Court decides snatching online phots OK

[MartinCrabtree]

Careful if you want to earn a living with them.

https://petapixel.com/2018/07/02/court-rules-copying-photos-found-on-internet-is-fair-use/

 

[tirediron]

Wow....

 

[Braineack]

the fact that it made it to federal court after the festival removed it from the site is more shocking...

 

[BananaRepublic]

Careful if you want to earn a living with them.

https://petapixel.com/2018/07/02/court-rules-copying-photos-found-on-internet-is-fair-use/

The burglar wasn't breaking the law when he stole your tv because you didn't have a sign on it saying "property of"

 

[Braineack]

The burglar wasn't breaking the law when he stole your tv because you didn't have a sign on it saying "property of"

Stealing a TV is not the same thing as reproducing copyrighted work (in the view of the law).

 

[480sparky]

the fact that it made it to federal court after the festival removed it from the site is more shocking...

It has to be a federal court. Copyright laws are federal. There are no state, county/parrish or civic copyright laws.

 

[tirediron]

...found the photo online and saw no indication that it was copyrighted...

This is the part with which I have the greatest issue; the fact that it exists means that there is a copyright; the terms of use are a different matter, but does this idiotjudge expect that we are to publish a copyright & use document with every image? As me old Mum used to say, "You may not know whose property it is, but you damn sure know whose it is not!"

 

[smoke665]

Here's another take on the judge's ruling. I'm wondering if the judge took the stance of considering the image chattel rather than intellectual rights. Several of the points brought up in the ruling seemed to be leaning toward property rights. This could be a dangerous direction if so, because in this country there are laws that state if someone sends you property without your consent you can keep it and are under no obligation to pay for it. Then the question will become at what point does the image (property) change hands, and does viewing it on you personal computer constitute an unauthorized transfer.

Here's a similar argument if I post a program on the internet for analyzing the optimum entry and exit points on a stock trade, with no use restrictions, and a 3rd party uses it to make a million dollars in the market. Is that 3rd party obligated to pay me anything for my program?

 

[limr]

The ruling can be appealed, and it's also fairly narrow in scope. I am not saying it will have NO effect, but I am also not convinced that this will have the far-reaching effects that people fear.

 

[Braineack]

the fact that it made it to federal court after the festival removed it from the site is more shocking...

It has to be a federal court. Copyright laws are federal. There are no state, county/parrish or civic copyright laws.

let me rephrase: the fact that it made it to court after the festival removed the image from the site is more shocking...

 

[MartinCrabtree]

It does however set a dangerous precedent. And yes sparky it's a federal court.

 

[Braineack]

...found the photo online and saw no indication that it was copyrighted...

This is the part with which I have the greatest issue; the fact that it exists means that there is a copyright; the terms of use are a different matter, but does this idiotjudge expect that we are to publish a copyright & use document with every image? As me old Mum used to say, "You may not know whose property it is, but you damn sure know whose it is not!"

that's only (1/2) point out of (4) to determine fair use.

Even if they were lying about the copyright, they immediately removed the image when they were contacted -- the judge determined that to be in good faith.

the second half of that point, quoted two cases where the creative elements of the image didn't matter if it was an argument of depicting historical fasts. Since the Festival was using it as an image to depict Adam's Morgan on their site the judge concluded the creative elements didn't matter.

I really don't see the problem with the judge here, the problem is, like with most laws, the law itself. In this case: U.S. Code › Title 17 › Chapter 1 › § 107

 

[480sparky]

the fact that it made it to federal court after the festival removed it from the site is more shocking...

It has to be a federal court. Copyright laws are federal. There are no state, county/parrish or civic copyright laws.

let me rephrase: the fact that it made it to court after the festival removed the image from the site is more shocking...

You can sue any one, any time. At least in 'Murica. All you need is the money to pay your lawyer.

 

[Braineack]

the fact that it made it to federal court after the festival removed it from the site is more shocking...

It has to be a federal court. Copyright laws are federal. There are no state, county/parrish or civic copyright laws.

let me rephrase: the fact that it made it to court after the festival removed the image from the site is more shocking...

You can sue any one, any time. At least in 'Murica. All you need is the money to pay your lawyer.

They only ones who really made out here were the lawyers.

 

[tirediron]

I really don't see the problem with the judge here, the problem is, like with most laws, the law itself. In this case: U.S. Code › Title 17 › Chapter 1 › § 107

The laws may well need amendment, but the problem with the judge is that he is saying, in part, is, "Ignorance of the law is an excuse!" There's no sign at the corner intersection directing pedestrians to only cross at the cross-walk; can I therefore walk through traffic and successfully dispute the "jay-walking" ticket I receive based on my ignorance of the law?