|
Post by madratdan on Aug 23, 2007 8:55:12 GMT -5
I'd be careful what you type in for searches.......especially at work. ;D I typed in Burningman and got quite an eyeful.
|
|
|
Post by Azurerana on Aug 25, 2007 16:23:48 GMT -5
The issues are these (and they are technical):
1) There is no 'right of viewing or listening' under copyright protection. The laws were never intended to keep people from looking at anything, only from making COPIES and profiting therefrom without the permission of the creator.
2) This is complicated in digital media, because "viewing or listening" REQUIRES the reading/sound device to make a temporary construct of the image or sound by downloading the file into the CPU, the server, Ipod, or other device, and then recreating the original is a form which makes sense to humans. Doing this is permitted under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. What is forbidden is the "fixing" or copying of the code or file by another without the author/maker's permission.
ALL creations made in the US are automatically copyright since 1976. Trashing up an image with little letters doesn't affect the copyright ownership in the slightest. Creative Commons copylefts specifically designate which rights the author/maker has chosen to set free into the public domain, and under what conditions. Long before Creative Commons existed, I've been sending my stuff out into the world with a copyright mark, a date (the date is VITAL if you want to claim infringement, because it isn't who the creator is which is the most important thing in a court of law, but who can prove the earliest date of possession) and my name, with a little blurb that text/photos could be reproduced at will for non-profit educational purposes as long as my name stayed on it, and that commercial use was forbidden unless they contacted me. 98% of all people have been good about this...2% of all people are jerks, and we can't do anything about that.
No copyrights are being violated-- even All Rights Reserved ones-- when Flickr makes those little Flash slideshows, which reside on their server, and which are specifically made in a form to thwart unauthorized copying. Now, any tech humans can invent can be thwarted by humans, but the intrinsic value of a thumbnail image (jpegs <100K) is very small.
There is also something called a non-exclusive copyright. I've dealt in these several times. The author retains all rights, but shares the product with the non-exclusive copyright holder on a good faith (or fee) basis. Right now, The American Red Cross and Johnson & Johnson, Inc. are fighting over just this thing: The ARC adopted an inverted Swiss flag as its symbol long before J&J came along. When J&J arrived, they started using the same symbol. Now, some members of J&J want the ARC to cease using "their" symbol in trade-- ARC is marketing disaster kits using their company logo. This is all tied up in court right now, and has the added problem that it is both a copyright and a trademark issue.
A non-exclusive copyright is what the NSS has on a bunch of my articles and photos -- stuff in the 1997 Convention guidebook and Speleo Digests, none of which I ever received compensation for, and therefore, though they put a copyright on those publications, I can still freely use my stuff too without asking them boo. Even stuff I sell with first NA Serial rights-- after publication, I can resell those items freely (though I usually tweak them around for a new audience.)
So, no, stuff on the Net isn't there just for the taking. But at the same time, think of this: (OLD FOGEY ALERT) when I got into the poetry, prose and photo biz back about 1976, if I would have been told that people AROUND THE WORLD could look at my words and pictures for free, and that some English speaking someone in oh, Ukraine, could log on, look up Missouri springs, and within a minute or two be reading my priceless words on the subject, I'd have taken a powder and lay down. Twenty-somethings take this ability for GRANTED.
Maybe everyone needs to look at the big picture here: communication and getting one's ideas out more than 50 miles from one's house and to more people than one's friends and relatives, and BE HAPPY!!
|
|
NZcaver
Beginner
U.S. Caver
Posts: 140
|
Post by NZcaver on Aug 25, 2007 22:10:42 GMT -5
Touche!
Thanks, Azurerana - very informative post.
|
|
Brian Roebuck
Site Admin
Caver
Caving - the one activity that really brings you to your knees!
Posts: 2,732
|
Post by Brian Roebuck on Aug 26, 2007 6:39:14 GMT -5
Az, Thanks for the legal advice. This is a topic that will likely continue to be debated. From my point of view and in order to be clear to everyone I would like to explain what causes so much irritation with Flickr slideshow apps and other similar third party slideshows. Flickr allows public photos to be used by third party apps etc for display wherever they want. The issue with this is that no credit or mention of the photo's origin is given (regardless if the image shown is a low resolution thumbnail or whatever). This is in contrast with the actual Flickr website where all this information and more is available and well displayed. This then allows anyone to misrepresent the images they display as their own unless they are kind enough to actually state the slide show is from Flickr and contain random images from many photographers. Not everyone is that kind or ethical. Guanonoggin had a point I thought about. I am sure we would all hate to see our children or grandchildren's photos displayed in a Flickr "random" photo slideshow on some website associated with the exploitation of minors etc. This as Az points out is perfectly legal. Should it be? Even Flickr itself states that if anyone tells you not to use their photos you should remove them from such a slideshow or any other display software. It's legal for anyone of us to jump off a cliff as well. Who's first? Point is - just because something is legal doesn't make it the right thing to do. Common courtesy and decency goes a long way in this world. Why can't cavers simply respect each other and be courteous and kind to all?
|
|
|
Post by Azurerana on Aug 26, 2007 12:52:13 GMT -5
The answer to controlling digital image rights, is, of course, to maintain you own website, and disable right-click photo downloads. If you all ever go this route, I have some html thumbnail code you can use. See page members.socket.net/~joschaper/sprclos.html or aubertacres.netfirms.com/artwork.html. Or, heck, you can steal the code right off the page, and replace your own image names. These examples do not disable right clicking -- just google disable right click download for several applets, and other mini-codes (both pay and free) to do this.
|
|
|
Post by Azurerana on Aug 26, 2007 21:01:58 GMT -5
Guanonoggin had a point I thought about. I am sure we would all hate to see our children or grandchildren's photos displayed in a Flickr "random" photo slideshow on some website associated with the exploitation of minors etc. This as Az points out is perfectly legal. Actually, that may not be perfectly legal. If the photos can be construed as promoting an illegal or in some cases, even a merely morally distasteful activity, and the photos are being used without permission, that might be called a defamatory and libelous use, which is different from a copyright issue. I'm sure in Flickr's gray usage policy (I've never read it) there is some legal mumbo jumbo about misuse of Flickr images for illegal, libelous, obscene etc., etc., purposes. If such a thing happened, might be worth exploring with a lawyer. That's different from just linking cave related photos to a cave related website, or even just misappropriating photos for purely commercial purposes. Folks, I'm not a lawyer, and what you read here is just my .02, not a legal opinion. I've just read enough books in journalism law to keep me out of obvious trouble. Beaner is correct that by following common courtesy and playing nice (an old-fashioned idea to a lot of the population) a lot of legal trouble can be avoided. But if everyone played nice, we wouldn't need an awful lot of laws...
|
|
L Roebuck
Technical Support
Caving
^V^ Just a caver
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by L Roebuck on Aug 27, 2007 9:01:11 GMT -5
The issues are these (and they are technical): As an FYI - nope it was not me who "threatened" legal action. But I do not doubt it may have been one of the others who have filed complaints.
|
|