Copyright and Picasa

Joseph Testagrose wrote in
:

People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE

Care to cite your sources?

This is an issue that interests me and I've done quite a bit of reading...
and from what I see, you honestly don't know what you're talking about.

"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited
use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights
holders, such as use for scholarship or review." (Wikipedia)

The Copyright act of 1976 says "the fair use of a copyrighted work,
including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any
other means specified by 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."

Is it for criticism of the photo or the plane? Maybe it qualifies. But
just saying "gee, pretty picture" wouldn't count as criticism.

Is it for comment? Again, I don't think "gee, pretty airplane" is what
they had in mind.

News reporting? Hard to say how that applies to a photo of planes that are
(sometimes) many years old. If someone is reporting on a airshow, they
MIGHT have some legitimate fair use claim, but I doubt that most websites
could legitimately call themselves "news sources," even in a world where
bloggers are getting press credentials.

Teaching? Even less likely than news reporting.

Scolarship or research? Again, it's a real stretch that most people could
make a legitimate claim.

Wikipedia also sites several misunderstandings of fair use. The following
are also from their article on that subject:

Acknowledgment of the source makes a use fair. Giving the name of the
photographer or author may help, but it is not sufficient on its own.
Copyright is a matter of law. Citing sources generally prevents accusations
of plagiarism, but is not a sufficient defense against copyright violations
(otherwise, anyone could legally reprint an entire copyrighted book just by
citing who wrote it).

Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Not true, though a judge may take the
profit motive or lack thereof into account. In L.A. Times v. Free Republic,
the court found that the noncommercial use of L.A. Times content by the
Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the
public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for.

AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY
RIGHT PROTECTION.

Well, it's clear that YOU need to learn about copyright law. ALL photos
that I take are automatically copyrighted (and entitled to copyright
protection), the moment I take them. That is the law in more than 150
countries and is enforced by international treaty, the Berne Convention.

In the US you have to register the copyright to be able to sue for damages,
but that's the only "official" step you need to take.




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

At least someone else in here has read that other then me and as an
educator I have a pretty good understanding. And yes just using a photo
on your site because you think it is nice is self promotion and is a
Violation of copyright.

Read the case law and stop with the stupid comments when you don't
know what you are talking about.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:14:46 GMT, "Glenn"
wrote:

But you don't have a fair right to it either.

Try and profit from one of anyone elses images and you'd not have much of a
leg to stand on.
Sounds to me like you are trying to justify putting an image you have seen
on the web to promote your own business. as I understand it, the US
copyright law (not anyone elses) states that it is for non profit
organisations like charities. Not companies and not websites for the fun of
it.

jump up and down all you like, it seems that you using my photo is more
upsetting to you than it is to me.

curious, do you work for webshots. They like to bluff as well but they pull
the images before it gets into a bum fight.



"Joseph Testagrose" wrote in message
.. .
People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
wrote:

Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright
expires.
Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
copyrights.)

Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its
use.
The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.

But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs.
Check
wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed
explanation.

Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?

They didn't ask?

Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
method they use to access the photo.

Yes and posting pictures for educational purposes and not for profit
is fair use, once again read the case law (the decisons) from the
various Federal District Courts. Wikipedia is not the case law and
their are four fair use tests that must be decided by the Courts.
Simply put 1-Purpose & character of the use, 2-The nature of the
copyrighted work, 3-Amount & 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.

For example if I had a web site (I don;t) and used copyrighted
pictures on it I could claim it is for educational purposes such as
teaching people the history of aviation I would probably win on One.
Depending on the orginal artistic merit of the photo I might win or
lose on Two. Three I probably would lose and Four I am not making
money on the infringment and you have to prove that you lost money and
the monatary value of your copyrighted work, I probably would win on
Four. Case dismissed, fair use.
Once again read the case law. Joe.

On 01 Nov 2008 05:46:46 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

Joseph Testagrose wrote in
:

People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE

Care to cite your sources?

This is an issue that interests me and I've done quite a bit of reading...
and from what I see, you honestly don't know what you're talking about.

"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited
use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights
holders, such as use for scholarship or review." (Wikipedia)

The Copyright act of 1976 says "the fair use of a copyrighted work,
including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any
other means specified by 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."

Is it for criticism of the photo or the plane? Maybe it qualifies. But
just saying "gee, pretty picture" wouldn't count as criticism.

Is it for comment? Again, I don't think "gee, pretty airplane" is what
they had in mind.

News reporting? Hard to say how that applies to a photo of planes that are
(sometimes) many years old. If someone is reporting on a airshow, they
MIGHT have some legitimate fair use claim, but I doubt that most websites
could legitimately call themselves "news sources," even in a world where
bloggers are getting press credentials.

Teaching? Even less likely than news reporting.

Scolarship or research? Again, it's a real stretch that most people could
make a legitimate claim.

Wikipedia also sites several misunderstandings of fair use. The following
are also from their article on that subject:

Acknowledgment of the source makes a use fair. Giving the name of the
photographer or author may help, but it is not sufficient on its own.
Copyright is a matter of law. Citing sources generally prevents accusations
of plagiarism, but is not a sufficient defense against copyright violations
(otherwise, anyone could legally reprint an entire copyrighted book just by
citing who wrote it).

Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Not true, though a judge may take the
profit motive or lack thereof into account. In L.A. Times v. Free Republic,
the court found that the noncommercial use of L.A. Times content by the
Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the
public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for.

AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY
RIGHT PROTECTION.

Well, it's clear that YOU need to learn about copyright law. ALL photos
that I take are automatically copyrighted (and entitled to copyright
protection), the moment I take them. That is the law in more than 150
countries and is enforced by international treaty, the Berne Convention.

In the US you have to register the copyright to be able to sue for damages,
but that's the only "official" step you need to take.




................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

So Now you are a Lawyer and Judge specializing in copyright law?

Joseph Testagrose wrote in
:

For example if I had a web site (I don;t) and used copyrighted
pictures on it I could claim it is for educational purposes such as
teaching people the history of aviation I would probably win on One.

Wait... you mean all I have to do is CLAIM that it's for educational
purposes and I'm covered? Really? So I can post photos of naked women
and call it an anatomy lesson and be covered? That's great!

Ok, sarcasm aside, I wouldn't bet the farm on you winning that first test
if all you've done is post some photos and called it education. What are
you teaching? Are you giving information in a structured manner? Are
you adding anything to help people understand the photos in the context
of the history of aviation? Posting 1,000 photos starting with the
Wright flyer and ending with the F-22 isn't education, it's a photobucket
account. You yourself said that you would probably lose on the third
test (Amount & substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole) so without that, how could you possibly
support the claim of education? And the fourth test, effect of the use
upon the potential market for the photo is only going to keep you from
being sued for damages.

I'll agree that Wikipedia isn't the law... call it legalese for dummies.
But I also cited a section of the Copyright Act of 1976. All you've done
is say "read case history." CITE your sources. Give us an actual
example. Show us how any tom, dick or harry can take photos from here,
drop them on a website and call it "education" and get away with it.



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Joseph Testagrose wrote in
:

Read the case law and stop with the stupid comments when you don't
know what you are talking about.

The irony of that statement is quite amusing.



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Profit is the key here.

Taking an image from this group and putting it on a page not for
profit - I don't see the harm in that.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:14:46 GMT, "Glenn"
wrote:

But you don't have a fair right to it either.

Try and profit from one of anyone elses images and you'd not have much of a
leg to stand on.
Sounds to me like you are trying to justify putting an image you have seen
on the web to promote your own business. as I understand it, the US
copyright law (not anyone elses) states that it is for non profit
organisations like charities. Not companies and not websites for the fun of
it.

jump up and down all you like, it seems that you using my photo is more
upsetting to you than it is to me.

curious, do you work for webshots. They like to bluff as well but they pull
the images before it gets into a bum fight.



"Joseph Testagrose" wrote in message
.. .
People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT
WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY RIGHT PROTECTION.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:45:17 +0000, Peter Hucker
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:52:05 +0100, Richard Brooks
wrote:

Peter Hucker said the following on 20/10/2008 19:53:
On 20 Oct 2008 18:30:20 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

Even if a photo (or any work) is uploaded to a newsgroup, you are not
automatically granted the right to use it as you choose. Uploading it
does NOT put it in the public domain. There is never a time when it
automatically goes in to public domain until after the copyright
expires.
Under current US law, could be 100+ years. (You have the Disney
corporation (among others) to thank for pushing for longer and longer
copyrights.)

Granted, the copyright holder may have a difficult time preventing you
from using it or tracking you down if you do use the photo without
permission, but they have (almost) complete legal control over its
use.
The "almost" part refers to gray areas surrounding parody and reviews.

But copyright is WAY to complex to be explained in 2 paragraphs.
Check
wikipedia for a better overview and links to more detailed
explanation.

Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?

They didn't ask?

Not enough of a difference. The people accessing them are still seein
a photo with the author's name on it, all that has changed is the
method they use to access the photo.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

"Americans will always do the right thing when they have exhausted all other alternatives." -- Winston Churchill

On 02 Nov 2008 05:09:44 GMT, mrorwell mrorwell wrote:

Joseph Testagrose wrote in
:

For example if I had a web site (I don;t) and used copyrighted
pictures on it I could claim it is for educational purposes such as
teaching people the history of aviation I would probably win on One.

Wait... you mean all I have to do is CLAIM that it's for educational
purposes and I'm covered? Really? So I can post photos of naked women
and call it an anatomy lesson and be covered? That's great!

You can post them anyway. Naked woman aren't illegal.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

_,=.=,_
,'=. `\___,
/ \ (0 | __ _
/ \ ___/ /| | ''--.._
| | \) || | ===|\
', _/ .--' || | ====| |
`"`; ( || | ===|/
[[[[]]_..,_ \|_|_..--;"`
/ .--""``\\ __)__|_
.' .\,,||___ | |
( .' -""`| `"";___)---'|________|__
|\ / __| [_____________________]
\| .-' `\ |.----------.|
\ _ | || ||
( .-' ) || ||
`""""""""""""` """ """

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:09:31 GMT, "Glenn"
wrote:


"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:13:56 GMT, "Glenn"
wrote:



Then the US have it completely wrong.

What is the difference between people seeing your work on the
newsgroup, and people seeing your work on somebody else's webpage,
with attributions to you?

I may not want it to go on another website.

Why on earth not?

Not that it is of any concern to you.

You made the statement, of course you need to back it up.

But I may have allegience with one website over another
I have certain criteria that I have abided by to get permission that
involves careful usage. same applies to magazines etc.
I most certainly do not want the image used in another website that tries to
sell it.

Then that's between the two websites, why should it concern you?
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Lysdexia: a peech imspediment we live to learn with...