If we, as TPF users feel the need to make a complaint to the admin...

[cgipson1]

I am going to write the smutty version of Ansel Adam's biography, 10 Shades of Grey. Sensitometry will never be seen the same way again!

That joke is the equivalent of a Smiley Butt! Arrggghhhh!

 

[The_Traveler]

I had thought that '50 shades of grey' was the zone system for compulsive people.

 

[Jaemie]

^^ hahaha!

 

[KmH]

OK, now that I'm a View attachment 14302 I will feel free to point out silliness of the rule not allowing images to be posted under the Fair Use Doctrine.

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of 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
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Fair enough for a member living in the US and displaying an image under the US fair-use legislation, but what about a member in India who wants to display the image of a photographer from Peru? Are the rules the same for them? Probably not. Understanding that the rules about posting images which are not your own seem annoying to some, it's easier in the long run for everyone to do it this way. Really, is that much harder to post a link?

Plus, only the beginning portion of the 'Fair Use' doctrine was quoted by The_Traveler. Here is the rest with some added emphasis on salient points, and a link to the entire FL102 factsheet PDF - http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of 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
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Reviewed June 2012

 

[Derrel]

Oh,for God's sake...

http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlaw...tent-prosecution-and-the-physics-of-fair-use/

 

[unpopular]

Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music Inc. - Google Scholar

Blanch v. Koons - Google Scholar

But none of this particularly matters. This isn't a court case, this is a privately administered chat forum. What is "fair use" does not much matter when concerning the it's rules and terms of use.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music Inc. - Google Scholar

Blanch v. Koons - Google Scholar

But none of this particularly matters. This isn't a court case, this is a privately administered chat forum. What is "fair use" does not much matter when concerning the it's rules and terms of use.

I actually agree completely. You will never find somebody more in favor of private property rights and the rights of the owner to decide how to handle something however they want. That's called a free market.

What I feel needs addressed is the fact that rules haven't changed much over the last few years, but what is resulting in a ban or an infraction has changed quite a bit. For those of us who have been here for years, it is weird that the enforcement of certain rules have changed while the rules have stayed the same.

Perhaps it's time to update the rules and send everybody an acknowledgement of the new rules. With these forums, that is easily done. You can't make another post until you acknowledge the new rules.

Then, at least we are all on the same playing field and punishment can be put out as the forum admin/mod's see fit.

In this case, that wasn't the case. The rules are the exact same, and yet, the enforcement of them(and what is considered a violation of them) has changed.

This needs to be addressed.

 

[unpopular]

Well. In the case of Schwetty I think that this has more to do with KMH and Schwetty than it does with the integrity of the community. I believe that the inconsistency here permits this kind of alleged abuse of power. I don't know if this is the case or not, but I do know that KMH kind of likes to play copyright guru (without attention to case law, mind you). I can see how Schwetty may have made him look bad.

As I had said elsewhere, if the moderators acknowledge there is room for discretion, I'd be ok with that - otherwise there is a need for more consistency in how the rules are applied. In any case, bans and suspension should always be carried out only in the event that someone has demonstrated a disregard for site rules in more than one instance over a prolonged period of time despite having received multiple warnings.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Well. In the case of Schwetty I think that this has more to do with KMH and Schwetty than it does with the integrity of the community. I believe that the inconsistency here permits this kind of alleged abuse of power. I don't know if this is the case or not, but I do know that KMH kind of likes to play copyright guru (without attention to case law, mind you). I can see how Schwetty may have made him look bad.

Heck, I don't like either one of them. If it would have been up to me, I would have banned both of them a long time ago...just as if it was up to them, they probably would have banned me. The point is, the rules aren't being equally applied.

As I had said elsewhere, if the moderators acknowledge there is room for discretion, I'd be ok with that - otherwise there is a need for more consistency in how the rules are applied. In any case, bans and suspension should always be carried out only in the event that someone has demonstrated a disregard for site rules in more than one instance over a prolonged period of time despite having received multiple warnings.

Throughout my private messages, the moderators have said there is room for discretion, and that the admin will typically back up whatever a moderator decides. In this case, that appears to be the case. A mod made a decision, and it might have been out of feeling slighted, it might have been an excercise of power, or it might have been that other things were deleted that we never got a chance to see. We will never know.

As it is, Schwetty will be back in a few days, this will all blow over, and hopefully, at some time, the Mod's or Admin will clarify what they see as acceptable use so that this doesn't happen again.

Personally, I still see this entire situation as an overreach of power,(or to give it the beneift of the doubt, a split second decision that would not have been made otherwise) but then again, there doesn't seem to be anything I, or us, can do about it...so, it is what it is.

 

[unpopular]

but then again, there doesn't seem to be anything I, or us, can do about it...so, it is what it is.

Clearly there isn't anything stopping us from complaining about it openly! I just think it's funny that our right to post funny memes is more important than our right to discuss what makes an HDR image a "true" HDR.

 

[Kerbouchard]

but then again, there doesn't seem to be anything I, or us, can do about it...so, it is what it is.

Clearly there isn't anything stopping us from complaining about it openly! I just think it's funny that our right to post funny memes is more important than our right to discuss what makes an HDR image a "true" HDR.

Never looked into the HDR threads since I think they should be outlawed... But then again, my revolt thread was locked, so perhaps the mod's are tired of all of it.

For the first time, I agree with the mod's...at this point, it's just getting silly, including my thread.

They made up their mind, and now we can either toe the line or go elsewhere. Sounds like they put the ball back in our court.

 

[unpopular]

My problem with the HDR thing is the prospect of censoring entire photo-related subjects. I don't believe any on-topic discussion should be discouraged.

 

[Kerbouchard]

My problem with the HDR thing is the prospect of censoring entire photo-related subjects. I don't believe any on-topic discussion should be discouraged.

Again, never even saw the HDR thread that you are referring to, so I can't have an opinion one way or another.