Is it legal/ethical ...

Daniella68313 · Apr 13, 2004

peteb said:
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!

There is a word for this and it is called pirating

it is VERY illegal!

I'm terribly sorry to

peteb said:
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/

--
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

Daniella68313 · Apr 13, 2004

Gutza said:
If that's the case, will you kindly explain why Adobe for instance
doesn't allow full downloads of Photoshop on their site? You
certainly wouldn't be allowed to download it and use it if your
assertions are correct, so what's the difference? I mean, if you
want to pirate Photoshop, then there are zillions of sources
anyway, so Adobe wouldn't "make your job easier" by posting it on
their site.

oh really? where can I download Photoshop CS on Adobe site???

you mean patch and upgrade? you still need your own serial number to install it..if you don't have a serial number and you're taking someone else serial number that is called software piracy. yes it is illegal.

Gutza said:
Do you see where I'm getting at? The value of an image resides in
viewing it. Simply viewing the image on some site equals "using"
the image. Photoshop on the other hand needs to be installed and
run in order to be used. As long as the author allow you to use
their work legitimately -- by providing a means to download it --
then you are allowed to keep it for your own personal use .
Which is why Adobe doesn't provide Photoshop for download -- they
do not allow you to simply get it and use it.

your analogy is like comparing apple and orange. You HAVE to download images in order to see them otherwise the web would be totaly imageless...plain text, but still all artwork and images are copyright, make no mistake.

you are allowed to view it and you're supposed to delete it after or your browser will delete it in its cache when you restart it or clean it, but nobody have the right to use it as screensaver without permission. And nobody have the right to print someone else image without permission either.

Similarly, if the

Gutza said:
author of an image doesn't want you to download his work, then he
doesn't provide a full-sized image. They would only provide a
thumbnail. And you could keep the thumbnail, but would have to pay
for the full image. Oh well, but I'm sure you knew all this.

Gutza

peteb said:

Gutza said:

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;

Click to expand...

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!

Gutza said:

and

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

Click to expand...

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.

Gutza said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Gutza said:

Regards,
Gutza

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?

Gutza 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.

Gutza 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...

--
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

Daniella68313 · Apr 13, 2004

Archermoo said:
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.

this right to you only last the time you are viewing the image from the internet...you're supposed to delete the image after.

I don't see any real difference between viewing the

Archermoo said:
image in a browser and viewing the image as a desktop wallpaper.

there is a difference because don't use it as it was intended to be used by the copyright owner and you KNOW it. At least the original poster of this thread had some doubt since he asked.

You can use images as a wallpaper when someone intentionaly let you download them as wallpaper and it is specified on their web site.

Archermoo said:
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?

--
Gary

--
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

Daniella68313 · Apr 13, 2004

Archermoo said:
No, you are mistaken. Never did I claim that any redistribution of
a file downloaded would ever be considered acceptable. I
re-iterate: By publishing the image to the web, the intent is for
it to be viewed. The only way for me to view that image is for it
to be downloaded to my computer. Therefor I have implicit
permission to download the image and view it.

Your attempt to link the viewing of images published on the
internet and murder is a fallacy. You can shoot someone in your
own home that is threatening you because the intent of the law is
to allow you to defend yourself.

yeah right...try to prove that...you still might end up in jail.

The intent of posting an image on

Archermoo said:
the internet is to allow it to be viewed. An accurate comparison
to limiting which application you can use to view the picture
(browser vs. desktop wallpaper) would be saying that you can only
defend yourself in your living room, but doing so in your den would
be illegal.

You already have permission to view the image on your computer.
This means that you already have permission to download the image
and have a local copy of it, as there is no other way for you to
view it.

when you copy the image from your cache to your window directory to use it as a wall paper, you do copy it and you do use it in a way it was NOT intended to be used.

you cannot just simply display an image as a wallpaper unless you first copy it in the proper place.

You would need further permission to redistribute that

Archermoo said:
picture, as redistribution is not implicitly allowed simply by
allowing the image to be viewed.

Heck, the courts in the US at least have already made similar case
law. Broadcast television shows are copyrighted. However, it is
perfectly legal for you to record those shows and watch them at a
later date. It is even legal for you to skip the commercials if
you want.

--
Gary

--
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

Noah_Mercy · Apr 13, 2004

Gutza,

Mike was just doing his best, and what he was saying is correct. It is unfortunate that he didn't understand or chose not to address you analogy, probably because he could think of how to deal with it. It seems from his arguments and past experience he is working from within a strongly biased point of view. (No offense Mike, these are just observations/opinions, nothing bad on you).

The point you make is an excellent one and well taken. If I remember correctly this was a HUGE issue when VCR's came out. I think it was even addressed by congress at one point. I don't know the details of that, but I can address the APPARENT discrepancy you cite, at least logically.

First, let us assume (as you state) that the taping is strictly for personal, noncommercial, viewing. Let us also assume that the programming is from a national network (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.).

The broadcasting is paid for by advertisers whose rates are determined by the expected volume of viewership (among other factors). If you are unable to watch the initial broadcast, or choose to watch it again later, this DOES NOT DEPRIVE the network of potential proceeds from the sale of their material (note this stipulation in the fair-use clause). Moreover, it does not constitute of conflict of interest (the interests of the network and/or the advertiser). In fact it has the opposite effect. The more you watch the program, the more you are (potentially) exposed to the commercials, the more loyalty you possibly develop to the networks programming (in the case of sitcoms, serials, etc.), etc.

In short, it doesn't deprive the network of any revenue and possibly increases it. Therefore, under these conditions, it is exempted from copyright protections via the Fair Use clause whether the networks like it or not.

HOWEVER: If you use a device like the TIVO or REPLAY TV explicitly for the purpose of skipping the commercials, this DOES possibly deprive the network or revenue.

For this reason, the networks have sued the producers of this hardware, and continue litigation in this area.

I hope this addresses you point, at least in part.

Sorry you had trouble getting your point across to other members.

If it's any conciliation, I understood immediately what you were driving at (am I sure other did as well).

The broader debate is what the copyright laws SHOULD address, and how.

KC

Noah_Mercy · Apr 13, 2004

Dear Mike,

The link you provided seems to provide a very distorted interpertation of the Fair Use clause. For instance it implies that a use must meet ALL four of the criteria listed to be exempted. This is simply inaccurate. For example, if I reproduce a work a in whole (say a diagram) for use as an instructional aid in a public school classroom, it is exempted under fair use.

Therefore: Please refer to the actual text (which is more direct and concise than the information in the link). This will help AVOID more confusion and misinformation.

Thanks,
KC

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

Regards,
Mike

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

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

kevin44958 · Apr 13, 2004

Daniella said:
Archermoo said:

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.

Click to expand...

this right to you only last the time you are viewing the image from
the internet...you're supposed to delete the image after.

oh that is funny. I can only assume that the humor is intentional!

For those of you with "photographic memories" don't forget to wipe out any memory you have what the picture looked like after you are finished viewing it. You might be violating the copyright in your head!

Dear Photographers: If you don't want private use of your work, then DO NOT POST IT ON THE INTERNET IN A USABLE FORMAT. See "stock photo" websites for an example, they make you register/pay to even just "see" ok quality images.

Wild-Mike · Apr 13, 2004

Noah_Mercy said:
Dear Mike,

The link you provided seems to provide a very distorted
interpertation of the Fair Use clause. For instance it implies
that a use must meet ALL four of the criteria listed to be
exempted. This is simply inaccurate. For example, if I reproduce
a work a in whole (say a diagram) for use as an instructional aid
in a public school classroom, it is exempted under fair use.

Opps, I meant to post this one which is a guidline but not the actual law:
http://www.csusa.org/face/stilim/index.htm
Here is the actual copyright website from the US Government:
http://www.copyright.gov/

I have read the complete copyright laws in the past and also filed for copyrights on some of my paintings. I worked with other artists and also helped a number of friends with copyright issues. My business of 10 years now is involved in graphic arts displayed on the Internet so I do consult with our business attorneys regarding copyright and liabilty issues. I just spend $2750.00 in attorney fees regarding a liability issue just recently.

As I stated, I'm just trying to clear up some miss-conceptions about copyright ...especially since it does directly involve my business and my customers whom also require our services to protect against infringements. I have intervened in a number of copyright violations and acted as a liaison between my attorneys and my advertising clients.

I have to know the law since my business could be held liable if any of my customers violated copyright laws. In viewing many of the responses on this message forum about copyright, it's no wonder so many abuses take place. Also, this isn't the first time this debate happened here.

BTW, in your previous post I did not take any offense (just didn't feel like going any further with that post

Regards,
Mike

Borstad · Apr 13, 2004

Rob P mentioned this but no one commented. How do you guys feel about this functionality built into MS windows (as it refers to this issue - no bloatware comments neccesary...) Am I allowed to dynamically link my desktop to a website?

Matthias

Gutza · Apr 13, 2004

Noah_Mercy said:
The point you make is an excellent one and well taken. If I
remember correctly this was a HUGE issue when VCR's came out. I
think it was even addressed by congress at one point. I don't know
the details of that, but I can address the APPARENT discrepancy you
cite, at least logically.

First, let us assume (as you state) that the taping is strictly for
personal, noncommercial, viewing. Let us also assume that the
programming is from a national network (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.).

The broadcasting is paid for by advertisers whose rates are
determined by the expected volume of viewership (among other
factors). If you are unable to watch the initial broadcast, or
choose to watch it again later, this DOES NOT DEPRIVE the network
of potential proceeds from the sale of their material (note this
stipulation in the fair-use clause). Moreover, it does not
constitute of conflict of interest (the interests of the network
and/or the advertiser). In fact it has the opposite effect. The
more you watch the program, the more you are (potentially) exposed
to the commercials, the more loyalty you possibly develop to the
networks programming (in the case of sitcoms, serials, etc.), etc.

In short, it doesn't deprive the network of any revenue and
possibly increases it. Therefore, under these conditions, it is
exempted from copyright protections via the Fair Use clause whether
the networks like it or not.

I completely agree with everything so far, and it holds as a perfect parallel to the topic being discussed IMHO.

Noah_Mercy said:
HOWEVER: If you use a device like the TIVO or REPLAY TV explicitly
for the purpose of skipping the commercials, this DOES possibly
deprive the network or revenue.

For this reason, the networks have sued the producers of this
hardware, and continue litigation in this area.

I also agree with this, but this is not similar to the original topic. If we were to make a parallel in the web site area then we would have to consider the software programs which facilitate downloading whole sites for off-line viewing. I don't know if that's legal or not, but it's something I definitely find to be unethincal. The discussion however was not targeted to this kind of specific tools, it was about downloading one single image from a site for personal use, while using a regular browser with no add-ons or extra effort whatsoever. (I realize you're fully aware what the discussion was about, just wanted to reiterate the discrepancy between downloading full sites and downloading one or two images to serve as a personal wallpaper.)

Noah_Mercy said:
I hope this addresses you point, at least in part.

Sorry you had trouble getting your point across to other members.

If it's any conciliation, I understood immediately what you were
driving at (am I sure other did as well).

The broader debate is what the copyright laws SHOULD address, and how.

Of course that's the serious concern, especially now, with DMCA which looks pretty bad, at least from my limited exposure to the topic.

In any case, just to clarify my stubbornness in discussing this topic, I would be extremely disappointed if I'm proven wrong, and if someone will be able to actually point us all to some reputable source stating that downloading one image off a site in order to use it as a wallpaper for your eyes only is illegal. Disappointed not because I would be proven wrong in itself, but because I would find we live much worse, commercial times than I thought.

In any case, thank you for your reply!

Cheers,
Gutza

rpatter · Apr 13, 2004

Well I feel any image thats used without the expressed permision of the photographer in question is wrong.

PS Daniella could you take a look at this thread? Been trying to as this but havent seen you in that forum.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=8373941

Also, Im also leaning towards the Bigma but I fear the lense speed maybe too slow for the Northwest

Thanks!

kevin44958 · Apr 13, 2004

because of things like this.

if photographers don't want their pictures seen/viewed then don't post them on the internet.

the whole argument that the photographer should have complete control over the context of how their internet posted pictures are used is irrelavent. it is impossible to control and the only legal limits are against people reposting someone elses work as their own or trying to sell someone elses work w/o rights.

private use of anything on the internet is just like going to a library.

Glenn D. · Apr 13, 2004

peteb said:
Gutza said:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes;

Click to expand...

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!

The main point of this factor is the purpose and character of the use. It includes whether the use if of commercial or nonprofit educational use, but does not exclude other uses from being fair use.

peteb said:
peteb said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

It is doubtful that putting an image on your desktop would decrease the amount that a person, who would pay for it, does indeed pay for it.

However, technically it is a violation of the copyright, and only a judge can decide whether or not your usage constitutes "fair use."

The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.

There's no one right answer as to what constitutes a "fair use" of a copyrighted work.

Daniella68313 · Apr 13, 2004

as small as possible.

Ger Bee said:
... 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.

--
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

Daniella68313 · Apr 13, 2004

It probably lead many people to think it is OK to download just about any artwork and use it as a wallpaper without asking permission.

Ithat is why the copyright notice is so important...if they use your image on their desktop with your signature, they are sort of making publicity for you...in a way.

I am thinking of putting a notice on all my photos..just have not had the time to do so yet.

Borstad said:
Rob P mentioned this but no one commented. How do you guys feel
about this functionality built into MS windows (as it refers to
this issue - no bloatware comments neccesary...) Am I allowed to
dynamically link my desktop to a website?

Matthias

--
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

Daniella68313 · Apr 13, 2004

Brett DiMichele said:
If it is not legal to download the image then it is not legal to
VIEW the
image at ALL.. The simple FACT is that once the image has loaded onto
your machine it is already "downloaded" into your browser cache and
therefore you too have been doing Illegal and Unethical practices.

End Of Story.

discuws said:

Ebbie,

First you asked is it legal? I do not think it is because yout take
something from somebody else. Asking permission will make it legal.
Also when somebody has a copyright statement on his website you
always has to ask first.

Then your second question: Is it ethical? see above First ask not,
sometimes ALLWAYS ask permission.

But then you where asking a third question may I print it????
NOOOOO NEVER without permission, its not your work!!!. Again first
ask permission.

Your first question lets people think nice person somebody does not
know how to handle. In your own response you said to yourself I
don't mind.... But thats the problem you didn't took the photo's.
When you did and you don't mind if other people use them put them
on a page and mention that they can use it....

Thats how I think after seeing my photo's back in books and a lot
of websites even with a copyright notice below every page where
I say that using and reproducing without written permission is not
allowed.

regards Walter

Click to expand...

--

I am not a Professional but I did stay at Holiday Inn!
Please take a look at my gallery!
http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/brett_dimichele

--
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

Daniella68313 · Apr 13, 2004

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

Cheers!

--
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

Noah_Mercy · Apr 13, 2004

Dear Mike,

I didn't mean to be terse here, glad didn't take offense.

What you've said in this thread (what I've read anyway), seems to pretty closely agree with my interpretation also.

You are right there is way too much ignorance on copyright law. That was why I wanted to emphasize the actual text of the fair-use, to avoid needless debate and help clarify for everone. Seems you agree, thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, there are some "grey" areas left open for interp. even in the clear and consice fair use act.

See ya round'

KC

Wild-Mike said:
Noah_Mercy said:

Dear Mike,

The link you provided seems to provide a very distorted
interpertation of the Fair Use clause. For instance it implies
that a use must meet ALL four of the criteria listed to be
exempted. This is simply inaccurate. For example, if I reproduce
a work a in whole (say a diagram) for use as an instructional aid
in a public school classroom, it is exempted under fair use.

Click to expand...

Opps, I meant to post this one which is a guidline but not the
actual law:
http://www.csusa.org/face/stilim/index.htm
Here is the actual copyright website from the US Government:
http://www.copyright.gov/

I have read the complete copyright laws in the past and also filed
for copyrights on some of my paintings. I worked with other artists
and also helped a number of friends with copyright issues. My
business of 10 years now is involved in graphic arts displayed on
the Internet so I do consult with our business attorneys regarding
copyright and liabilty issues. I just spend $2750.00 in attorney
fees regarding a liability issue just recently.

As I stated, I'm just trying to clear up some miss-conceptions
about copyright ...especially since it does directly involve my
business and my customers whom also require our services to protect
against infringements. I have intervened in a number of copyright
violations and acted as a liaison between my attorneys and my
advertising clients.

I have to know the law since my business could be held liable if
any of my customers violated copyright laws. In viewing many of
the responses on this message forum about copyright, it's no wonder
so many abuses take place. Also, this isn't the first time this
debate happened here.

BTW, in your previous post I did not take any offense (just didn't
feel like going any further with that post

Regards,
Mike

RDKirk · Apr 13, 2004

What is the good you're lookinig for when you ask "is it ethical?"

Doctors start with "First, do no harm," and then judge their actions in light of that first principle.

What is our principle? Is it "every person must profit from his own labor?" If so, then the question "Is it ethical?" is answered by "Does he lose a sale by my action?"

Is our principle "Do unto others as we'd have them do unto us?"

All this conversation is useless without an agreement of what our ethical principle is. After that, the answers are simply a matter of logical deduction.

--
RDKirk

'I know you're smarter than I am. But I think you're making up some of those words.' Rocky Rooster from 'Chicken Run'

Archermoo · Apr 13, 2004

peteb said:
Archermoo said:

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.

You seem not to understand how the internet and computers work. If I am not being given permission to download the image file and view it, then I cannot view it at all. I cannot view the image until I have downloaded it. It must exist on my computer for me to be able to view it. Therefor, for me to be able to view it at all, I must have permission to download it and view it.

As far as only being able to view the picture via the setting that the author intended, that is also not true. I can link directly to the picture without any of the surroundings of the intended page quite easily. They published in on the internet. Doing so means that people can download the file to their computer because that is the only way the file can be viewed.

And you continue to refuse to address my analogy regarding the copying of broadcast television programs. I can only assume that this is because you have no response for it. It is directly on point. The broadcast stations tried to make exactly the same claims that you make, i.e. that they only intended the broadcasts to be viewed how they wanted them to be viewed, and that by viewing them otherwise they were losing revenue due to lost advertising income. The courts did not find their arguments to be compelling, just as I do not find your arguments to be compelling.

--
Gary

Is it legal/ethical ...

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts