Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:18 pm
Corrie,
Your colleague sounds like fun. My Ph.D. is in a different social science but I too have published in the history of technology; it used to be a cognate of mine.
But this ain't no faculty lounge. It's a recreational forum in which few, if any, serious scholars regularly contribute. Depicting it as a hive of scholarship or research would, in my view, be a tough sell.
August
Your colleague sounds like fun. My Ph.D. is in a different social science but I too have published in the history of technology; it used to be a cognate of mine.
But this ain't no faculty lounge. It's a recreational forum in which few, if any, serious scholars regularly contribute. Depicting it as a hive of scholarship or research would, in my view, be a tough sell.
August
Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:50 pm
Depicting it as a hive of scholarship
I learn something here every day...
Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:50 pm
What about super-low resolution, highly pixelated images used in avetars? I took my photochop avetar down because of these guidelines... when an image is of such low resolution to be "not useful" and less identifiable, do these rules still apply? I am betting a large majority of the avetars on all bulletin boards; not just this one, are grabbed/modified in this manner.
Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:55 pm
My rule of thumb is post photos on the internet...just don't use the good ones. I've seen my photos all over the net...which is fine for me I don't make a living at it...BUT I do plan on doing a book someday with the "good" photos.
jim
jim
Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:12 pm
Edward Sheetmetalhands wrote:What about super-low resolution, highly pixelated images used in avetars? I took my photochop avetar down because of these guidelines... when an image is of such low resolution to be "not useful" and less identifiable, do these rules still apply? I am betting a large majority of the avetars on all bulletin boards; not just this one, are grabbed/modified in this manner.
The rules should still apply there, too, but there are a lot of avatars that are created for forums and are OK to use - you just ought to check on it first if it's not provided. I didn't take the photo in my avatar - but my sister did - and she's OK with me using it!
I tend to agree with August's comments on this thread (:shock:) but I personally have found that this is a good place to find folks who know folks who have information I want... so there is some form of scholarship taking place here at times. Just not as often as I would like. There's too much discussion over trivial stuff - not including a thread like this.
I'm guilty, too!
Ryan
Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:03 pm
It's a recreational board, sure. But it's also pretty clearly non-commercial as well. Between that and the at-least-occasional "non-profit educational" use, there's likely a reasonable Fair Use defense.
Slam-dunk / summary judgement?
Might depend on the judge.
fwiw, I, too, have had my work copied, mirrored, and reproduced without permission, notice and sometimes without attribution. I figure the law of karma applies, but I can afford to be sanguine - I've got a steady paycheck.
Slam-dunk / summary judgement?
Might depend on the judge.
fwiw, I, too, have had my work copied, mirrored, and reproduced without permission, notice and sometimes without attribution. I figure the law of karma applies, but I can afford to be sanguine - I've got a steady paycheck.
Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:53 am
Edward Sheetmetalhands wrote:What about super-low resolution, highly pixelated images used in avetars? I took my photochop avetar down because of these guidelines... when an image is of such low resolution to be "not useful" and less identifiable, do these rules still apply? I am betting a large majority of the avetars on all bulletin boards; not just this one, are grabbed/modified in this manner.
hehe...My Avatar is a photo that I took...
Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:50 am
Avatars: Probably infringing, but minimally so. Downsizing the borrowed image can help. For example, suppose I were to post a critical essay about one of my favorite aviation photographers, using a sample of 3 or 4 of his photos for illustration. Shrinking those to 300x200 rather than using them in their original full size probably would put me in a better position.
Scholarship: I'm not going to get into what is done on this forum qualifies as scholarship, because in the end it would probably just offend some folks who fancy themselves scholars. Just remember this -- what counts is not what goes on in the forum generally, but how and why the particular photo at issue was used. So the question is whether FH's photo of a 747SP beating up a field was posted for purposes of scholarly research. The answer to that might be different from why the pics in the Long Island aviation thread are posted. It's an individual, use-by-use inquiry.
August
Scholarship: I'm not going to get into what is done on this forum qualifies as scholarship, because in the end it would probably just offend some folks who fancy themselves scholars. Just remember this -- what counts is not what goes on in the forum generally, but how and why the particular photo at issue was used. So the question is whether FH's photo of a 747SP beating up a field was posted for purposes of scholarly research. The answer to that might be different from why the pics in the Long Island aviation thread are posted. It's an individual, use-by-use inquiry.
August
Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:30 am
JimH wrote:. . . I do plan on doing a book someday with the "good" photos.
That will be a great book, based on your travels - can't wait to see it.
PM sent about a related topic.
Wade
?????
Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:37 am
I do plan on doing a book someday with the "good" photos.
no no no...............
Make patches and insignia again!
Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:02 pm
This has certainly been an interesting discussion and as the person whose image spawned the thread, I feel I need to comment.
First off, had the original poster e-mailed me (and my address is right on the front page of my site) and asked if he could link to the image to provoke a discussion on this forum, it is likely I would have said yes. Instead he chose to disregard common courtesy (something that is almost non-existent in this country) and link to the image in spite of my disclaimer. At least someone from here was nice enough to e-mail me and let me know my image was being used.
As an aviation enthusiast most of my images are taken for hobby purposes, but I do some newspaper work and because of that I feel it necessary to place that statement on my web site.
As far as the "Fair Use" doctrine is concerned, I consider it garbage and think it should be eliminated from the copyright act completely. It's nothing more than something some politician stuck in there in an attempt to dilute copyright and serves no useful purpose other than to make it more difficult for legitimate copyright holders to seek recompense for improper use of their works.
Unfortunately, in the digital age we're faced with a double-edged sword. The internet makes it easier for us to share our images, but also make it easier for those images to be used improperly. There are always going to be those individuals who feel that anything on a website is fair game and will use it indiscriminately or illegally.
First off, had the original poster e-mailed me (and my address is right on the front page of my site) and asked if he could link to the image to provoke a discussion on this forum, it is likely I would have said yes. Instead he chose to disregard common courtesy (something that is almost non-existent in this country) and link to the image in spite of my disclaimer. At least someone from here was nice enough to e-mail me and let me know my image was being used.
As an aviation enthusiast most of my images are taken for hobby purposes, but I do some newspaper work and because of that I feel it necessary to place that statement on my web site.
As far as the "Fair Use" doctrine is concerned, I consider it garbage and think it should be eliminated from the copyright act completely. It's nothing more than something some politician stuck in there in an attempt to dilute copyright and serves no useful purpose other than to make it more difficult for legitimate copyright holders to seek recompense for improper use of their works.
Unfortunately, in the digital age we're faced with a double-edged sword. The internet makes it easier for us to share our images, but also make it easier for those images to be used improperly. There are always going to be those individuals who feel that anything on a website is fair game and will use it indiscriminately or illegally.
Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:11 pm
JWright,
Welcome to WIX. Thanks for the reply.
Ryan
Welcome to WIX. Thanks for the reply.
Ryan
Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:17 pm
JWright
I know what you mean. I have had photos and artwork "lifted" and used. I have also had folks ask to use, and I have granted that permission. It is a slippery thing to have images on the internet.
This thread has grown long with people arguing both sides. The one's who say "if it's on the web it's fair game to use for whatever they want to" really, really drive me nuts! And yet if I do a piece of art that happens to have a Boeing in it....I am nervous because I have heard of the big companies going after us "little people" for infringement!! Makes me want to do an art piece with "Redacted Pilot's name and Aircraft's name just to make a point! If historic aircraft and pilots can claim sole ownership of images, we are all in trouble!
Don't look at that jet, you'll owe Lockheed $10 for looking rights!
I know what you mean. I have had photos and artwork "lifted" and used. I have also had folks ask to use, and I have granted that permission. It is a slippery thing to have images on the internet.
This thread has grown long with people arguing both sides. The one's who say "if it's on the web it's fair game to use for whatever they want to" really, really drive me nuts! And yet if I do a piece of art that happens to have a Boeing in it....I am nervous because I have heard of the big companies going after us "little people" for infringement!! Makes me want to do an art piece with "Redacted Pilot's name and Aircraft's name just to make a point! If historic aircraft and pilots can claim sole ownership of images, we are all in trouble!
Don't look at that jet, you'll owe Lockheed $10 for looking rights!
Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:52 pm
RyanShort1 wrote:JWright,
Welcome to WIX. Thanks for the reply.
Ryan
Pleased to be here... I'll be checking in periodically as I'm sure there is a lot of good information to be had.
Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:34 pm
I don't have a lot to add other than to say that its strange, or maybe not, that despite being asked the question on several occasions FlyingHeritage or whatever they name is today, doesn't appear to have responded to the question asked by Ztex on his posts nor do they appear to have joined in this discussion!
Wonder why?
Wonder why?