Is it legal/ethical ...

Peteb is right and makes some very good points here.

There are a couple of issues we would do well to divorce and distiguish between. Namely: Is it right or wrong (moral/ethical) and Is it LEGAL?

Some believe anything that becomes illegal is then ALSO wrong because breaking a law is wrong. I don't believe lawmakers are infallable and therefore don't think that breaking the law is always wrong.

To examine the legal issue, let's start with the law.

The Fair-Use Statute:
The following is the full text of the fair-use statute from the U.S.
Copyright Act.

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive rights:
Fair useNotwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified in 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.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

1.. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
a 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; and

4.. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair
use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
(Emphasis added)
Well documented examples followed, illustrating applications of the fair use
standard. Very liberal interpretation of the standard is applied to
educational use, especially if it is non-commercial. However, significantly
competing with the original publisher's sales strongly diminishes an
argument for fair use.

http://www.cetus.org/fair5.html

To come more directly to you point, if you are downloading the picture to avoid buying the work (whether in print or desktop wallpaper) then you are in a gray area w/regards to the copyrights law, but probably this is unethical and you should avoid it.

If, on the other hand, you would NOT have bought it, and restrict your usage to one copy for personal use, then it is probably NOT illegal. Is it still unethical? I would lean towards saying NO it's not unethical.

Ultimately, only you can know if you are depriving the author or their income and whether it is right or wrong.

There has always been a freedom of exchange of ideas and art among humans and many feel copyrights enforced by governments are themselves immoral.

This is a question that is hard to give a clear yes or no answer to. If it bothers you, ask permission. If you in no way profit from your use of it, if it brings you joy, I would say it is not unethical.

I say this as my OPINION because as I would feel this way whether I was the USER OR AUTHOR!

In areas that are gray sometimes the golden rule can show you the way!

Cheers,
KC

Colorofthewind999 said:

Ebbie said:

to download a pic from somebody's web-site and use it as a wallpaper.
There are times when a picture impresses you so much that you have
to have it on your desktop. You do not claim that it was taken by
you but you just download it and set it as your background.

I used to do this a lot previously, but after being a member and
following the threads here I now have my doubts. So I just wanted
to know what you think about this.

Asking the same question in a different way
How would you feel if somebody had your pic on their desktop ?

Personally I would'nt mind, but (lol) I dont have pics so
impressive that someone would consider saving as their desktop,
yet. Just learning the art of photography

Click to expand...

I think it's ok, if that photo is allowed to be downloaded and you
don't use it for any commericial use.

Colorofthewind999 said:

Cheers!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Daniella makes a good point here about copying.

For anything an author posts on the internet, we can assume some copying for personal use is permitted or else it should not be posted. At the most restrictive that would be just viewing.

KC

Interestingly, another top 10 thread at this time is on how to right-click protect such images!!!!

LOL!

Daniella said:

it goes on your computer cache directory but you still download it.
what is illegal is to reproduce it like to print it or to
distribute it.

Ebbie said:

to download a pic from somebody's web-site and use it as a wallpaper.
There are times when a picture impresses you so much that you have
to have it on your desktop. You do not claim that it was taken by
you but you just download it and set it as your background.

I used to do this a lot previously, but after being a member and
following the threads here I now have my doubts. So I just wanted
to know what you think about this.

Asking the same question in a different way
How would you feel if somebody had your pic on their desktop ?

Click to expand...

If they only use it for their desktop I would not mind. But most
of my photos are too small for that anyway. Some people downloaded
some of my 3d artwork before for their desktop without asking me.
They simply told me that they were using this or that image for
their desktop. I would have prefered that they ask permission
first.

Daniella68313 said:

Personally I would'nt mind, but (lol) I dont have pics so
impressive that someone would consider saving as their desktop,
yet. Just learning the art of photography

Cheers!

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Click to expand...

"Your actions should be determined by the illegality of your behaviour."

The law is not my ethical compass.

Good points Bruce,

But lets not confuse legal and ethical, **** SS acted "legally" in most case, but not ethically.

The point is, they are not synonyms and we should keep in mind that, for example, although enslaving millions of negros in the US may have been "legal" at the time, perhaps we can agree it wasn't really "ethical".

Best regards,
KC

Bruce Hamilton said:

thejaybird said:

They'll never know.

Click to expand...

Contrary to popular opinion, Ethics isn't an English county. Your
actions should be determined by the illegality of your behaviour.
If many people make illegal copies, the owners will know and will
be harmed by lack of revenue from illegal copies. Consider P2P
music and software copying.

Wasia's firmware copying and modification is illegal ( a team would
have to have documented reverse engineering of the firmware for his
software to be legal ). Canon may choose to not bother pursuing
firmware hacks freely available, provided the hacker doesn't try to
make money from Canon's firmware. However, if Canon did take Wasia
to court, he would lose, as he is modifying their firmware.

Bruce Hamilton

Click to expand...

Bruce Hamilton said:

You seem to be missing the point that copyright protects the owner,
and if your use of that image deprives the owner of revenue ( eg
selling you a copy to use a wallpaper ), then it's illegal - unless
covered by one of the fair use provisions.

You don't "own" that image, and you only have rights to view it for
the original ( and only intended ) purpose. It doesn't matter
whether you would actually purchase the image as wallpaper if you
had to pay for it, you appropriated the image and potentially
deprived the owner of revenue. It also doesn't matter if others
have done it, it's still illegal without the owner's consent.

The copyright rules are really quite simple, and the Berne
Convention covers copyright globally. The owner is protected from
potential loss of revenue due to illegal copying. The legal grounds
for copying without the owner's specific consent are covered under
any " fair use " provisions that may apply, however those
provisions are not as liberal as many believe.

Refer to my earlier posts, and a Google search on Internet
Copyright will yield far more than you ever wanted to know. The
simplest solution is to always ask the owner if you can use an
image ( or any other copyrighted work) that you discover and want
to use for any purpose, regardless of the convenience of the form
it's in.

Click to expand...

I never claimed that by downloading an image file that I owned that image. My point, which I will make again because people seem to be missing it, is that by publishing it on the internet, you are being given permission to download the image and view it. That is part of publishing it via that medium. I've read the faq that you liked to elsewhere in this thread, and it doesn't say anything that contradicts this. Printing it and hanging it on your wall would be copyright infringment. Copying it to your web page would be copyright infringment. Linking to the picture on the originating web page would not be, although if the original page requested that the image not be linked directly it would be rude to do so. Viewing on your computer (regardless of the program you use to do so) also would not be copyright infringment. I am not arguing that you don't need permission to view the image file. I am saying that by publishing the file on the internet the author of the file has already given that permission.

As always, IANAL, but I'll stick with what I've seen in FAQs that I've read and case law that I've seen. If the publisher was allowed to control how you could use what they have published, the major TV networks would've won their suits to stop people from recording their shows. Their claimed intent in publishing their shows via the broadcast meduim was for people to watch the shows live. Recording the shows goes against that intent, but the courts have upheld the rights of viewers to do so.

Copyright laws exist not only to protect copyright holders, but to protect the public as well.

--
Gary

DannyV said:

No it is not, the "assumption" and intent of the cable companies is
that there is no signal at your house if you do not pay. If there
is a signal, then either the cable company screwed up or you
modified the cable box illegally, in either case, the intent is
quite clear. Now, if the cable companies were lazy enough to leave
all ports turned on nation-wide, my guess is that they would have
some real legal problems enforcing payment. The courts would
probably conclude that they had not done enough to protect their
IP, and had therefore created an environment where free use of
cable was a "reasonable" assumption. This is effectively what
people are doing when they post their pictures on the internet.

Click to expand...

That is not true, my attorneys have been involved in copyright violations with graphics for our design department. We didn't sue anyone but did need to use them to enforce infringements.

Posting a picture on a website gives one usage right to anyone on the internet. That is limited to downloading the image to their computer since it is understood already that viewing an image that it is downloaded to the computer. It also gives permission for the user to view the images online or on their computer. But just because an image is posted on a website it does not give any "reasonable assumptions" that just because it is available that you can violate copyright law or that copyright law can't be enforced.

In regards to the basic subject, using the image as your screensaver is probabaly unenforcable unless the images were being sold by the creator as screensavers.

Regards,
Mike

--
300D Gallery:
http://tkis.com/mike/

Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift. -- Albert Einstein

And completely irrelevant to the discussion as you noted.

Just beacuse it is on the Internet does not mean it is free. What if something was out front of a shop, on display? You going to take it because it is on the street and therefore obviously there for anyone?

kevin said:

As for the subject at hand the copyright holder of the images
shouldn't be posting them on the internet if they don't want them
freely available for private use. ITS THE INTERNET folks!

Someone who buys music and posts it somewhere freely available is
one thing, but a photographer posting his own work is a completely
separate issue. I'm not suggesting that by posting that it is now
in the public-domain but it is freely available for private use.
Otherwise DON'T publish your pictures.

peteb said:

d-og said:

peteb said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wrong, it's technically, legally and ethically OK.

Click to expand...

Why?

kevin44958 said:

Copyright officially excludes non-commerical private use, a.k.a.
"fair use" in legal terms.

Click to expand...

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.

kevin44958 said:

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

Click to expand...

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/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

Ger Bee said:

Ger Bee said:

You probably think borrowing a book from a library entitles you to
photocopy it, but it doesn't, it allows you to read it. If you
want to keep it, you have to buy a copy.

Click to expand...

..... actually you are not necessarily correct here either. One of
the main functions of a library is sharing writings and in fact
copying them.

Click to expand...

Transcribing passages and quoting passages are not the same as photocopying actual pages.

Ger Bee said:

The usual rules of copyright apply, if you look up your membership
card you can copy passages and use them in your own work provided
you quote the book as reference and do not claim the contents as
your own.

Click to expand...

Yes, but this usually excludes photocopying actual books.

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

Archermoo said:

Wild-Mike said:

Archermoo said:

IANAL, but it seems to me that if you publish a work in such a
fashion that people have to possess a private copy of that work to
be able to read/view it, then you don't really have a leg to stand
on to object to those people having that copy of the work in
question.

Click to expand...

This should clear up some of the miss-conceptions a little bit:
http://resnet.albany.edu/rules/copyrightshort.htm

Click to expand...

I understand the law at that level. My point is that if the
creator of the image has made it available to be viewed via the
internet, they have already given permission for you to have a
local copy of the image, because you cannot view it without having
a local copy. I don't see any real difference between viewing the
image in a browser and viewing the image as a desktop wallpaper.
You already have permission to have a local copy of the image, and
you already have permission to view it. What more do you need?

Click to expand...

I believe you need the right to display the image in the way you choose - which you do not. The owner chose to distribute via a WEB page and this is the medium by which you should use it. If the owner changes or deletes the image - why should you feel entitled to continue to view it.

The local files on your PC are a cache, not intended to be a true download of the file for your own use. Opening them by default will take you back to the original on-line image for instance. Yes, you can drag them into an image viewer but now you are using them for a purpose they were not originally intended, otherwise they would all be cached in 'My Pictures' or the equivalent, not 'Temporary Internet Files'.

Yes, the files are on your computer, but I do not believe that gives implicit rights to them since they have not been distributed for download. If you linked to a zip folder off your website and said, 'here's a bunch of my images for you to download' that is a different matter.

Archermoo said:

--
Gary

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

Archermoo said:

Bruce Hamilton said:

You seem to be missing the point that copyright protects the owner,
and if your use of that image deprives the owner of revenue ( eg
selling you a copy to use a wallpaper ), then it's illegal - unless
covered by one of the fair use provisions.

You don't "own" that image, and you only have rights to view it for
the original ( and only intended ) purpose. It doesn't matter
whether you would actually purchase the image as wallpaper if you
had to pay for it, you appropriated the image and potentially
deprived the owner of revenue. It also doesn't matter if others
have done it, it's still illegal without the owner's consent.

The copyright rules are really quite simple, and the Berne
Convention covers copyright globally. The owner is protected from
potential loss of revenue due to illegal copying. The legal grounds
for copying without the owner's specific consent are covered under
any " fair use " provisions that may apply, however those
provisions are not as liberal as many believe.

Refer to my earlier posts, and a Google search on Internet
Copyright will yield far more than you ever wanted to know. The
simplest solution is to always ask the owner if you can use an
image ( or any other copyrighted work) that you discover and want
to use for any purpose, regardless of the convenience of the form
it's in.

Click to expand...

I never claimed that by downloading an image file that I owned that
image. My point, which I will make again because people seem to be
missing it, is that by publishing it on the internet, you are being
given permission to download the image and view it.

Click to expand...

No - you are not. You are given permission, actually invited to view it and nothing more. That your browser may cache it is not relevant. That your computer holds the image in memory is, because the owner knows when you switch off your PC it is gone! You are given permission to view the image in the setting (via the page) that the owner chooses to display it in. The owner has a right to control the presentation, setting and indeed to withdraw the image if they choose to. They have the rights here - not you. You are covered in certain uses by Fair Use. I have not implicitly or explicitly given you use to copy, retain indefinitely or redisplay at your convienience, my copyrighted work. There really is no other way to interpret this. If someone uses a copyrighted image as their wallpaper they could be said to be getting material benefit from it (otherwise why would it be there?). If an image is hosted from a site that generates revenue for the owner of the image (via advertising say) then you could be depriving them of revenue also.

Archermoo said:

That is part
of publishing it via that medium. I've read the faq that you liked
to elsewhere in this thread, and it doesn't say anything that
contradicts this. Printing it and hanging it on your wall would be
copyright infringment. Copying it to your web page would be
copyright infringment. Linking to the picture on the originating
web page would not be, although if the original page requested that
the image not be linked directly it would be rude to do so.
Viewing on your computer (regardless of the program you use to do
so) also would not be copyright infringment. I am not arguing that
you don't need permission to view the image file. I am saying that
by publishing the file on the internet the author of the file has
already given that permission.

As always, IANAL, but I'll stick with what I've seen in FAQs that
I've read and case law that I've seen. If the publisher was
allowed to control how you could use what they have published, the
major TV networks would've won their suits to stop people from
recording their shows. Their claimed intent in publishing their
shows via the broadcast meduim was for people to watch the shows
live. Recording the shows goes against that intent, but the courts
have upheld the rights of viewers to do so.

Copyright laws exist not only to protect copyright holders, but to
protect the public as well.

--
Gary

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

to try and follow your thought... sure I'll just get out my handy digicam and snap a shot of it - if that is the quality I want. Don't post 3mp pictures on your website if you don't want people printing their own 8x10s.

I can walk in to a cafe and read a newspaper I didn't buy without fearing a lawsuit. I can read from a book I didn't buy, and even photocopy pages, at a library. My doctor's office doesn't restrict me from going through their magazine subscriptions that are address to them, and no one charges me a fee for using that copyrighted info. And music, by the RIAA's standards the only the person who should be able to listen to a song is the person who purchased it.

You don't see music labels making their selections available on the Internet because they know that it is uncontrollable - photographers need to learn the same lesson, if you put it out on the Internet it is uncontrollable. Don't put out images in a quality that is usable.

That is why when you browse stock photo sites they are tiny, watermarked images - unusable. Because they know that if it look good on the screen someone can juest capture it as is from there and use it.

peteb said:

Just beacuse it is on the Internet does not mean it is free. What
if something was out front of a shop, on display? You going to
take it because it is on the street and therefore obviously there
for anyone?

kevin said:

As for the subject at hand the copyright holder of the images
shouldn't be posting them on the internet if they don't want them
freely available for private use. ITS THE INTERNET folks!

Someone who buys music and posts it somewhere freely available is
one thing, but a photographer posting his own work is a completely
separate issue. I'm not suggesting that by posting that it is now
in the public-domain but it is freely available for private use.
Otherwise DON'T publish your pictures.

peteb said:

d-og said:

peteb said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wrong, it's technically, legally and ethically OK.

Click to expand...

Why?

peteb said:

Copyright officially excludes non-commerical private use, a.k.a.
"fair use" in legal terms.

Click to expand...

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.

peteb said:

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

Click to expand...

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/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

Click to expand...

Pete, how do you answer to the VCR analogy? You seem oblivious to any argument that contradicts your logic. So I'm not going to make any other point in this post except to remind you that you are entitled to tape TV shows and watch them later, as many times as you please, with or without advertising, and with the obvious restriction to not redistribute the tape. This is the exact analogy of what we're trying to say here, please either contradict this well-known fact, or explain how it is different to the discussion at hand.

peteb said:

Archermoo said:

Bruce Hamilton said:

You seem to be missing the point that copyright protects the owner,
and if your use of that image deprives the owner of revenue ( eg
selling you a copy to use a wallpaper ), then it's illegal - unless
covered by one of the fair use provisions.

You don't "own" that image, and you only have rights to view it for
the original ( and only intended ) purpose. It doesn't matter
whether you would actually purchase the image as wallpaper if you
had to pay for it, you appropriated the image and potentially
deprived the owner of revenue. It also doesn't matter if others
have done it, it's still illegal without the owner's consent.

The copyright rules are really quite simple, and the Berne
Convention covers copyright globally. The owner is protected from
potential loss of revenue due to illegal copying. The legal grounds
for copying without the owner's specific consent are covered under
any " fair use " provisions that may apply, however those
provisions are not as liberal as many believe.

Refer to my earlier posts, and a Google search on Internet
Copyright will yield far more than you ever wanted to know. The
simplest solution is to always ask the owner if you can use an
image ( or any other copyrighted work) that you discover and want
to use for any purpose, regardless of the convenience of the form
it's in.

Click to expand...

I never claimed that by downloading an image file that I owned that
image. My point, which I will make again because people seem to be
missing it, is that by publishing it on the internet, you are being
given permission to download the image and view it.

Click to expand...

No - you are not. You are given permission, actually invited to
view it and nothing more. That your browser may cache it is not
relevant. That your computer holds the image in memory is, because
the owner knows when you switch off your PC it is gone! You are
given permission to view the image in the setting (via the page)
that the owner chooses to display it in. The owner has a right to
control the presentation, setting and indeed to withdraw the image
if they choose to. They have the rights here - not you. You are
covered in certain uses by Fair Use. I have not implicitly or
explicitly given you use to copy, retain indefinitely or redisplay
at your convienience, my copyrighted work. There really is no
other way to interpret this. If someone uses a copyrighted image
as their wallpaper they could be said to be getting material
benefit from it (otherwise why would it be there?). If an image is
hosted from a site that generates revenue for the owner of the
image (via advertising say) then you could be depriving them of
revenue also.

peteb said:

That is part
of publishing it via that medium. I've read the faq that you liked
to elsewhere in this thread, and it doesn't say anything that
contradicts this. Printing it and hanging it on your wall would be
copyright infringment. Copying it to your web page would be
copyright infringment. Linking to the picture on the originating
web page would not be, although if the original page requested that
the image not be linked directly it would be rude to do so.
Viewing on your computer (regardless of the program you use to do
so) also would not be copyright infringment. I am not arguing that
you don't need permission to view the image file. I am saying that
by publishing the file on the internet the author of the file has
already given that permission.

As always, IANAL, but I'll stick with what I've seen in FAQs that
I've read and case law that I've seen. If the publisher was
allowed to control how you could use what they have published, the
major TV networks would've won their suits to stop people from
recording their shows. Their claimed intent in publishing their
shows via the broadcast meduim was for people to watch the shows
live. Recording the shows goes against that intent, but the courts
have upheld the rights of viewers to do so.

Copyright laws exist not only to protect copyright holders, but to
protect the public as well.

--
Gary

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

Click to expand...

Gutza said:

Pete, how do you answer to the VCR analogy? You seem oblivious to
any argument that contradicts your logic. So I'm not going to make
any other point in this post except to remind you that you are
entitled to tape TV shows and watch them later, as many times as
you please, with or without advertising, and with the obvious
restriction to not redistribute the tape. This is the exact analogy
of what we're trying to say here, please either contradict this
well-known fact, or explain how it is different to the discussion
at hand.

Click to expand...

If you read the copyright notices that are distributed with most tapes/videos the author is granting that permission. Also, there was a purchase made of the material which makes your opinion inaccurate too.

Regards,
Mike

--
300D Gallery:
http://tkis.com/mike/

Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift. -- Albert Einstein

Wild-Mike said:

Gutza said:

Pete, how do you answer to the VCR analogy? You seem oblivious to
any argument that contradicts your logic. So I'm not going to make
any other point in this post except to remind you that you are
entitled to tape TV shows and watch them later, as many times as
you please, with or without advertising, and with the obvious
restriction to not redistribute the tape. This is the exact analogy
of what we're trying to say here, please either contradict this
well-known fact, or explain how it is different to the discussion
at hand.

Click to expand...

If you read the copyright notices that are distributed with most
tapes/videos the author is granting that permission. Also, there
was a purchase made of the material which makes your opinion
inaccurate too.

Regards,
Mike

Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

Have you read my message before replying? Sorry, don't mean to be rude, but I really don't understand what you're talking about... What copyright notices? Distributed with which tapes? What purchase?

I was talking about buying a VCR, buying a VHS tape, plugging the antenna in the VCR and taping away TV shows which are aired. You are allowed to do that. You are allowed to skip the commercials. You are allowed to keep your own copy until the tape tears apart. How is this different from downloading an image to your hard drive and viewing it whenever you please?

Cheers,
Gutza

Gutza said:

Wild-Mike said:

Gutza said:

Pete, how do you answer to the VCR analogy? You seem oblivious to
any argument that contradicts your logic. So I'm not going to make
any other point in this post except to remind you that you are
entitled to tape TV shows and watch them later, as many times as
you please, with or without advertising, and with the obvious
restriction to not redistribute the tape. This is the exact analogy
of what we're trying to say here, please either contradict this
well-known fact, or explain how it is different to the discussion
at hand.

Click to expand...

If you read the copyright notices that are distributed with most
tapes/videos the author is granting that permission. Also, there
was a purchase made of the material which makes your opinion
inaccurate too.

Regards,
Mike

Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

Have you read my message before replying?

Click to expand...

Yes, I was assuming you were talking about VHS tapes that were purchased.

Gutza said:

Sorry, don't mean to be
rude, but I really don't understand what you're talking about...
What copyright notices?

Click to expand...

At the end or beginning of many movies, etc. there is a copyright notice that is displayed on the media explaining the copyright and your rights of use of the material (dvd, VHS tape, etc.).

Gutza said:

Distributed with which tapes?

Click to expand...

The VHS tape, cd, etc.

Gutza said:

What purchase?

Click to expand...

Assuming that you purchased or rented a video then that would be your purchase. You paid to have certain rights regarding copyright by the author (example of the author could be the movie industry that produced the movie). The author is providing to the purchase exclusive rights of use of their material.

Gutza said:

I was talking about buying a VCR, buying a VHS tape, plugging the
antenna in the VCR and taping away TV shows which are aired. You
are allowed to do that.
You are allowed to skip the commercials.
You are allowed to keep your own copy until the tape tears apart.
How is this different from downloading an image to your hard drive
and viewing it whenever you please?

Click to expand...

I can't answer that because I was never involved in Television copyright issues. My involvement was initially with the sale of my oil paintings and photos years ago. Also, in the past ten years my business is involved in copyright law and I have addressed issues of abuse with our attorneys. Also, we have been involved in liability issues.

An example I can give you is cable theft and satelite signal theft. Sure the signals are available but that doesn't give anyone the right to use them for your personal use without paying or obtaining permission.

Unless otherwise specified at the site, the "only" right that is being providing to a visitor viewing a website/image is the ability to view that image through your web browser. That is the assumed use of that image. Anything else is contrived assumptions of people that don't understand copyright law. As for someone using an image for wallpaper, it is extremely unlikely that anyone would be extremely foolish to go to court for libel over something like that. The author would more than likely loose the case.

There are two aspects of copyright law, one being the law itself and the second is the enforcement of that law. Enforcing abuses of copyright is difficult. Look at cable theft, it is done all the time yet not easily enforced.

I can put you in touch with my attorneys if you want to consult with the pros.

Regards,
Mike

--
300D Gallery:
http://tkis.com/mike/

Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift. -- Albert Einstein

Wild-Mike said:

Wild-Mike said:

Have you read my message before replying?

Click to expand...

Yes, I was assuming you were talking about VHS tapes that were
purchased.

Click to expand...

Ok, that clears that up, I might have been ambiguous, but it was raised earlier in this same thread, so I assumed peteb read it (the previous post you replied to was targeted at him).

Wild-Mike said:

I can't answer that because I was never involved in Television
copyright issues. My involvement was initially with the sale of my
oil paintings and photos years ago. Also, in the past ten years my
business is involved in copyright law and I have addressed issues
of abuse with our attorneys. Also, we have been involved in
liability issues.

An example I can give you is cable theft and satelite signal theft.
Sure the signals are available but that doesn't give anyone the
right to use them for your personal use without paying or obtaining
permission.

Click to expand...

Right. The signal is available, but it's either not available to the respective person unless they physically make a deliberate effort to strip the cable and so on (cable theft) or it's scrambled (satellite theft). The images on a site, just like the show on a public TV station, is provided to anyone who turns visits the site or turns on a TV tuned to that station. None of the latter two involve de-scrambling anything, nor do they involve altering any legitimately purchased equipment or software in any way.

Wild-Mike said:

Unless otherwise specified at the site, the "only" right that is
being providing to a visitor viewing a website/image is the ability
to view that image through your web browser.

Click to expand...

Unless otherwise specified in the TV show, the "only" right that is being provided to a viewer watching the programme is the ability to watch the show. NOT. They are also allowed to tape it for personal use. I come again, please explain how this is different, stating statements just like that is leading us nowhere.

Wild-Mike said:

That is the assumed
use of that image. Anything else is contrived assumptions of people
that don't understand copyright law.

Click to expand...

That really may be so. I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one. But that's a low blow, you're basically saying "you are wrong because you are wrong -- you understand nothing and you contrive assumptions --, and I am right because I am right -- I understand the stuff that you don't". That's not argumentation, that's just another statement of yours.

Wild-Mike said:

As for someone using an image
for wallpaper, it is extremely unlikely that anyone would be
extremely foolish to go to court for libel over something like
that.

Click to expand...

I was expecting you to say that the author would waste too much effort for too little potential gain. But no, you say...

Wild-Mike said:

The author would more than likely loose the case.

Click to expand...

For God's sake, why would the author be more than likely to lose the case if you believe your own arguments? Or don't you?

Wild-Mike said:

There are two aspects of copyright law, one being the law itself
and the second is the enforcement of that law. Enforcing abuses of
copyright is difficult. Look at cable theft, it is done all the
time yet not easily enforced.

Click to expand...

Nobody was discussing law/law enforcement. The question was legality, not whether you would get caught. But even if we did, you just said that even if the law would be properly enforced, the author would nevertheless be proven wrong. So law enforcement is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Wild-Mike said:

I can put you in touch with my attorneys if you want to consult
with the pros.

Click to expand...

Yes, I would definitely want that in an ideal world. Unfortunately in this imperfect one lawyers charge for legal advice, and I'm not curious enough to prove myself right by also paying money for it. (tongue-in-cheek, don't take it as sarcasm).

Cheers,
Gutza

I explained my first-hand knowledge and experience, if you wish to stand by your belief than so be it. I was only trying to help those who haven't had the experience and were looking for input from someone that has first-hand knowledge. Some people dish out information based upon assumptioins but in this situation I choose not to.

Regards,
Mike

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I appreciate your input, and I certainly appreciate the fact that you chose to get involved in the discussion. But I do not appreciate the patronizing, arrogant tone of your discourse.

I'm new on this forum, and I wouldn't want to be confused with a troll, so I will refrain from further replies on this thread, should you choose to reply to this post. Just wanted to return the favor and give you some input on your behaviour, the same kind as your input on our understanding of the copyright law.

Regards,
Gutza

You can lead a horse to water, but have you checked whether the water's drinkable?

right-click protect does not stop the photo from being downloaded in your computer cache directory and also it does not work if you disable Java and scripting.

Noah_Mercy said:

For anything an author posts on the internet, we can assume some
copying for personal use is permitted or else it should not be
posted. At the most restrictive that would be just viewing.

KC

Interestingly, another top 10 thread at this time is on how to
right-click protect such images!!!!

LOL!

Daniella said:

it goes on your computer cache directory but you still download it.
what is illegal is to reproduce it like to print it or to
distribute it.

Ebbie said:

to download a pic from somebody's web-site and use it as a wallpaper.
There are times when a picture impresses you so much that you have
to have it on your desktop. You do not claim that it was taken by
you but you just download it and set it as your background.

I used to do this a lot previously, but after being a member and
following the threads here I now have my doubts. So I just wanted
to know what you think about this.

Asking the same question in a different way
How would you feel if somebody had your pic on their desktop ?

Click to expand...

If they only use it for their desktop I would not mind. But most
of my photos are too small for that anyway. Some people downloaded
some of my 3d artwork before for their desktop without asking me.
They simply told me that they were using this or that image for
their desktop. I would have prefered that they ask permission
first.

Noah_Mercy said:

Personally I would'nt mind, but (lol) I dont have pics so
impressive that someone would consider saving as their desktop,
yet. Just learning the art of photography

Cheers!

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

d-og said:

peteb said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

No way

d-og said:

Regards, d-og

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel