| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Copyright; Time To Change The Laws?
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Nina Zhito, Photographer
 |
bay area | CA | | Posted: 1:20 PM on 05.18.10 |
| ->> Yes, interesting, Phil. One wonder how Harvard's Professor William Fisher -- quoted in the article and who believes copyright protection is too strict-- might feel about plagiarism of his original work and scholarship, which might be considered a moral equivalent. Would he object should his printed words be appropriated, copied and pasted by someone else, and used, for example, in another scholar's grant application or in a journal article ? I rather suspect he might! Of course, the joke used to be that, in academia, "research" is another word for plagiarism. The difference is that use of another's work without attribution is a serious offense, and constitutes fraud, calling into question the integrity of the whole body of study. Or maybe the good Professor thinks all that should change, too. I'll be interested to learn more. |
|
Jon Currier, Photographer
|
Portland/Vancouver | OR/WA | US | Posted: 10:40 PM on 05.18.10 |
| ->> Great reading material thanks for sharing Copyright protection is too strict? We all need to protect each other. Cant wait to hear more. |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 5:16 AM on 05.19.10 |
->> To quote William Fisher from the article
"It would be better if the photographer registered any image be wanted to protect with an online registration system," he says, "and that any other work was in the public domain."
That's a very broad statement to make since it doesn't even touch on the cost of such a service, ease of use, availability , legal domain and many other factors.
Any overhaul of copyright should be done at an international level and, accordingly, a global copyright registration service would likely be the best way forward - so long as registration with such a service is recognised by law in each country whom is a signatory. |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 5:18 AM on 05.19.10 |
->> I ignored the fact a Brit a wrote the article, and continue to question its intellectual value to an American reader. IP law isn't such an easily understood specialty that lawyers feel obligated promising signed photos of popular celebrities just to get some work.
With that said, I think it would require a law review article just to address the use of Fisher's quote....Consequently, I won't even try.
I find this topic fascinating, and love discussing it with others, but I think it would be more productive trying use Dr. Seuss to support utilitarianism than it would be to support this guys argument. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
 |
Miami | Florida | USA | Posted: 2:18 AM on 05.21.10 |
->> Placing photos on the internet is like leaving a bucket of money out in front of your house. Like it or not, it's an open invitation for people to come and grab some. It might be wrong, but if you leave that bucket in front of any place open to the public, by the next morning (and maybe in the next ten minutes) it will be empty.
I like this part of that article:
"The photograph itself is almost in the public domain, but if people want to use it to make a profit, such as a magazine or newspaper, then they have to pay," he says.
"We have no problem at all with dissemination and actively encourage students and young people to engage with our photography. What we don't encourage is pilfering for profit of our work."
People from all over the world send me photos all the time. Where those photos came from, I have no idea. Most everyone I know, who knows how to right-click on an image and save it, will save copies of something they like, maybe to make it into a screen saver, or who knows what else.... None of this is the same thing as people profiting from someone else's work.
The laws should accomplish their purpose, but should not make most of the people who use computers into criminals.
Back to this topic... quoting from up above:
" One wonder how Harvard's Professor William Fisher -- quoted in the article and who believes copyright protection is too strict-- might feel about plagiarism of his original work and scholarship, which might be considered a moral equivalent. Would he object should his printed words be appropriated, copied and pasted by someone else, and used, for example, in another scholar's grant application or in a journal article ? "
That's a good example of what should be restricted, but for some kid right-clicking on a photo he liked, copying it, and mailing it to his friend, we might as well accept this, as nothing is going to change the way people behave. |
|
Daniel Celvi, Photographer
|
Schaumburg | IL | United States | Posted: 2:38 AM on 05.21.10 |
->> I just don't like his whole mandatory registration system, because essentially that would mean to claim ownership of your work, you have to pay someone to recognize that you own it. Rather than the current system, which states you own it based upon the intrinsic fact that you created the work.
Not to mention, it isn't exactly hard to state your work is in the public domain as is. That's why there's Creative Commons licensing now. And sites like Flickr already give you the option of how to, or not to, copyright your work... |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 2:19 PM on 05.21.10 |
->> Unfortunately, the article suffers from some historical and legal inaccuracies. However, it does hint at an academic view of which photographers should be aware as it may impact their rights in the future (particularly if photographers do not make their views known simply and succinctly to their congressional representatives when the issue comes up).
However, Nina, there does not appear to be any basis for suggesting that Professor Fisher is applying a double-standard. I dare say that the professor believes, as do a number of scholars, that over-restrictive legislation will impede and prevent "the progress of science and the useful arts..." The constitutional mandate that supports the existence of copyright laws is supposed to do just that. Likewise, those in academia who believe that the protections afforded by copyright law no longer serve the intended purpose do not limit that belief to photographic images, but rather, the belief applies to all copyrightable works.
Frankly, the professor would probably be quite pleased to see someone take his writings and incorporate portions into a new work that advances scholarship.
The attempt to draw a parallel between plagiarism and copyright is also problematic. Plagiarism might be equivalent to a situation where a person arguably has the right to use an image, but then claims to have created the image.
Michael, your point that the "laws should accomplish their purpose, but should not make most of the people who use computers into criminals," seems to miss both the point of the law and the notion that all people should comply with the law. That I might have knowledge regarding how to steal something doesn't justify my use of that knowledge, particularly since there are laws that criminalize the conduct. The current generation of computer users cannot justify criminal conduct by claiming that the law, rather than the conduct, is bad.
Daniel, you seem to forget that even under the current opt-out copyright system, you must register the copyright in order to recover anything more than a reasonable royalty. Likewise, you must obtain a copyright registration in order to bring a copyright infringement action. Certainly, it is your prerogative to sit back and wait until after infringement to register copyright; however, many photographers include registration as part of their work-flows to put themselves in the best position to enforce their rights if that should become necessary. Thus, regardless of whether you have an opt-in or opt-out system, you must still (as you suggest) "pay someone to recognize the fact that you own it," at least if you're ever going to enforce your rights.
Finally, Creative Commons licensing is not the same thing as dedicated your work to the public domain. The philosophy behind Creative Commons was to create a simple licensing system so that copyright owners could make their work available while simultaneously maintaining the ability to enforce rights in the work when someone else exceeds the scope of the CC license. More importantly, you should realize that CC and Flickr are not alternatives to copyright registration. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
|
Miami | Florida | USA | Posted: 1:53 AM on 05.24.10 |
->> Samuel, technically, I agree with you, but in practice I feel otherwise. I'll bet that the overwhelming majority of internet users don't have any idea that they are "stealing" anything when they copy a photo that's posted on a web page. Let me try to exaggerate, just to make a point...
If someone takes their Betamax and makes a copy of a TV show to enjoy later (which is legal), what's the difference between copying all or part of a web page on their computer to view later? If it's a fascinating web page, they can simply "save" the page and read it when they're on the plane flying somewhere, or whatever.
If they want a video of the New York skyline, they can tape a TV show about New York, and They've got a full legal copy, which they are free to use for "personal use". So, if they want a photo of the New York skyline to use as a screen saver for their laptop, why not copy something they find on the internet? Instead of tuning in to ABC TV, they're tuning into abctv.com perhaps.
I think it's perfectly legal for them to tape a radio show and play it back later when they get home (same thing as using a Betamax, but for audio).
If I had my 'druthers, I'd like to see anything posted on the web that is NOT free for people to copy, marked with a copyright notice. I'd like it even more if we could find a way to post things on the internet in a way that prevented their being copied, but that's probably many years off.
Commercial use is a whole different story - that is not what I'm talking about here.
Ideally, I agree with what you said. I practical terms, I completely disagree, for the simple reason that "people" are going to copy anything they see posted on the internet that they find interesting, regardless of what everyone here may think or feel.
There's also the fact that their computer is automatically making a copy of every picture the person looks at, which is saved in the computer 'cache'. In other words, their computer is automatically copying every image they look at, even if they don't want it to. Those images are saved on their computer automatically.
I hope we come up with a way to change the technology, to prevent this problem in the future. |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 4:46 AM on 05.24.10 |
->> I think one of the key reasons that analog taping (as in Michael's analogy) was seen as acceptable in the eyes of the law was owing to the fidelity of the copy - a VHS or C90 (remember those?) recording of a television or radio broadcast was inferior to the original and, furthermore, making a copy of a copy resulted in further degradation or quality.
In all instances, a store bought LP or VHS tape would offer a far superior experience to the listener/viewer than any homebrew copy would. Those who would prefer to pirate material instead would have to accept that lower (or zero) cost went hand-in-hand with lower quality.
In the digital age this is no longer so. Whatever you save and/or copy will have exactly the same fidelity as the original source material.
Additionally, the cost to achieve this perfect fidelity copying has lowered to the point of being accessible to nearly everyone. Blank CD's, DVD's and even hard drives cost a fraction of what they once did.
You can purchase a laptop in the $300 range that is perfectly capable of creating copies of any available media with fidelity that is exactly the same - or perceptually so - as the original source. Heck, you can even use free or open source software to do so, meaning there's little expense required beyond the initial investment. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
|
Miami | Florida | USA | Posted: 11:35 PM on 05.25.10 |
->> Martin, in practice, for most people, you're correct - the copies of video tapes got worse with every generation. One fix was to save copies in S-VHS or ED-Beta, to use high-quality gear, and good tapes. As to taping live TV, S-VHS apparently had a higher level of possible quality, than the TV did to display it. With a good monitor taping on either S-VHS or ED-Beta looked far better than an ordinary TV image on regular TV sets.
While it's true that most copies back then weren't "as good" as the originals, I don't remember that having anything to do with the rights of individuals to make copies of things for their own personal use.
I disagree with the word "all" in the following: "In all instances, a store bought LP or VHS tape would offer a far superior experience to the listener/viewer than any homebrew copy would." I remember thinking how lousy the quality was from my rented tapes. I could make a far better recording of live TV with my own gear, if I took the time to do it correctly. (Most people back then couldn't care less - they'd set their VCR to 8-hour mode, use cheap tapes, and co-ax rf cables instead of the better choices.)
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is we need to change/restrict PEOPLE, not the technology. High-quality video gear that makes perfect copies is not the problem - the problem is people using the gear to do something the shouldn't.
(As in a hand gun is perfectly legal for most people to own, even though it is capable of doing terrible things in the wrong hands.)
One quick suggestion - we could probably cure 80% of our problem if the next version of "the internet" made it more difficult to copy images. I know there are ways around it, but most people I know wouldn't have the slightest idea how to copy the photos posted here on this website, by individual photographers. People can't even link to them. I'd like to see future versions of the internet easily do this. |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 5:07 PM on 05.27.10 |
->> Michael,
The problem with the betamax example you raise is that it oversimplifies a much more complex issue, namely fair use. The real problem arises when the use at issue changes from time shifting television shows to some other "personal" use. A fair use analysis does not end with a determination that a use is "personal," and it is possible for a "personal" use to still constitute an infringement.
Personally, I don't find the caching argument particularly persuasive. The fact that a browser copies elements of web page into a temporary cache is not the same thing as people intentionally and purposely copying images off the web. I dare say that the average computer user has no clue where to find any of the cache items.
Martin,
The quality of the recording was not a factor under consideration when the U.S. Supreme Court determined whether time-shifting constituted fair use. Similarly, a bootleg copy of a movie does not cease to be an infringement simply because the quality was degraded in the process of copying or making the bootleg copy.
The fact that better copies can be made more easily does not change the analysis. An infringement is still an infringement, and a fair use is still a fair use.
The quality argument also falls apart somewhat when dealing with images on the web. By and large, images on the web have been scaled down for faster transmission and to take up less space on a server. In the process of scaling down images, a great deal of detail and information is discarded. Thus, even in a predominantly digital age, you still have degradation of quality issues. As suggested above, however, one must still perform a fair use analysis to determine if a given use is an infringement or fair use. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|