Whitechapel - Fair use or Theft?

Whitechapel - Fair use or Theft? Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:19:19 -0700 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.4 & Feed Publisher Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8738#Comment_8738 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8738#Comment_8738 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:17:03 -0800 KitsuneCaligari
http://laughingsquid.com/bloggers-divided-over-lane-hartwell-photography-issue/

Short story - she wants attribution for an image she took, and various factions have raised their heads in voice for one side or another. This fella has one of the better arguments:
http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2007/12/copyright-fair.html

Seems like a fairly good topic to bring up to this creative bunch - what opinions on this do you foster? ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8742#Comment_8742 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8742#Comment_8742 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:46:10 -0800 Bradley W. Schenck her work: it's actually a parody of something completely different. Even in a universe in which it was possible to parody a Disney film you'd have a hard time explaining why your parody included the complete text of The Difference Engine, or had a copyrighted soundtrack by a band that has nothing to do with Disney films. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8761#Comment_8761 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8761#Comment_8761 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:05:18 -0800 BrianKellett Jason Schultz pretty much says it all to be honest.

*Disclaimer - My book and all other writings are published under a Creative Commons license. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8764#Comment_8764 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8764#Comment_8764 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:20:15 -0800 KitsuneCaligari http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/12/18/analysis-on-the-lane-hartwell-bubble-controversy/

Not to fan a flame under my own thread, but I was kinda wondering what y'all think of the whole Iron Clad Copyright vs. Creative Commons vs. "It's posted on the interwebs, then it belongs to everybody (and by everybody I mean me)" arguments. As any of us being in varying degrees of Starving Artistitude, how do we let our babies go out into the cold public (ostensibly without the protection of a Big Publisher to back us) without having our stuff nicked? Case in point, Lane Hartwell putting her professional material on a second-party web site, using the All-Powerful Web 2.0 as another venue of publication and promotion of her art, and her work gets nicked and posted, not only without restitution, but without even attribution.

On the flipside of artistic expression, I've heard mentions of bloggers getting chunks of their writings lifted from their blogs and posted elsewhere, without attribution, and in some cases, victims of outright plagiarism. I am, of course, just using the Lane Hartwell thing as a hot and timely example.

Where is the line between "that's a cool pic, I'm gonna use it for my desktop" and "that's a cool pic, I'm gonna use it as the cover of my book/comic/cd".... ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8766#Comment_8766 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8766#Comment_8766 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:25:19 -0800 Cat Vincent Also notable that the idea raised here of 'transformative works' is being pushed by a fandom advocacy group called OTW, who claim that fan writing is transformative, therefore the owners of the original intellectual property have no say over their use of it. Scalzi has an even-handed discussion of this here (NB, very long comments!).

In short, the issue of who has control of a IP continues to be one of the busiest debates of the times. I know Warren has strong views on this... ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8772#Comment_8772 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8772#Comment_8772 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:59:16 -0800 BrianKellett On the flipside of artistic expression, I've heard mentions of bloggers getting chunks of their writings lifted from their blogs and posted elsewhere, without attribution, and in some cases, victims of outright plagiarism.

Happened to me - stuff I wrote turned up in a national newspaper. Never did get restitution/recognition, but then I don't have any lawyers.

I think that part of the CC thing is to make explicit the 'it's on the internet, therefore it's mine' to those works where the creator is happy for that to happen. Personally I think that copyright laws are about right (although I *am* behind the UK Gowers report which loosens a few things up without hurting creators), but likewise I also think that there can be alternate systems if the *creator* wishes it.

E.g. I write a script and post it on a forum. Someone takes it and turns it into a film without my permission and I am fully within my rights to give them a slap. If I *want* someone to make it into a film but have neither the time, talent or funding, then I can put it under a CC license. Depending on the license this doesn't mean that you lose control of it (further e.g. I've made £5,000+ in letting people commercially exploit my CC stuff).
So the CC license removes all doubt.

Unfortunately, because of the way a lot of the info on the internet historically got on there, people still take the "It's online, so it's mine" attitude and then get surprised when they get slapped - on the flipside, there are a fair few people who want to tie their stuff up on the internet with loads of legal stuff in order to make sure no-one 'steals' it.

So the balance is between what is best for the creators, coupled with what is best for culture - which is where I think that current copyright strikes a pretty reasonable balance.

Apologies if I whitter, or am incomprehensible, but I need more than four hours of sleep... ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8773#Comment_8773 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8773#Comment_8773 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:59:57 -0800 Bradley W. Schenck As any of us being in varying degrees of Starving Artistitude, how do we let our babies go out into the cold public (ostensibly without the protection of a Big Publisher to back us) without having our stuff nicked?

We don't, because that's not possible. Anything desirable that's posted on the web is going to get hotlinked, copied, modified and reproduced, often without attribution, and sometimes for profit. You just have to decide for yourself what you think is unacceptable and be prepared to do something about those when you see them. No legislation has ever changed human nature, and it's human nature that's the cause.

I don't post my work in (to me) printable resolution, and on my own sites my larger images are sometimes "protected" by no-rightclick Javascript. That's easy enough to defeat, and the only reason I do it is so that users who have never thought about the issues will stop, realize that I'd rather they didn't, and maybe think about it for once.

But I've found even the web resolution versions of my art have been printed and sold by other people, and those are the ones I choose to always do something about. For anyone who's not a corporation I've found that this is actually more difficult under the DMCA.

On the flipside of artistic expression, I've heard mentions of bloggers getting chunks of their writings lifted from their blogs and posted elsewhere, without attribution, and in some cases, victims of outright plagiarism.

This is by far usually done by scraper sites that assemble huge amounts of content to bring in web searchers so that they'll click on ads - I've seen this happen recently in sites that are trying to unload malware on you, too. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8774#Comment_8774 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8774#Comment_8774 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:08:01 -0800 KitsuneCaligari
I'm not barking down your snorkel about IP, Cat, you just pointed it out, and I forgot that one of the things that irritates me about this whole issue is the use of intellectual property legalese being duct taped onto arguments for pilfering an artist's work.

Speaking of OTW, Caitlin R Kiernan has Large Words to say of that particular brand of malarkey - I stand by her on that one:
http://greygirlbeast.livejournal.com/413551.html
http://greygirlbeast.livejournal.com/414280.html
http://greygirlbeast.livejournal.com/414676.html

Although I'm not sure Warren would approve, 'cause she likes to use Farscape slang in everyday conversation.... :) ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8789#Comment_8789 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8789#Comment_8789 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:15:49 -0800 Cat Vincent
My snorkel is bark-free, though thanks for the consideration! I wasn't so much claiming a tie between Artistic Expression versus IP - IANAL and wouldn't dream of saying how closely (if at all) the two are tied in law. I was just pointing out how a lot of debate about both is going on now, that it is important to a lot of people (some with the big money) and that AE and IP are both getting blurry. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8801#Comment_8801 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8801#Comment_8801 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:17:38 -0800 TechnocratJT I'm not barking down your snorkel about IP, Cat, you just pointed it out, and I forgot that one of the things that irritates me about this whole issue is the use of intellectual property legalese being duct taped onto arguments for pilfering an artist's work.

Its really not being duct tapped.

IP rights for patent and copyright have both developed and changed in roughly the same historical frame, and the issue of moral rights, that is legal rights in artistic intent, is actually a legal one in most countries other then the US (all the US has is VARA laws).

Its fair to argue that you wish there as a different language, but, for example I have done copyright and trademark work but certainly not patent (your examples of "actual IP" are patent work). The artists I have worked for were most certainly acting under the auspice of IP law both legally and historically.

The current idea that copyright is not a legal issue is a child of current cultural movements ( harking back to pre-Gutenberg traditions of course) and is the newer critter. And the rights you call artistic expression, are in fact, derived from the rights demanded by early book publishers. Your right to choose - legally - how your work is distributed and used are rooted entirely in that legalese. You could, in the absence, of those laws ask for people to simply be ethical, but I would not hold my breath on that one. The rights of artistic expression to simply be, that is your right to create and express your ideas as art, are first amendment issues in the states, and related free expression law elsewhere. No part of that body of law protects your right to control what happens after you create.

The issue your encountering is many "fair use" groups (and their are many goods ones I know, but also many entitled gimme gimme ones) is that they feel the internet's ease of reproduction means they have a right to an artists work. A joke I make to artists friends this is the "your an artist - give me your shoes" attitude expressed by the internet. Artists are expected to give and give, often by people who are salaried tech industry...

As for transformative use - Its a minefield of uncertain law, the case law is messy and can be summed up as "it is when the court your in says it is." ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8802#Comment_8802 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8802#Comment_8802 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:25:05 -0800 TechnocratJT It looks like a "fair use' argument would have made a lot more sense if the video had been a parody of her work: it's actually a parody of something completely different. Even in a universe in which it was possible to parody a Disney film you'd have a hard time explaining why your parody included the complete text of The Difference Engine, or had a copyrighted soundtrack by a band that has nothing to do with Disney films

This is why transformative use is a mess, it knocks the certainty out from under fair use. Your entirely right as to the way things should be and usually are, but it is entirely possible for your difference engine example to be declared transformative if a court saw fit. Not likely, but possible.

The funny thing is that fanfic writer group Cat mentioned is nearly the best possible example of works that will never be protected as fair use under any current legal doctrine, since its the clearest example of standard derivative work possible. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8810#Comment_8810 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8810#Comment_8810 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:47:16 -0800 Unsub (Canada)government. I see it as very simple and really just a natural extension of being a gentleman. If you use something of someones that makes you money then give them a fair share. If you download something for your own personal use I don't see how that is any different than taking something out of the library.
It seems that with every technological advance we get another new way to pay. First we had TV payed by eds ,then cable we have to pay for. Radio to sat radio.
I love seeing the music industry get a taste of their own medicine after the way they screwed us for years. When they switched from casset to CD's which cost much less for them to produce they doubles the price. Maybe this will mean the end to corporate crap like the Spice girls and we will get artists who are interested in making art not just money? ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8812#Comment_8812 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8812#Comment_8812 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:10:02 -0800 TechnocratJT
We were not talking MP3s or large corporations. This is a thread that starts with a single artist being impacted, and moves to the general rights, and limitations there in, of artists to protect their work and difficulty inherent online in that. While, yes, its the same law, its amazingly awkward to respond with a declaration of "those music industry goons deserve what they get" to any discussion of the issue.

It reads very much like a standard of since the music industry is unethical then feel free to apply their perceived wrongs to any artists anywhere, and take what you want accordingly.

Maybe this will mean the end to corporate crap like the Spice girls and we will get artists who are interested in making art not just money?

And honestly, that sort of comment drives me nuts. Not every artists is rich for crying....allot of them depend on their work to do the same things anyone does with their chosen living. Any use of their work they do not see payment for is one more use that could of made ends meet. Being a working artist is damn hard and taring them with the brush of anti-corporate IP rhetoric as if they are one in the same chills my blood. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8814#Comment_8814 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8814#Comment_8814 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:55:21 -0800 alan
But that's just my opinion. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8828#Comment_8828 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8828#Comment_8828 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:51:06 -0800 Cat Vincent
Interestingly, the fanwriter group and their allies make a big deal in the Scalzi thread about how asking permission from a fellow fan writer to do work based on their fic is considered standard good manners - but that asking permission of the original IP creator is not... because fan-to-fan is a 'gift economy' and the IP holders are too hard to get hold of, or similar rubbish. And they truly do not see the contradiction.

BTW - icon love! Batou rocks. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8829#Comment_8829 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8829#Comment_8829 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:18:59 -0800 Confusion
Now, if they were -making money- off their use of her image, then I'd suggest it becomes more of a matter she should be complaining about. If you're doing web-publishing of art and want to guarantee someone doesn't just pick up an image, shouldn't you be watermarking your name into the image? ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8830#Comment_8830 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8830#Comment_8830 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:31:53 -0800 TechnocratJT
Well, most, er, sure I will use this word, "rational" fan-fic writers (cough, cough) probably realize if they asked permission they would be promptly told no and come up with a nice excuse for why they do not.

And, hah, see my Batou icon - there is a perfectly viable fair use. A very small sampling, no visible impact on the market for the product, and almost certainly transformative.

Alan,

Not really in any legal sense. Oh sure, a billion entitled geeks typing away can misconstrue fair use at the speed of light, but they have not really impacted it in any tenable legal way. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8853#Comment_8853 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8853#Comment_8853 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:10:15 -0800 BrianKellett Not really in any legal sense. Oh sure, a billion entitled geeks typing away can misconstrue fair use at the speed of light, but they have not really impacted it in any tenable legal way.

I don't know - ORG worked to get such things as format shifting into the Gowers report which, to be fair, isn't law *yet* but it is still a strong independant government requested recommendation.

I'll let them tell it,

Exceptions to copyright

Calls for additional exemptions to copyright law for “creative, transformative* or derivative works” and for “caricature, parody or pastiche” will be important to both artists and the public alike. We are pleased to hear that libraries will be supported in their preservation work and will be allowed to copy and reformat copyrighted material, including film and sound recordings. This is essential to the health of our cultural heritage and we are delighted that the Chancellor has recognised its importance.

A private copying exception

A recommendation that private users be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player. When ever I mention this is a conversation I normally get a wonderfully confused look followed by the comment “What, I thought that was legal.” It still currently not legal in the UK, that is until this recommendation if followed and the law is amended.

Back in February when the Open Rights Group was presenting evidence to the All Party Internet Group, Ian Brown said

I am always astonished when I speak at events like this that it is only a small number of lawyers who know copyright law who even realise there is not a private copy exemption in British law. I am sure if you went home and talked to friends and family very few would realise they were breaking copyright law by making copies of their own CDs, for example.

Except of course that the government has enacted all of the restrictive reccomendations, and none of the excemptions. But we live in hope...

[Disclaimer - I happily belong to and have a standing donation to them, also a lot of them are my friends] ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8859#Comment_8859 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8859#Comment_8859 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:42:32 -0800 robb
1. what were her rights/usage flickr settings at the time of swiping, if the richter scales swiped the image from flickr?

2. i find it funny that no one has mentioned whether the rights holders to "we didn't start the fire" by billy joel have to say about the song. but, that's the music portion which is arguably fair use as it's criticism and satire. there's lots of legal precident for parody, even if it's commercial.

3. now, because the richter scales are a commercial entity (they advertise their cds for sale on their site) and not a non profit nor educational institution, the swiping/appropriation of a photo is wrong. that video is not art. it's a commercial tool. isn't that actionable? don't the standards for images to be labeled "transformative" require the original to be manipulative by an obvious degree? whether by cropping, altering color, chopping it up, or adding to it?

4. if this is sampling to create a larger work, which could be argued, then legal precident requires them to license the photo. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8860#Comment_8860 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8860#Comment_8860 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:44:17 -0800 Joe Paoli
As far as grabbing something off of the net and using it as your own for profit without license or permission, it's another form of plagarism and theft. If I were putting original content out there on the web, I'd be burying authorship and copyright ownership info in it with steganography techniques and finding lawyers that work on a settlement percentage basis to punish those that took it and used it without my permission. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8862#Comment_8862 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8862#Comment_8862 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:09:57 -0800 robb Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8863#Comment_8863 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8863#Comment_8863 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:30:52 -0800 KitsuneCaligari
The larger point, which I stand by as well, is not so much the compensation or the attribution, but to let all and sundry know that just because a thing is found on teh internets doesn't mean it is instantly Public Domain. So even though it was a single photo seen for two seconds on a video of relatively minor importance, it's basically stopping the "appropriation for transformation" train before it gets rolling too far. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8868#Comment_8868 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8868#Comment_8868 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:47:32 -0800 KitsuneCaligari
The more I think about this, the more I think there needs to be a fundamental separation of Artistic Property (ick, I didn't even like typing that) and Intellectual Property, with their own separate forms of legalese and rights and protections. Creative Commons seemed to be going in a helpful direction, but not everyone wanted to play in that particular sandbox.... ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8885#Comment_8885 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8885#Comment_8885 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:45:35 -0800 TechnocratJT
Well to be honest I can only speak for the US where the internet expand Fair Use crowd is allot of noise, but have not had many legal victories. My knowledge of UK copyright law is sadly limited, I know where you all overlap with us for international work but past that it gets very fuzzy.

Kitsune,

I can see the desire for discrete language, but I worry such an idea is seeding the field on an intellectual level to those who insist there should be no protection for artistic work. The simple fact is patents have a short life, and very few issues of great ethical relevancy arise outside of phara and medical technologies. When the groups talk about reforming IP they mean copyright, the comparisons are simply excuses and agreeing Copyright is not IP is putting the game well into their court.

But, again, I am an attorney, I am well mired in one view.

Oh and worth saying, since I did not before, Copyright is after defined in the US as the right to protect expression in fixed form already. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8901#Comment_8901 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=8901#Comment_8901 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:00:17 -0800 Cat Vincent
Further to the fanfic-as-transformative-works bit, here are the opposing positions represented in that most educational of Internet forms, the Bingo card.

Anti-fanfic

Anti-anti-fanfic

Just because... ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9000#Comment_9000 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9000#Comment_9000 Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:50:41 -0800 BrianKellett Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9037#Comment_9037 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9037#Comment_9037 Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:21:24 -0800 TechnocratJT
I have mixed feelings about the EFF.

They have done good things, and at the same time they have made some very stupid claims and pushed hard in the wrong direction on issues. On concerns of privacy and related civil rights issues they are an incredibly important group, but I do feel they have drunk the Koolaid on copyright. Not that having a group that pushed in the other direction from the industry lobbies is a bad thing, but I feel they have bought full on the notion that "free culture" is one in the same with freedom and as a result they have little time or regard for the desires of artists.

For example, I have never seen a position put forward on the internet to restrict corporate copyright while leaving things as are for individuals. Not sure I would agree with it anyway, but it would be a olive branch to the idea that all artists are not big business concerns and the law already gives the two different terms anyway.

The fact is legally corporately held copyright works a certain way, and I will defend it as it exists under the law, but I would not loose any sleep if it changed tomorrow. WFH is a economic issue of great importance, but morally I am not invested in the length beyond a reasonable time to profit. On the other hand, I am very sensitive to claims that impact copyrights held by artists and very aware how few distinctions the "everything should be free" community tends to make. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9525#Comment_9525 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9525#Comment_9525 Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:27:25 -0800 46&2
Calagari- The best way to protect your work is to know the limitations of copyright backward and forward and to pick your battles.

for the fan fiction people: has there been an acknowledged case where an original author/creator swiped (or was accused of swiping) from fan fiction which used their character?
-Robb

I haven't heard of one, but I'd hardly call it swiping considering they do not own the work. Also, considering the MASSIVE amount of fan-fic out there it's hard to imagine a scenario or situation that hasn't been done. Taking a case like that to court would be legal-suicide. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9548#Comment_9548 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9548#Comment_9548 Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:41:22 -0800 TechnocratJT Although, if the use was genuinely satire, which should be argued in a legal case, then the photographer is in the wrong

Parody and Satire are legally distinct and its an important distinction here. Satire is not inherently fair use.

Parody makes fun of the original work, and is strongly weighted in favor of fair use. Internet folks will tell you it always is, but thats one of the most misapplied bits of copyright law taken from Acuff Rose. The reality is it is strong but its not certain. The inherent notions is we often have a right to make fun of things as part of fair use, you still argue factors but the presumption is in your favor.

Satire uses a work to make fun of something else. No presumption of fair use here at all. The inherent notion is when we make fun of something we can not claim that anything we take or use to do so is fair use even if its not related. As satire, which the case at hand is, is not weighed heavily in fair use, and was why we were talking transformative use up thread, since you can still argue other factors.

Lets take a nice commercial example that relates the two - a "satirical" film which in the process parodies many other recent and well known films. The film makers do not have to ask permission to make each joke aimed at another film. The jokes make fun of those films including staging and scene call backs, each such scene is parody, and usually would be held as parody under fair use. However the film as a whole still needs to license the music for the soundtrack. Why? Because the nature of the film over all does not give them the right to take what is not being made fun of and use it as fair use even if its part of the pacing and feel.

The photo here was not the subject of the joke, it was used as part of making something else the subject of a joke and would fall under satire. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9745#Comment_9745 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9745#Comment_9745 Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:25:32 -0800 Joe Paoli
Apparently over the weekend, a blogger found a photo of her dog in an xmas outfit modified and broadcast in the FOX Sports Happy Holidays roll without her permission.

After making Jamie pause and rewind and unpause and re-rewind the incriminating footage several times, I was convinced beyond a shadow of doubt. FOX had gotten hold of one of my photos of Truman -- specifically one in a series I'd recently posted here with him wearing a Santa suit -- very slightly doctored the image by removing the flash-flare lighting his eyes (good aesthetic choice there, FOX!), slapped a superfluous Santa Hat on his head, and then dropped the purloined pic into the on-screen graphic rotation for their Saints/Eagles telecast.

]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9748#Comment_9748 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9748#Comment_9748 Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:53:24 -0800 TechnocratJT
Yup thats her dog.

Now, a one time use of her picture, even during broadcast as a graphic (I am guessing a bit here, outside my area, but I can not see the royalty policy for one time use of an image in broadcast being that high - this is clip art really). The expense of perusing this would outstrip the returns, especially where her time is concerned. Even more so its unlikely the image will ever to used again or even marketed on a DVD. A cease and desist is not much help when use of the image has come and gone, though she should get one sent just in case. The dog could become a damn meme after all.

Lots more to come like this I expect. Copyright law, in a fiscal sense anyway, is not currently built in such a way that the small artist has an affordable redress for such events. Treble damages and attorney fees for a one time use don't help when you compare to the time you have to put in to redress the issue.

Shame really.

Of course I look forward to when the anti-copyright crowd wins and the entire Internet becomes a clip art and slush pool for commercial and corporate entities. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9794#Comment_9794 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=9794#Comment_9794 Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:49:25 -0800 Unsub they should pay for it. If they are not it should be considered fair use. Companies like Disney and DC should not be able to make their copywrites last hundreds of years. This latest League of Extraordinary gentleman book has brought up the possibility that it would have never existed had there been copywrite laws
like there are for mickey mouse and batman.

I also don't like the way the US government has been lobbying my(Canada's) government to cancel our fair use laws even though our citizens are universally against it.
We pay a tax on blank disks etc that goes to reimburse copywrite holders. When the anti fair use group lost in court becuse of this tax they lobbied to have it removed ,it was and then they still lost the next challenge although they have made some mostly reasonable changes.

I don't like the threat that musicians(for example) would quit making music if not for copy protection. The way it is now even big popular acts make most of their money from tours anyway so more people downloading could actually make them money. It is the big corps that have had a stranglehold on the business that are in trouble. Also now you don't need a major label to be popular which is another loss of control they don't like. One of my favourite artists Immortal Technique gets NO label or radio support and distributes a lot by internet.

Besides as long as their are countries that don't have copywrite the international nature of the internet will make things very complicated. The US inparticular seems shocked that US law does not apply in other countries. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=11022#Comment_11022 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=11022#Comment_11022 Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:09:08 -0800 lex - Awareness of copyright. The greatest merit of Creative Commons licenses is that they are transparent and easy to understand, even if you're not a lawyer. Still, artists need to be educated about their rights and possibilities to put a sensible license on their work.
- Enforcement of a license. I guess this is the bigger issue. If somebody steals your work, you very often have no real means to defend your rights, unless you have a big publisher behind your back, or you know some pretty good lawyers plus you have enough cash to go against the offender.

Copy protection is irrelevant. If you want people to buy your stuff, give them a reason to buy it instead of 'stealing' it. Good reasons are appropriate prices, international delivery, comfortable buying process, no pain in the @$$ DRM technology etc... ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=11260#Comment_11260 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=11260#Comment_11260 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:56:10 -0800 Unsub This person(it was on the what was your first exposure to Warren thread)probably would not have discovered Transmet without downloading
and now they are a big fan and a regular source of income. The industry would look at how much they downloaded(say 8 TPB's)and assume they lost
whatever they would have made on the 8TPB's when instead they actually made money and a lot more than what they "thought" they lost.
They also tend to say if someone downloads 1000 movies that they would have paid full price for all those and therefore they "lost" that huge amount of cash.
When the industry is using such blatant lies ,half truths and evil schemes like rootkits and DRM it makes people who would not have felt right about downloading feel justified.

As soon as it is as easy or easier to pay for music and media and people can do whatever they want with it and most importantly make instant impulse purchases they will drown in cash.
Most people would rather pay a fair price for stuff they like than steal it. It is not exactly a surprise that a bunch of american industry LAWYERS have a hard time grasping this. ]]> Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=11291#Comment_11291 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=11291#Comment_11291 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:21:14 -0800 Scribe Fair use or Theft? http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=12817#Comment_12817 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=340&Focus=12817#Comment_12817 Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:23:53 -0800 Rachel want anyone stealing my things but can I live with it? Yes. So I'll put it on the internet.

If I couldn't live with people stealing it, I wouldn't put it out there.

It's simple risk management.

(That said, I think the Richter Scale are in the wrong. I don't believe you can/should use someone's copyrighted work to parody something else. If she was the source of the parody then fine, but otherwise...) ]]>