Refreshing copyright policy change...at least in one book.

[Ilovemycam]

I was reading a photo book about hand made books. The copyright warning said the artists and photographers retain copyright to their individual works. But it also said..."The photographs and text in this volume are intended for the personal use of the reader and may be reproduced for that purpose only. Any other use, especially commercial use, is forbidden by law without the written permission of the copyright holder."

Nice change in the copyright policy. Are things loosening up in this area of non commercial rebroadcast of copyrighted material?

I see tons of all sort of copyrighted things on Tumblr and the other blog sites rebroadcast. Maybe it is time for the crazed copyright gestapo to come back to earth and let people discuss their work freely for personal editorial use as long as no money is being made off the copyright holder.

 

[rexbobcat]

You do realize that those who offered their photographs to the book probably consented to the relinquishing of their individual copyright....right?

It's kind of like the whole "everyone else takes steroids so that makes it okay." That's not always the case....

There is also something called Creative Commons, which gives exactly the permission that you are looking for.

Everybody thinks that copyright laws are too harsh until they get their own work "stolen"...

 

[KmH]

To use your term, each copyright owner is a "crazed copyright gestapo" of 1.

You should be aware that what you quoted likely does not mean quite what you seem to think it means.
That statement was likely written by an intellectual property attorney who is also trained in publication law.

Copyright gives the author an exclusive bundle of intellectual property rights regarding the exclusive option of allowing, or not allowing, use of their intellectual property by others.
The author can allow or restricted usage of their intellectual property in an amazing variety of ways.

US Copyright Office
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

Many people who have a stake relative to their own intellectual property in what copyright does or doesn't do, have no basic, fundamental understanding of how copyright law works.

Compared to federal tax law, copyright law is basic grade school level stuff. :lmao:

Lots of authors allow use of their intellectual property for 'personal use'.

 

[480sparky]

...........Compared to federal tax law, ..........

Or the National Electrical Code.

...........copyright law is basic grade school level stuff.

..........

I was absolutely astounded how the copyright laws were written so, well, vulgar (not in the obscene sense!). Typically, such documents just ooze legalese.

 

[Ilovemycam]

Well, here is the thing...

You take a pix of someone at a bus stop, the photo ad in the background that another photog took is in your pix...copyright issues.

You sell a CD on eBay. Scan the cover photo, as eBay requires everything to have a pix now...copyright issues.

Take a pix on the street, another photogs pix is on the billboard in your pix...copyright issues.

Take a pix of your kid or wife in the kitchen. Campbells soup can is in your pix with their photo of clam chowder...copyright issues.

Photo in front of a magazine stand...copyright issues.

I applaud the book for forward thinking views on the out of date copyright laws. But, maybe that is how they do it in UK and Canada? And while the book was also published in the US, it looked like it was also marketed a lot outside the US.

The way things are now, our world is polluted with photogs. So many of them will gladly offer photos for free. So I think this area will continue to loosen up some. At least I hope so for editorial and for the personal discussions we have here.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could post things here for education and discussion without worry about the copyright Gestapo suing the forum or members?

 

[Overread]

Far as I know copyright law already allows you to use items for personal use anyway. Far as I recall you can copy music, games mostly anything you want for your own personal use (typically as a personal backup). The only time it comes into question is when you start distributing (ie not just personal use) or showing to the masses (schools, oil rigs, the public) or trying to directly profit from it.


So I don't think that book is doing anything but stating the copyright law so that its highlighted (most likely because of its nature as a guide book and thus containing content expected to be reproduced by the reader)

 

[KmH]

Well, here is the thing...

You take a pix of someone at a bus stop, the photo ad in the background that another photog took is in your pix...copyright issues.

You sell a CD on eBay. Scan the cover photo, as eBay requires everything to have a pix now...copyright issues.

Take a pix on the street, another photogs pix is on the billboard in your pix...copyright issues.

Take a pix of your kid or wife in the kitchen. Campbells soup can is in your pix with their photo of clam chowder...copyright issues.

Photo in front of a magazine stand...copyright issues.

Visit U.S. Copyright Office and United States Patent and Trademark Office for the most accurate information.

 

[rexbobcat]

Well, here is the thing...

You take a pix of someone at a bus stop, the photo ad in the background that another photog took is in your pix...copyright issues.

You sell a CD on eBay. Scan the cover photo, as eBay requires everything to have a pix now...copyright issues.

Take a pix on the street, another photogs pix is on the billboard in your pix...copyright issues.

Take a pix of your kid or wife in the kitchen. Campbells soup can is in your pix with their photo of clam chowder...copyright issues.

Photo in front of a magazine stand...copyright issues.

I applaud the book for forward thinking views on the out of date copyright laws. But, maybe that is how they do it in UK and Canada? And while the book was also published in the US, it looked like it was also marketed a lot outside the US.

The way things are now, our world is polluted with photogs. So many of them will gladly offer photos for free. So I think this area will continue to loosen up some. At least I hope so for editorial and for the personal discussions we have here.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could post things here for education and discussion without worry about the copyright Gestapo suing the forum or members?

You are mixing up trademark with copyright.

Also; taking a photo of a photo is not copyright infringement.

The only time those certain instances would get you on trouble is if you tried to market the photos commercially. Do you think photojournalists get permission before selling a photo to a magazine.

Using another person's photo is copyright, however. Please visit KmH's link

 

[The_Traveler]

Far as I know copyright law already allows you to use items for personal use anyway. Far as I recall you can copy music, games mostly anything you want for your own personal use (typically as a personal backup). The only time it comes into question is when you start distributing (ie not just personal use) or showing to the masses (schools, oil rigs, the public) or trying to directly profit from it.


So I don't think that book is doing anything but stating the copyright law so that its highlighted (most likely because of its nature as a guide book and thus containing content expected to be reproduced by the reader)

And for discussion or editorial purposes.
That's called 'Fair Use'

 

[KmH]

But 'Fair Use' does not always apply, as noted by the US Copyright office in Fact Sheet 102.

.....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 safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material.......

 

[The_Traveler]

But 'Fair Use' does not always apply, as noted by the US Copyright office in Fact Sheet 102.

.....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 safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material.......

Of course it doesn't always apply to everything, but it does apply for editorial or educational purposes.

 

[Josh66]

Also; taking a photo of a photo is not copyright infringement.

Some people make millions doing just that.

 

[KmH]

but it does apply for editorial or educational purposes.

But, not in every instance of usage for an editorial or an educational purpose.

Each use has to be evaluated on it's own merits, and when a copyright owner does not agree with the users interpretation of 'Fair Use', intellectual property lawyers make money.

 

[The_Traveler]

but it does apply for editorial or educational purposes.

But, not in every instance of usage for an editorial or an educational purpose.

Each use has to be evaluated on it's own merits, and when a copyright owner does not agree with the users interpretation of 'Fair Use', intellectual property lawyers make money.

Easy to say but but that's a 'ooooh, look out for the boogey man argument.'

I'd be surprised if you could come up with three examples of where there was a court case about an editorial or educational use that doesn't involve making multiple copies.
That's the exact purpose of the Fair Use Rules, to allow for criticism and discussion that centers around the specific image, to foster discussion rather than restrict it.
That's why we can post copies of other's pictures in a critique column or show images in a class without breaking copyright rules.

I quote from the US Govt fact sheet at U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

"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.”​

 

[The_Traveler]

and this on images

Section 107 of the Copyright Act states:

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 include—the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Source: 17 USC Section 107.
​