While I would generally agree with all that Judy says about copyright, I
think that for those of us who are primarily photographers the situation is
different.
Often a large part of the income a photographer derives from an image is
precisely in reproduction fees.
Of course the copying of reasonable sections (including pictures) from books
for your own personal use is a legitimate activity. However, it remains
important that art schools etc buy the books in the first place because if
the lecturers go elsewhere and copy images then the students and the authors
and photographers (and artists who get paid for reproductions) are all
getting short-changed.
Of course I use slides in my teaching. But all come from books that either I
personally own or my institution does. I prefer, whenever possible to use
actual prints, or, if I have to work from reproductions, books rather than
slides of books. But obviously it isn't always practical to do so.
I'm pleased - as a photographer - to hear that Koons lost the case. He
should have (and could have afforded) paid a reasonable fee to use (abuse?)
the work.
Mindful that this is not alt.copyright can I also say that US copyright law
differs from that of other countries, and that also one should consider the
moral rights of the artist. Now I promise not to post any more comments that
are not about photography for at least a few days.
Peter Marshall
petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk