From: Peter Marshall (petermarshall@cix.co.uk)
Date: 03/04/01-04:30:22 AM Z
> > > putting something on the Internet does not place it in the public
> > > domain; copyright laws apply here as well as anywhere else.
> > You're right. But how are you going to enforce the copyright?
>
> Legally, you MUST go after infringers if you are aware that they are
> infringing. You can loose the right to sue if you discover a problem and
> do not make an attempt to do something about it
>
> > Putting something on the net is opening the door for copyright
> infringements. It's
> > a simple fact. I experienced it with my gallery's web site. People
> > copy
> > pictures at screen resolution, without bothering to ask. It's the net.
>
> By this reasoning, putting your books into the public library is opening
> the door to copyright infringement. Silly notion, isn't it?
>
> I think the people need education about the problem. Consider that
> Windows allows you to save things from the web. It is a "Right Click"
> feature. It is automatic with most browsers as well. Unfortunately, as
> it
> is now, it creates issues for all people who create for the world, and
> the only way to put a damper on it is by standing up for your rights.
>
> Bob
>
>
We've seen an interesting copyright case in the last year - here's a short
quote from something I wrote:
>the image that is etched into our collective minds is from his near
>contemporary, Alberto Korda. The icon we recognise from its continual use
>around the world (Korda recently won a court case to prevent its use for
>advertising vodka, but has not profited from its universal use and
>donated the settlement to charity) stands not just for the person of
>Guevara, but for a concept of masculine courage and defiance, a spirit
>that fired the youth of the sixties across the world
so Korda didn't bother asserting his copyright for many years and then won
a case over it.
More generally I think it isn't really copying that is a problem, but the
photographer losing money (or others making it) by copying occurring. I've
probably got over a thousand pictures available on the net now, and I have
few worries about copying. If people ask if they may copy for
non-commercial use I'm happy so long as it is in some way attributed (and
linked if on the web)- people who ask if they can print a copy to stick on
their wall, or on a T shirt for their daughter, in neighbourhood
newsletters etc aren't losing me anything. I'm not particularly worried
that there are probably ten or a hundred who do it for each one who asks.
Quite a few commercial sites or organisations have also approached me
wanting to use material for free - and I always reply saying they will
have to pay. Most then go away, but I've still made far more than I've
spent on putting stuff on the web. Of course for anything except web use I
need to supply larger files. Of course people anywhere can get much larger
files simply by scanning any picture in print - much easier to rip off
commercially.
If you think it is worth chasing reuse on the web you can watermark your
pictures but I decided it isn't worth it.
Peter Marshall
Photography Guide at About http://photography.about.com/
email: photography.guide@about.com
_________________________________________________________________
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
Also on Fixing Shadows: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ds8s
and elsewhere......
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:24 AM Z CST