Digital Imaging etiquette and WIX

[k5083]

Now, none of these arguments are dispositive, but they could be made. And as I understand it, there's a legal procedure to have a case thrown out simply because the defense stands a good chance of winning.

Ooh, I hope I can find out more about that one. I could win a lot more cases.

As to the rest of your post on fair use: No. Just no.

August

[Bluedharma]

Also, despite all claims to the contrary, this is still a *PRIVATE* forum since guests can't post on it.
As such, all who post must agree to the rules of the forum.
So, no matter what "fair use" claims to protect, if you violate the rules of the forum,
you are guilty of the rule infractions and the penalties that may ensue (i.e. suspension or banning).

100% correct!!!

[Ztex]

This horse seems to be dying a slow death

I think I will lock it down...if everyone has not had there chance to rant a rave a bit please send me a PM and we'll talk.

Thanks

[Lynn Allen]

Well at least they didn't get the D-Day stripes wrong.....

Lynn

[RSpivey]

What part of fair use do you people not understand. He is not at any time making the statement that he took the picture, nor is he using it for monetary uses.

It is clear that you do not understand fair use at all. If I copy MS Windows or Madagascar 2 and give them away for free, I'm not claiming I authored them and I'm not making any money. Think Microsoft and DreamWorks will feel it's okay?

Is MS Windows a picture? No. And since I was talking about a Photograph, next....

Using the argument of several in this thread no picture of anykind should be posted by anyone unless they took it or made it themselves.

By George, I think he's got it! Or unless that person gives permission. Fair use is a narrow exception, it is rare when it applies with any certainty.

Fair Use is a Legal Defensible Position NOT a right. That given, as has been mentioned, he would win in court. Especially seeing as the site owner is trying to blanket out the Fair Use of his photographs.

And no the legality was brought up by skybolt and RyanShort1 on page one

The owner of the photograph clearly does not want it used without permission, "All photos on this site are copyrighted and therefore may not be used without permission. This includes hotlinking. We can be contated at jphotow@cox.net." Perhaps Wixlova--err,Flying Heritage has permission to use it. Just because someone has a photograph on their website does not grant you permission to use it. The only exception could be under 'fair use' or if it is in the public domain.

There was no mention of forum rules, just copyright, so I would appreciate you not accusing me of being the one to start this.

And if the guy is worried about hotlinking and "bandwidth theft" (a term which is a discussion in itself) do what I did and disable hotlinking, move the heavily hit files, or just password them.

Thats all I have on the matter, I only made my original post to show the definition of the "fair use" stance. Not to further an argument.

[RyanShort1]

RSpivey,

I don't think you really understand the fair use thing. If you were taking PART of a picture - say because it had a different antenna, then maybe, but not the whole thing unless it falls within pretty narrow guidelines like August mentioned. It can be tough at times to be honest and follow the copyright laws, especially when it's oh so easy to do, but one must try.

BTW, on a minor point you could say that Windows IS an image - burned on the CD or the hard drive.

Also, some of us don't disable hotlinking because WE like to use the feature from our own websites on occasion:shock: ! That said, it's annoying when someone else eats up bandwidth I'm paying for. Of course, we can do what you mentioned and move them, change things, etc... but it's better to address those doing it, than to force the website owners to do damage control.

The annoying thing that keeps getting overlooked is that a LOT of us who take or post photos up on the web really and truly wouldn't mind if someone asked, and let us know what they were using it for. For instance there are things I would say NO to, but a lot I would be perfectly OK with.

I get kind of annoyed about this because one time I was made aware of a group that had virtually stolen almost ALL of my images AND text and made it into their own little website - which looked AWFUL by the way. They then had the nerve to try and get me to link to and endorse their site...

Ryan

[Ztex]

Thread reopened and modified for the discussion that ensued from the original postings.

Be civil and understand that US law and WIX policy are not not the same thing. There is great leeway given here on the board. My point was to at least attempt to give credit to the photographer and or the site that the photo came from.
There is usually much more interesting information about a photo or the subject on the corresponding site that may be of interest to the rest of us as well.

Please go back and read the begining of this thread for a copy of the WIX policy.

Thanks
Zane

Last edited by Ztex on Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[k5083]

Is MS Windows a picture? No. And since I was talking about a Photograph, next....

Doesn't matter. The law is the same.

Fair Use is a Legal Defensible Position NOT a right. That given, as has been mentioned, he would win in court. Especially seeing as the site owner is trying to blanket out the Fair Use of his photographs.

Ah yes, an LDP. Well, Wix is not the first place where an ethically challenged individual has taken others' photos to post on web sites. You don't have to attempt your own analysis of the fair use factors; it has been done. Guess how it came out.

I post these comments just for information, to prevent other users from getting the idea that fair use would protect them if they did what flyingheritage does. For purposes of what to do on Wix, Zane's point moots this discussion. To the extent there are grey areas, Wix avoids them by having a more conservative and ethical rule. Good for Wix.

August

[skydaddy61]

Thanks for re-opening the discussion; it's an important topic. I think we can keep it civil and on the merits.

[quote=August (k5803)]- [quote=skydaddy61 ]
Now, none of these arguments are dispositive, but they could be made. And as I understand it, there's a legal procedure to have a case thrown out simply because the defense stands a good chance of winning. [/quote]
Ooh, I hope I can find out more about that one. I could win a lot more cases.

As to the rest of your post on fair use: No. Just no.

August[/quote]

As I said, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just repeating what I've read. I'll see if I can find some more information on the "toss it out b/c they'll win" thing. It may apply only in a very narrow context. I do know that civil suits often get settled out of court if there's any chance of losing before a jury.

As regards Fair Use, iIf you disagree with my characterization of how Fair Use would apply to this situation, I'd appreciate some details. I deal with this a lot in my job. (I work at a college, supporting faculty who use media and technology in their classes.) I've been to a lot of seminars on it, including one just a couple of weeks ago. Here's the archive of the presentation: http://connect.educause.edu/Library/Abstract/CopyrightBalanceandFairUs/47988 .

The presenter stated that Fair Use was a legal right, and that organizations could not enforce terms of service that restricted those rights. (The context was a question regarding YouTube saying that you can't download videos from its site. The presenter stated that because it is legal to use videos under Fair Use, that YouTube could not enforce that provision of its ToS.)

As regards hotlinking, someone said that it was illegal - called it "theft of bandwidth." Again, I'd like to see some details. "Hotlinking" is just an IMG tag with a fully-qualified URL in the SRC attribute. It's part of the W3C spec for HTML. I find it hard to see how that's illegal in any jurisdiction. Yes, I know that some people pay for their server space by the hit, but isn't that their choice of web host?

All that said, if a photographer puts a notice on his website that says, "don't link to my images," then it's rude to do so no matter how legal it may be. And if this site has a policy that says "The mods will ban you if you hotlink without permission" then they can do that.

If folks don't like it, well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIllRdSzSug

Last edited by skydaddy61 on Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

[RSpivey]

For those who should require more information on copyright and fair use.

http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... _Overview/

I could continue this debate or argue the other point that its not a proper copyright notice on the photo itself (a matter of technicality only). But I will let you all make up your own minds, which you have already done. And for the record I have had my work taken and used in its entirety for other purposes and my name removed from it completely, so I know why a few of you are ticked off at this. But the original intent of this thread was to make a comment on a photograph taken by someone other than the poster. A photograph which he left all legal copyright notices on (the notice on the gentlemans website is a blanket notice trying to remove any legitimate fair use and would be thrown out, so I'm not counting that.) In my opinion that is a fair use of the photograph.

However, I do have one question. If he had cropped the photo and removed the copyright notice and put it on photobucket, would this discussion have went this far? If the answer is yes then it's a clear case of a personal problem with the poster. Because without that notice you wouldn't know who took the photograph unless it was you. You couldn't prove who took it and therefore have no argument, unless that is you search the internet for it. Again, personal problem.

[skydaddy61]

My lawyer buddy in New York replied:

I think you're talking about summary judgement where either party asks the judge for a ruling without argument. It's granted when the Judge thinks that one side has an overwhelming case.

[k5083]

Skydaddy,

Okay. I wasn't going to do this, but your interest in more detail seems genuine. Fair use is a balancing test. It doesn't much matter whether you call it a "right". Technically it's an exception to a right (that being copyright) carved out in recognition, you could say, of the rights of everyone else. Anyway there are those factors in the statute which you quoted, all of which have been analyzed and ruled upon extensively.

It's not for me to comment on whether what somebody did was legal or not, but here are some considerations that go into the analysis.

Before even getting to the four factors at the bottom, you look at the first part where you've highlighted "comment," "scholarship", and "research". These must be the reasons for the USE OF THE WORK, not just the place where it's posted. The statute's notion of scholarship and research is more serious than what goes on in our man caves. And "comment" really means critical comment on the work, like when a newspaper reviews an art exhibition and has pictures of one or two of the works on display. Did flyingheritage post the pic here for those purposes?

Then if we got to the factors again, it doesn't matter whether the forum's purpose is commercial, whether its members are affiliated with nonprofits, etc. -- read the provision, it says the purpose and character OF THE USE must be that. Was the pic posted for nonprofit educational purposes? On the nature of the work, photos have strong copyright protection. On the amount copied, how much of the photo was copied? On the effect on the value of the work, who would know best how to maximize the work's value -- the owner, or someone who wants to use it for free?

The purpose of fair use is to allow serious criticism and commentary on copyrighted works to take place, to further the exchange of ideas and inspire the creation of new works. It is not to let a guy who thinks a photo is cool and wants to share it with others, do so.

Summary judgment, yes, I've won and lost my share of those. Unfortunately you don't get it just for having a good chance of winning; you've got to pretty much show that it's a sure thing.

Robert, yes, I think that "If he had cropped the photo and removed the copyright notice and put it on photobucket," we might still have reason to suspect it wasnt his photo. And I don't give him any credit for leaving on the copyright notice. That's just like stealing your car and painting "Stolen from Robert" on it. It's no less wrong, just easier to detect.

August

[skydaddy61]

August,

Thanks for taking the time to craft a thoughtful response. It illustrates well the difficulty of creating blanket policies. There's a lot of room for reasonable people to come to different conclusions, depending on the particulars.

I agree that the statute is primarily designed to permit serious scholarship and commentary, but I'd disagree with the notion that this is just a man cave. Sure, there are aspects of that (you can find that in a faculty lounge as well) but content that's posted here also informs serious scholarship.

For example, a colleague of mine - a Ph.D. in American transport history who literally wrote the book on streetcar manufacturers - teaches a class on the history of American technology. Naturally, the War Effort is a major unit. A few weeks ago I sent him a link to the thread of Grumman factory photos someone posted here. He was ecstatic. The stuff was an absolute gold mine to him.

[armyjunk2]

skydaddy61, I think that is me

[skydaddy61]

skydaddy61, I think that is me

You made his day. (Mine, too, because I sometimes teach about the different kinds of prototyping in computer interface design, and the pictures of those plywood mockups are terrific illustrations of the concept!)

Corrie