area as to what exactly an excerpt is however, other than it being less than the whole work.
Copyright doesn't only protect the owners of copyrighted material. It also protects those who use it.
hmm ....
Thanks for your replies but
I'm not sure if I have my question answered, though I have more insight than before.
one last thing.
Consider this ...
I download a photo of yours from your website and put it as a wallpaper ..
Moreover I also take a small printout of it (with your signature et all ... just as it is ) and pin it on my wall.
Could you just reply with the subject line as
Fine ... if you have no problems with this
Not fine ... If you do have problems with this in any way
Thanks!
Thanks for your replies but
I'm not sure if I have my question answered, though I have more insight than before.
one last thing.
Consider this ...
I download a photo of yours from your website and put it as a wallpaper ..
Moreover I also take a small printout of it (with your signature et all ... just as it is ) and pin it on my wall.
Could you just reply with the subject line as
Fine ... if you have no problems with this
Not fine ... If you do have problems with this in any way
Thanks!
In around 99.999% of cases images are subject to full copywrite and you are not authorised to use them in any way but view them as the owner intends.
In reality I think it is a nice compliment. If you do, it might be considered polite to e-mail the owner stating your intentions.
Would you feel it is right for you to have a printed copy of the work on your wall for no charge? Is there really a difference when it is your computer monitor?
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/
In reality I think it is a nice compliment. If you do, it might be considered polite to e-mail the owner stating your intentions.
Would you feel it is right for you to have a printed copy of the work on your wall for no charge? Is there really a difference when it is your computer monitor?
--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/
And by the same logic it is fine to copy software and download any music you like as long as no-one knows about it. As with all good right/wrong issues and where morals are concerned, nothing is ever illegal or wrong if the victim doesn't actually know about it right?
Whether you choose to do it or not is your own choice, I do I'll admit. But it is also wrong - becuase it is secret doesn't make it right.
--You CANNOT, however,
distribute this wallpaper, send it to a friend, put it on your
website, even if you've spent 4 hours mangling it in photoshop.
Always contact the owner of the photo BEFORE you start if that is
your intention.
Same with printouts. If you find a nice photo on the web and want
to print it out to put on your wall/on your desk, fine, no-one can
stop you. But you cannot sell or give away those prints without the
owners permission.
Simple netiquette
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/
Just changing the subject line to make my last post more descriptive
Bruce Hamilton
Forum Enthusiast
As others have aready noted, there are several issues. If you are curious about the legal situation, try the following site and some of those it links to.
http://www.csusa.org/face/stilim/index.htm
The site belongs to the Copyright Society of America, and the FACE programme is designed to educate people about copyright.
The simplest solution is to email the owner and ask if you can use it. Note that if you have been paid to produce an image, the owner may well be the person who commissioned you ( depending on the agreement ), so you can't spread copies of the image around the Internet without the owner's consent, even though you created the work.
Bruce Hamilton
d-og
Forum Enthusiast
Wrong, it's technically, legally and ethically OK.
Copyright officially excludes non-commerical private use, a.k.a. "fair use" in legal terms. This understanding extends to all, e.g. you are allowed to make backup copies of software and music cds, as well as copy a record for a friend.
Regards, d-og
Bruce Hamilton
Forum Enthusiast
No. It's a pity that you didn't bother to read the FAQ I pointed to earlier in the thread.
http://www.csusa.org/face/stilim/index.htm
[ begin extract ]
What is fair use?
Fair use is a limitation to all rights belonging to an artist under the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act lists the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. The Copyright Act 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) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific percent of a work of visual art that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. Fair use is determined by the courts on a case by case basis and there are no precise rules to determine when the exemption applies. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
[ end extract ]
No it does not. The fair use exemption is very specific, and is determined on a case by case basis. If use of an image deprives the owner of rights ( such as the sale of a copy of an image ), then the fair use provision does not apply. Nothing about private, non-commercial, otherwise Microsoft and other home software providers would have even bigger infringement issues.
No. You can not make copies of software for friends, and backups do not deprive the copyright owner of revenue, as the customer has already bought/licensed the software. Trolling?.
Bruce Hamilton
Bruce put it much better than me - but your answer riled me so much!
In the case we are describing the copyright owner has received no payment and made no release in any way so fair use for an individual would not apply since you haven't bought it in the first place.
Try and use some common sense before spouting this kind of junk around the place.
--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/
Why?
No it doesn't. Your saying that any software you buy, any music you buy, any video you buy is fair game as long as you don't make money off it yourself (non-commercial)? BS! I'm terribly sorry to inform you that distributing any of this to people who have not bought any rights to the product is illegal. You are entitled to make a copy - if you are able - of the work you have purchased providing it does not deprive the seller of reasonable revenue.
In the case we are describing the copyright owner has received no payment and made no release in any way so fair use for an individual would not apply since you haven't bought it in the first place.
Try and use some common sense before spouting this kind of junk around the place.
Actually I belive that in the license for the music you buy, you are NOT allowed to make a copy of music for a friend. If that were the case the RIAA would be having a hard time generating any lawsuits don't ya think?
--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/
... people post pics and knew certain things can happen to them.
One is other people using them for backgrounds and even prints.
Usually this is harmless and most people accept this.
People who post know the risks and should take precautions if they don’t want their pics used in anyway.
Usually personal use has no restrictions, if a commercial aspect is introduced, so is the legal aspect.
One is other people using them for backgrounds and even prints.
Usually this is harmless and most people accept this.
People who post know the risks and should take precautions if they don’t want their pics used in anyway.
Usually personal use has no restrictions, if a commercial aspect is introduced, so is the legal aspect.
Gutza
Active member
See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
I'd point your attention to
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I feel that the previous poster does not "spouting junk", as you gracefully put it; also, if anyone's a troll in here, I think that should be you.
Regards,
Gutza
I'd point your attention to
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I feel that the previous poster does not "spouting junk", as you gracefully put it; also, if anyone's a troll in here, I think that should be you.
Regards,
Gutza
Certainly not educational, and if it is the person's wallpaper or they print their own copy of it then it must be of value to warrant retention and display - if you want it - either ask nicely or PAY!
If people take it for free they are effectively undermining the market value. The value per image may be cents or dollars - but it is still value.
I don't think so - you think that if anything is out there you have a 'right' to make a copy and keep it for yourself - you don't - it is that simple.
--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum