|
Forums >
General Industry >
Copyright Infringement!
I know this subject has been beaten before, but thought I'd ask something different. I have noticed that sometimes someone will post an image and ask other MM's to re-edit it and see what they can do....now, technically, unless they own the copyright to it, we really shouldn't touch it. correct? or can we just do it and worry about if the copyright holder complains? Any takers for this discussion? Nov 02 06 11:33 pm Link i take it this is really not a subject anyone cares to tackle! Nov 02 06 11:48 pm Link On the "editing" strings, one usually only posts their own work, and tacitly permits others to have at it. To do so uninvited is poor form, and a violation of copyright, as is posting someone else's work. But, if they say "Do what you can with my photo", then it's fair game  Nov 02 06 11:50 pm Link Side Effects Studio wrote: I think what he is getting at is, what about the models submitting photos in there? Do they have the photographers permission? (assuming the model does not own copyrights) Nov 02 06 11:52 pm Link Jessalyn wrote: Typically several members of those threads provide the dire warnings necessary. Nov 02 06 11:54 pm Link Hi Jessalyn! That is correct. I am assuming that if it is a model posting the image, that they probably do not have the copyright ownership. as far as photographers postings, i am not so much worried. Nov 02 06 11:55 pm Link this topic came to mind when i was in the forum: "someone give me a nice picture to edit"....the first posting was from a photographer and i completed it. then the others were from models...i did two images and then on the third one, i noticed the copyright logo on the top left hand side...that's when i questioned the editing.....i know i wouldn't mind if someone did some re-editing to an image of mine, but i would definetely want to review it before any reposting. Nov 03 06 12:00 am Link It is USUALLY okay to repost and alter images when doing it for critisism or commenting on them. It is in black-and-white as a part of the US copyright law. Here: § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall includeâ (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and 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. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. All that being said, it is still a bad idea to ever remove a copyright notice from an image. That is covered in the law here: § 506. Criminal offenses (a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT.âAny person who infringes a copyright willfully eitherâ (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement. (b) FORFEITURE AND DESTRUCTION.âWhen any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords. (c) FRAUDULENT COPYRIGHT NOTICE.âAny person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. (d) FRAUDULENT REMOVAL OF COPYRIGHT NOTICE.âAny person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. You can see there is a bit of grey-area in the interpretation (e.g. "fraudulent intent" could be argued for being a bit ambiguious). Personally, my advice would be - don't to do it ... BUT if you do, make sure you make it VERY CLEAR that the image has been altered by YOU (perhaps by physically putting "this image was modified by ______" on the image), also make it VERY CLEAR that the original work is still copyrighted to the original photographer, and do NOT remove the original copyright notice. Nov 03 06 12:10 am Link Jessalyn wrote: Oh, I see. Nov 03 06 12:11 am Link thanks for the posting of the law eric! Nov 03 06 01:08 am Link cisstudio wrote: You're correct. Unless you have permission from the copyright holder, don't touch it. /tim Nov 03 06 02:49 am Link What happens over there in that thread when a model asks for a photo to be worked on is, she/he first needs to have the photographer send the mods of the thread an okay before any of us can touch it. It's all kosher over there. Actually, I'm pretty sure the rules of the thread are posted at the beginning of the thread. And the mods are pretty good at reminding the models (and photographers) throughout the thread. Nov 03 06 02:52 am Link cisstudio wrote: Fair Use does not mean altering the image. It means copying or displaying it. Not modification. /tim Nov 03 06 03:00 am Link Tim Baker wrote: People seem to interpret "Fair Use" to mean that they can do almost anything with an image. "Fair Use" isn't anywhere near as broad as is being suggested by E|||B, nor is it as broad as most people seem to think. Nov 03 06 07:00 am Link All good points mentioned here and when I read the law on "fair use", as indicated above, at know point does it indicate that you can "alter" anything. It simply seems to be talking about reproduction of it. Nov 03 06 07:20 am Link Within copyright law there are two distinct rights granted the author of the work. One is the right to control the making of copies of his image. That right is limited by several exceptions, the "fair use" exception being the most prominent. If the "copying" or publication meets the fair use criteria, it is allowable under the law. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ As pointed out, the "fair use" doctrine is silent on the issue of modification of the images. The only place that Title 17 (the copyright law) deals with the issue of modification (other than placement/removal of copyright notice, which others have dealt with) is section 106(a). That section prohibits certain types of modifications (not all) and applies only to a very small subset of all photographs: those that qualify as "works of visual art". http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a As is common in the law, common sense does not apply to the definition of "work of visual art". Rather, the definition, for this purpose, is given in Title 17, § 101. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101 This forum has seen a lot of discussion of this issue before, and lots of strange claims have been made and tortured explanations have been given for why some picture given to a girl for self promotion should still qualify as a "work of visual art" under the Title 17 definition. I see no justification for those claims. More to the point, I know of no case where a judge has agreed with them. I believe the bottom line is this: it is almost certainly not a violation of law to make modifications to someone else's photographs for the purpose of "making them better" and displaying them as examples on the web, particularly if the model had the legal right to publish the photos for limited purposes such as self-promotion. It is, however, bad form in many cases, and photographers obviously feel strongly about the issue, whether they have any legal justification for it or not. Asking first seems to be very good policy. Nov 03 06 08:21 am Link Sorry -- redundant. Nov 03 06 09:30 am Link Looknsee Photography wrote: How do you come by that opinion? Nov 03 06 09:33 am Link Looknsee Photography wrote: TXPhotog wrote: Supreme Court ruling on "Betamax" case (Officially SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)) Nov 04 06 03:34 am Link fair use is a very slippery defense to rely upon. not saying it is inapplicable, but it is a much better idea to have permission or implied consent of the copyright owner (the photographer) before altering the image. relying on fair use is like going out to the atlantic ocean in a small, rubber dingy -- you might make it but it can be a rough ride. Nov 06 06 01:52 pm Link |
