Digital Imaging etiquette and WIX

[skydaddy61]

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.

I'm not one of those who thinks, "If it's online, it's free for the taking." I'm not trying to justify someone's bad behavior, but I'll defend Fair Use all day.

As an educator, I see Fair Use as an absolutely vital tool for teaching and scholarship, by defining proper and accepted use of copyrighted works. Fair Use allows a psychology prof to show a few minutes of "The Aviator" to her class to illustrate the devastation of severe OCD. It allows a history prof to show a few minutes of "Strategic Air Command" to his class to illustrate the MAD doctrine and the role of SAC in the 1950's. It allows an art teacher to show her students the work of Jackson Pollock and Walt Disney. It lets the local newspaper publish a photograph of a new sculpture, or a movie critic to broadcast a clip from a new movie to show how great (or awful) it is. Lawmakers realized that the benefit of this use to the public at large greatly outweighs any harm it does to the creators of the works.


And seriously, suppose you put a no-copy/no-link script on your site. Would AH pay you a penny for the legal right to hotlink or download your images? Not likely! It might prevent the downloading or hotlinking, but it wouldn't net you any revenue. Besides, he could just do a screen capture and paste it into Paint, or take a picture with his cell phone. Is that wrong? Sure it is. But the point is, there's no way to prevent it, or even detect it (unless he reposts the images and you happen to run across them).

[Dave Cheeseman]

Great thread, thanks to all involved for the info.

Dave C

[Edward Sheetmetalhands]

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?

So basically flying heritage got banned. I always thought it would be cool for them to get a chance for them to say a limited qty of words as their last post, kind of like when going before the executioner. In that way, they would have to think before posting, for the first time in their life.

[flyingheritage]

Some stuff posted about me didnt even meet the truth regarding this issue. It would help if people double checked before they posted facts or trying to put a slur to me.


So.............. im not going to bother posting all my warbird information onto WIX from now on.
Whatever i find out there in world web on information ill just keeep to myself and other mates locally.

Seems there is a lot of information + photos others never have found or will find - i did and shared it for everyone benefit.


That all ends today.

You can all go look for your information yourselves and miss out if you cant find it.

[k5083]

JWright's cynical position on fair use is not unusual for copyright creators. Skydaddy is not quite right that fair use is needed to "allow" the educational uses he mentioned. After all, the professors could just buy the DVD of the movies or reproductions of the paintings like anyone else if they want to show them to their students. Fair use just allows them to do it for free. JWright might ask, why give educators a free ride at the expense of authors and artists?

If the answer is that teachers won't pay for these materials, then they must not need them all that much.

If the answer is that teachers can't afford to pay for these materials, then the problem is under-funding of our educational system, which should be addressed directly rather than forcing authors and artists to donate the use of their work.

However, copyright holders like JWright are also missing an important point. The copyright laws were not created for their benefit. The copyright laws are to stimulate the production of more creative works for the benefit of society as a whole. Allowing authors and artists the exclusive right to profit, supposedly for a limited period, from their work is nothing more than the mechanism for that societal benefit. When you understand this, it then makes perfect sense to say that you should carve out areas from copyright protection where free use of the material has a greater benefit to society than allowing the authors and artists to earn a few extra bucks. And that is what fair use is about.

August

[k5083]

Personal jab deleted.

August

Last edited by k5083 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Pat]

So.............. im not going to bother posting all my warbird information onto WIX from now on.
Whatever i find out there in world web on information ill just keeep to myself and other mates locally.

Seems there is a lot of information + photos others never have found or will find - i did and shared it for everyone benefit.


That all ends today.

You can all go look for your information yourselves and miss out if you cant find it.

Flyingheritage/HGUCSU/Wixlova- Is that a threat, or a promise?

[JWright]

Some stuff posted about me didnt even meet the truth regarding this issue. It would help if people double checked before they posted facts or trying to put a slur to me.


So.............. im not going to bother posting all my warbird information onto WIX from now on.
Whatever i find out there in world web on information ill just keeep to myself and other mates locally.

Seems there is a lot of information + photos others never have found or will find - i did and shared it for everyone benefit.


That all ends today.

You can all go look for your information yourselves and miss out if you cant find it.

It's your decision but I (and many other photographers I know) would have had no objection to you posting the url of my site with a not along the lines of "Take a look at this guy's aircraft photos..."

[Mark_Pilkington]

August,

thankyou for your informed but "layman" explanations for the rest of us to comprehend and understand.

I would however like to pick up on a point raised above by someone else and perhaps a case of the law not keeping up with technology.

The photo of the 747 that began this thread, and belongs to John Wright and is clearly stored on a server at the URL address of

http://johnwright.smugmug.com/photos/40 ... 99cg-L.jpg

The photo has disappeared with flyingheritages removal of his post but I found link that still embedded in the properties of the link in the first/second post of this thread.

The hotlink feature used here in WIX simply permits the computer screen to display that original image from "John's" server onto my screen, it isnt "copied" or "stored" on the WIX server in any way?

There are many instances here on WIX (I think you referred to it with your own photos August) where the owner later removes a photo from the original server or simply blocks hotlinking to it, and the "copied" image at WIX ceases to show, thereby confirming where it resides.

Perhaps in "redirecting" or "broadcasting" John's image still on his server via hotlink on WIX I am committing the same infringement as playing a legal music CD or Movie Video to the public or in a commercial venue for profit, rather than "copying" I am "displaying" their image without permission?

Given that the internet consists of many servers interconnecting data from the original servers to get the WIX forum to appear on my screen in Australia, are the current laws really suitable to manage the Internet?

Also given that copyright laws vary around the world, how do local jurisdictions apply to a "crime" or "civil" infringement undertaken across multiple locations, ie I assume John's server is in the USA, I know "flyingheritage" operates from Australia, yet I assume the WIX forum server is also in the USA.

Who committed the crime/infringement? the person in Australia?
Where was the crime/infringement committed? Australia on the persons PC, in the USA on the WIX server, or on John's Server?
Where is the stolen or copied image - still residing on John's Server?
Where is the image on WIX - still residing on John's Server?
Where is the image on my PC screen? - still residing on John's server?

John is permitting me to view the image directly from his server publicly at no cost, how is he injured by me viewing it via a hotlink on WIX, still on my screen, from his Server?

In addition Images I look at on screen, often cache to temporary internet files on my pc as a function of windows and IE to assist fast loading of repeat pages, unintentionally and without respect of anyone's copyright.

Another side of this issue is that there are many aviation photo archives where collectors have borrowed, copied old negatives over many years, yet in the digital world moved to place those photos on the Net as collections with the photo marked "copyright" to themselves regardless of the original photographer, nor the expiry of the original photographers copyright "rights"?

If I modify/photoshop a 60 year old photo that is now in the public domain, improve its contrast, crop it, put a caption on it, (even only putting my own "copyright" label on it) have I manufactured a new image that is entitled to current copyright protection?

All very interesting, and again thanks for your informed legal insights, and plain english explanations?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

[Holedigger]

There is another rule for the site, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. IT is right and proper to educate and inform forum members if infractions are happening. This thread has had a lot of good debate, information, good natured bantering and a bit of personal bashing. I do not believe flyingheritage had any malicious intent, rules bent and broken perhaps, but no reason to get nasty. He was sharing his passion for warbirds, and who here can say that they have not EVER borrowed, stole, copied images off the web that were not their own? So lets keep this in a civil tone. He found some interesting pics and was excited enough to want to share them with his friends at the WIX. (we all can't be Jack and have millions of our own pics to browse through and share). Online LAW of Images is a loose and slippery thing, something to be interpreted and reinterpreted from time to time.

Lets keep it civil. I find it troubling that some want to use flyingheritage as a punching bag. Use the example, educate, but please refrain from attacks, innuendo and baiting!

[EXPAT0149]

Holedigger has hit the nail on the head .

[Nathan]

He was sharing his passion for warbirds, and who here can say that they have not EVER borrowed, stole, copied images off the web that were not their own?

I agree holedigger. I bet a lot of peoples avatars on WIX is not from their own photos. My avatar was off a free site so does that make it wrong to use? It seems its ok for some to do things around here but not others.


This pretty much sums it up:

From Scott WIX editor/owner:

No Personal Attacks - this is not allowed and messages containing personal attacks will be deleted. If you are registered I will try and e-mail you with an explaination. If you post as a guest then it will just be deleted. I am the sole judge of what constitutes a personal attack. In general, calling people names, either directly or indirectly (ie the $@$#% who recovered Spitfire ZXC111) constitutes a personal attack, further definitions will be added if necessary.

No Profanity - The future of the warbird movement is the kids, as such I try to make the WRG as a whole kid friendly. So no profanity. Posts with profanity will be edited.

No Spoofing - There will be no "spoofing" of other users identities, either from the WIX forum or other forums. The use of names already in use or close variantions will not be tolerated. Posts that violate this rule will be erased and I will traceroute your ip and ban you. If an exsisting member uses a fake id to spoof someone elses id then that person will be banned and every post he has ever made will be deleted. I do not take this lightly and will treat such actions seriously. So do everyone a favor, don't do it.

Nudity/Sexual content - Nudity and sexually explicit photos are not allowed on the forum. The exception to this is images of artwork applied to aircraft that represent a historical aircraft or actual historical images of the original aircraft. These represent aviation history. It will be up to me to decide what is sexually explicit and I will deal with violations in whatever manner I deem approriate.

Rude/Disruptive Behavior - Rude or disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. This is a friendly place and people are entitled to thier opinions. But express them diplomatically and politely. Since rude or disruptive behavior can be a vague definition I will PM you ONCE asking you to chill, if you continue then a 14-day suspension will be necessary.

Politics - It has become evident that discussions of a political nature cannot be done in an objective fashion about this subject that people are so passionate about. So, unfortunately, political discussion is prohibited as of March 19, 2007. You have been warned, so anybody who posts a political post or baits a political discussion will be banned for 30 days, repeat offenders will be banned permanently.

Religion - Religion is another hot topic that doesn't have a place here, so religious discussion is forbidden. You have been warned, so anybody who posts a religious post or baits a political discussion will be banned for 30 days, repeat offenders will be banned permanently.

As Judge Dread once said "I am the law!". This might seem harsh but I am trying to provide a community for the warbird movement and I will do what is necessary to protect the friendly environment we have developed on these forums.

Rules for the WIX forum regarding copyright
The Warbirds Resource Group forums are not legally responsible for the writings of its individual members, and thus it is the members responsibility to make sure thier posts are legal in regards to copyright. Regardless, repeated copyright violations will make the forums look bad and will I would ask that we all strive to avoid this! Here are some rough guidelines for copyright:

Every country is different, but there are some general guidelines:
- Copyright on text and drawings/artwork typically expires after 70 years after the creators death.

- Copyright on photographs expires either 50 years after the photo was taken, or 70 years after the photographers death, depending on country.

- Copyright for materials originating from the Third Reich expired when the war ended. All materials produced by the U.S. Governement (including U.S. Army War Photographers) are in the public domain.

- Copyright is granted at the moment of creation and needs not be marked as being under copyright for that protection to exsist. The burden of proof is on the copyright holder but we should respect that and not compel them to have to enforce thier rights. Its just not cool.

- 'Fair use' is a vague concept at best. In General it should be okay to use one or two photos from a book, typically for educational use. More than that is pretty much getting into copyright violation. Regardless, full source disclosure and credit should accompany these items. If not the it is essentially plagarism.

- You can't copyright facts. No matter what, no one may e.g. copyright the technical data of an aircraft. What can be copyrighted is how the information is presented.

In general I do not want to have to create any strict rules on the subject. If a copyright holder requests a picture removed from the forums or even the rest of the site I will see that it is removed. So let's police ourselves and try to honor the rights of the copyright holders.

[k5083]

Mark,

You have asked some sophisticated questions there. Some of those issues have been troubling courts for a number of years. Each country's courts have dealt with the issue slightly differently, and I can give no more than the most general answers here.

Can the current laws handle the internet and new technology? Yes. There are issues of interpretation, but they have arisen before in the context of new technologies and can arise again.

There has been a good deal of law on whether simply linking to copyrighted content on another web page constitutes infringement. In the U.S. the consensus is, it does not. So long as all that appears on the linker's site is a text URL, then no copy of the original work has been created.

If the link is a framing type "IMG" link such as are ordinarily posted on Wix, so that the image from the copyright holder's site appears on the new site, the law is more uncertain. It is easy to show that this practice creates copies. Maybe not on the Wix server, but so what? For everyone who views the pic on Wix, at least two copies are created, a temporary one in RAM and a stored one in the browser cache. If you are using IE on a Windows box and haven't cleaned your browser cache in the past few days, there's a perfect copy of JWright's 747 picture in your Temporary Internet Files directory. The same copies would, of course, be made if you directly viewed JWright's smugmug page. But then they would be authorized, because JWright wants you to look at his pics on his site. So the law is leaning toward considering links that make copies of the work viewable in contexts other than the work's home site as potentially infringing. Again, check your own country's laws.

The "display" or public performance angle might be another way to get at the same result, but as far as internet linking goes, it hasn't been needed because copies clearly are being created. If there were some way to display content off of another person's website on your own without generating a copy, judges and legislators probably would find some way to make it illegal. The evolution of law is not really governed by narrow technical issues such as whether and where a copy is created, although it appears that way because that is how the results are justified. In the end, courts are reaching back to fundamental principles of what kind of rights the original statute was enacted to protect. That is how you can be sure that whatever happens to technology, the law will end up someplace reasonable.

How is John injured by displaying his photo on a Wix board and not on his own site? Who knows -- maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Maybe on his site, the photo appeared next to text telling visitors how to buy a print of the photo, and when it's on Wix, it doesn't. So he loses sales. The question of whether and how much a copyright owner is injured is really separate from the question of whether his rights are being violated. Maybe you are not injured if I sneak into your house and live there for a week or so while you are away on vacation. If I tidy up and restock the refrigerator before I leave, you might even come out ahead. But I'm still trespassing on your property rights.

Your question about old photos deserves a separate post. Darn it, I told Kightly I wasn't going to do long Wix posts any more because I was ticked off about bouncing Greenwood. Please stop being so mature and reasonable in asking about these issues.

August

[k5083]

Another side of this issue is that there are many aviation photo archives where collectors have borrowed, copied old negatives over many years, yet in the digital world moved to place those photos on the Net as collections with the photo marked "copyright" to themselves regardless of the original photographer, nor the expiry of the original photographers copyright "rights"?

The copyright status of those images can be very uncertain. Personally, I wouldn't do that (with or without the copyright notice of myself). I post pictures to which I own the rights or have permission, full stop.

There are some relatively clear safe zones. The U.S. government is prevented from asserting copyright over materials generated by or for it; most other national governments, however, do assert copyright. All materials originating from the Third Reich were placed in the public domain after WWII, not for any principled reason but just because we could.

Sometimes it can be very difficult to identify and locate the original copyright holder, if he's still around at all. That can make it risky to post or publish the work. There's a risk that after you post it, that person will find you and start an expensive lawsuit. There is legislation being mooted in the U.S. to create a safe zone for publishing such "orphan" works. Basically it provides that if you have made reasonable efforts to locate the copyright owners of certain kinds of works and failed, you can go ahead and publish. If the owner surfaces and demands that you stop, you'd have to stop and pay reasonable compensation, but he couldn't sue you for damages from your publication before he surfaced. Content creators (who are a powerful lobby) are skittish about this legislation and if it passes at all, will make sure that "reasonable efforts" means doing a pretty extensive search for the copyright owner before you publish.

See: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

I have no idea what other countries are doing about this.

Are there some highly valued posters on Wix who frequently post old photos of questionable copyright status? Yes indeed. Is there a double standard around here with respect to those posters versus flyingheritage? You betcha. But nobody appointed me copyright cop for this forum, so it ain't my problem or my job to point fingers.

If I modify/photoshop a 60 year old photo that is now in the public domain, improve its contrast, crop it, put a caption on it, (even only putting my own "copyright" label on it) have I manufactured a new image that is entitled to current copyright protection?

The original copyright still exists in the underlying image and, if the changes that you have made to it meet the minimal standard of originality, you may have created additional rights for yourself in the work. That would not give you the right to reproduce it without the original copyright holder's permission. And someone else wanting to reproduce it would need both your and the original copyright holder's permission.

(EDIT: I missed where your question said "that is now in the public domain". In that case, only you would have rights in the image, and they would be limited to your changes. Someone couldn't copy your edited image, but if they somehow got a copy of the image from before your edits, they could do whatever they wanted with it. A 60-year-old photo, however, is not necessarily in the public domain.)

August

[Mark_Pilkington]

August,

Again thanks for both detailed answers.

It would seem clear the safest way to use someone else's photo in a forum discussion is to simply provide the URL of the photo or website as a link and let the viewer see it on the "owners" server and website, and avoid the breech of copyright.

It does however reduce the flow the of thread, and stops the ability to compare disparate photos adjacent to each other.

It is interesting that many would view the use of one photo scanned from a book to be "fair use" because the whole book isn't copied but the linking of one photo from a web site creates such concern? The same photo could be the subject of the same actions.

I would have thought a forum does have some elements of research, critical review attached to it, however I would agree many uses here are not for that purpose, and therefore not within the definition of "fair use".



I would hope no-one feels my first post above was intended to be a personal attack on "flyingheritage" (including himself)?

As this whole thread has evolved to being about debating the hot linking of photos using the B747 as the example, I entered this debate, and used the example at hand of "flyingheritage" to raise the issues of legal jurisdiction, who would be considered the copyright infringer, and how the crime or injury would be defined, and to seek August's informed comments, I wasn't complaining about "flyingheritage" doing what he did.

I raised those questions to August because I have a great interest in this issue, as I am guilty of doing what "flyingheritage" did, ie simply hotlisting or IMG linking a photo found elsewhere on the web into a forum to help illustrate a debate or bring something of interest to others - I have in the past considered that to be "fair use".

While I havent intentionally hotlisted or IMG linked photos that have carried a request not to copy, I havent always had the time to provide a link or statement about where those photos have come from, (although not implying they are mine).

Not that placing links or acknowledging the source or owner seems to provides any greater legal right to IMG link without express permission, it is seems only good as Net etiquette or manners.

I would agree since "flyingheritage"s return with yet another nick that he has incurred some attention not given to others undertaking the same activities, ie including myself.

I won't go into the issues that have aggrevated people to do that, but can understand the focus he attracts due to those earlier nicks and behaviours (I thought he had previously been banned?)

Regards

Mark Pilkington