Court decides snatching online phots OK

Once again, the lack of notice is only a portion of one standard the defendant has to prove in order to claim fair use.

"In the United States, whether or not a use of copyrighted material without permission can be considered fair use (17 U.S. Code § 107) depends on four main factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use (including whether it’s “transformative” and commercial vs. non-commercial), (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) how much of the work is used, and (4) how much the use affects the market and/or value of the work."

You're all acting as if the entire case hinged on this issue, and that now it's going to go all post-apocalyptic anarchy. It's not. The sky is not falling.

are we the only two people who actually read the decision? and i hate reading, and there were no illustrations taking up the pages!!!!
 
I read the decision but by the time I posted, the conversation I had responded to had taken a turn away from directly discussing the decision. Therefore the results of the decision had no bearing on what I was stating.

P.S. nice condescending post.
 
i self-disparaged at least!
 
So did I. A dry sense of humor doesn't usually come thru too well online Braineack but that's how I took it (otherwise no LOL for you!).

The thing is, whether we like it as written or not, the judge had to take into account all four factors that exist. I'm not sure I agree with this judgement because the promoter should have gotten permission to use any photo found online. It would be fine to use something for study or educational purposes, etc. but this to me seems iffy. It's a for profit event, but some proceeds go to charity and it's a community event so that to me makes it less clear cut.

I agree that people shouldn't take others' property, but obviously peeps don't see it that way. Online the photos only exist in a virtual way, it would be different taking someone's prints and tossing 'em out in the street. But I don't think they seem as real or like they belong to someone, they're just out there, they don't exist in a real tangible, physical way. I think you gotta deal with putting your photos online and how to protect them.

The guy seems to have had other choices, and - he got what he requested with one option, the takedown notice - the promoter took down the photo and stopped using it. I don't know if the photographer sent a contract to license usage or not but that would be another option. With a lawsuit you never know the outcome and need to think about if it's worth your cost in legal fees.
 
Online the photos only exist in a virtual way, it would be different taking someone's prints and tossing 'em out in the street. But I don't think they seem as real or like they belong to someone, they're just out there, they don't exist in a real tangible, physical way.

There have been several studies on how the anonymity of the internet can cause people to do things they otherwise would never consider in real life. Would Braineack be condescending in real life..........never mind bad example (LOL just kidding man). It's also easier to do things that are questionable, because as you mentioned things on the internet "don't seem as real".
 
First and foremost there needs to be a universal world wide copyright agreement between all countries, because without one there will never be protection.
There has been such since 5 December 1887.
Currently 176 countries are signators.

Each copyright infringement suit filed in US Federal court is judged independent of other copyright infringement suits.
Or put another way, a claim of "fair use" is adjudicated on the merits of each case.

So, the court did not say "snatching online phots [sic] OK".
The court said snatching the one photo the case was about was fair use.
However, don't be surprised if the judge is reversed on appeal, if there is an appeal.
It would not be the first time a federal judge made a poor legal decision.
 
Currently 176 countries are signators.

Should have included "enforceable". Quick search will pull up the worst offenders of pirating online media.
 
Don't forget that each country makes their own copyright laws, and note how the Berne Convention works.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top