copyright and fair use: what do they mean vis-a-vis the internet?
-
i saved lots of pictures of the katrina victms of new orleans and i had intended to use them as visual aid on my blog. like they say, ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’. i have not yet investigated what it means to post pictures that someone else took but that i found appealing enough that i copied and saved them for future use.
the same question i would like to ask regarding playing background music using a track that i paid for.
i am not that naive to assume that whatever is out there on the net if for the taking. but how else can i write stories about distant lands without depending on photoes that are readily available on the net.
-
You may wish to obtain permission from the photographer. In most cases, the photographer name is listed in conjunction with the photo.
This doesn’t answer your question or protect you from copyright infringement, but some steps you can take to help the ethics of the situation: (1) Ask the photographer’s permission before using their work. (2) List the credit for the photographer or site you borrowed it from. (3) Hopefully your blog is free and you’re not charging for someone else’s property.
When it comes to the ethics of the situation, is it unethical to copy photos? Or is it more unethical to prohibit other people from sharing.
It’s highly unethical to copy *any* form of artwork – drawings, photos, paintings, etc. If you take pictures and wish to share them, by all means do so. But assuming that someone else wants to do the same is wrong, and you *can* be prosectuted for it.
When in doubt, ALWAYS ask. If you don’t get a response, or the answer is “no”, then don’t use it.
(take it fron a chick who’s had waaaaay too much stolen from her in the name of “sharing” or “helping to promote” – I don’t deal well with theives.)
By the way, this is also a question you should be asking a lawyer, if you want to be safe. You never know what country the original photographer is from, and what laws apply to them. US copyright laws are not the same as laws in other countries, and the law of the originating artist is what prevails.
Dgold: thanks for the suggestions. my blog is not for profit, except that i might eventually list some books of interest and gain some dimes from amazon.
oh, boy, i shoulda first asked the question on a forum like this one before proceeding to save hundreds of pictures of the katrina victims. i have already saved the pictures, in which case i don’t know who to ask permission from or give credit to. but there was a time when i asked for permission on a particular picture and i never received a response back, which probably means ‘no’.
what about the case of playing background music using a track which i paid for? i doubt that my payment of $1 to buy the track would entitle me to have the license to play it online, but i wanted to know if anyone had done it and what are the procedures to obtaining permission.
Most clients I’ve worked with that want to play music online will do so – but usually they need to put it in a flash file (so the file can’t be downloaded by someone else). Many will make just a little clip of the song, instead of playing the whole thing.
I’ve seen this with videos too. I know there are several places where you can get videos and music that *are* licensed to be played on websites (and look at places like MySpace.com, where everyone and their mother puts whatever up on their pages!), but generally I try to stay away from that type of thing. You never know what kind of trouble you can get into!
doodlebee: thanks for the input, but i am still not quite sure that i can play music even if other’s can’t download it. i am just weary of being sued, etc. i will continue to inquire about it a little further.
i liked readng ‘about’ you. you seem to be generous with helping others. i started learning html, css in recent weeks and i am still learning … not so easy even for someone like me who used to code (cobol) for a living.
ronam, it’s almost certainly illegal to play that music!
Try looking for some music under a creative commons license though.
I strongly disagree with doodlebee though, who describes it as “highly unethical to copy *any* form of artwork”.
Doodlebee is absolutely right that you can be prosecuted, but the fact that it’s illegal doesn’t mean that it’s unethical (In Saudi Arabia, somebody told me, it’s illegal for women to drive!).
Perhaps it is unethical to plagiarise other peoples work, but that is not the same thing as sharing digital copies… Or even just playing some background music … What the hell is unethical about that?
graphox –
You may disagree if you like. ?? But I do know that when I’ve had my own work stolen, it does *not* make me happy – and it happens A LOT. The fact that it’s illegal to do so just makes me feel that much better about the fact that I can do something about it rather than sit back and watch other people take my work in the name of “sharing”.
Stealing is unethical. “Sharing digital copies” is not a problem, as long as the originator of the work has *allowed* this to happen, and given permission to do so. If the originating artist *has* given permission – great! Go for it. But there’s way too many people out there who believe that if it’s on the ‘net it’s free for public use.
As for playing background music – I just err on the side of caution. There’s too many musicians out there who would see it as copyright infringement, even though it’s as protected as possible from download. They’d be more than happy to sue your ass in a heartbeat if they felt that their rights were infringed.
The problem with “sharing” images/music/writing you see on the internet is that you never know who the original artist is, and whether or not they actually gave permission for the “sharing”. *That* is what’s unethical. These are a few of MANY reasons I no longer share my own artwork and creative writings online anymore – I got tired of people stealing them from me in the name of “sharing” and “promoting the artist”.
As for the “illegal for women to drive” – yes, I see your point. Laws are not always good ones (I can name several in the US I don’t agree with off the toip of my head!) but they’re still the law until it’s changed. Copyright laws are there to protect people like you and me who hate having their stuff stolen, and the law is on my side (thankfully) so I can do something about it when I catch theives.
Stealing *is* unethical, whether you know you’re stealing or not. You should *always* be cautious when dealing with work that is not your own. It’s not only a matter of simple respect for others, but it’s safeghuarding yourself as well – this country (being the US) is way too lawsuit-happy the way it is. So most of the stuff I say is not just from personal experience as an artist (who’s had work stolen quite often), but it’s also coming from my own business where I tell clients the exact same thing – they wouldn’t like to get sued, either!
Hi,
Ask the proprietor of the copyright. Period.
Using someone else’s work isn’t necessarily stealing. I don’t like it when I see those two words married. If I did a news story on doodlebee’s artwork being stolen on the nightly news, I can freely broadcast her work as part of my story. This would be a fair use. Your Katrina photos may qualify as a fair use, but you would need to consult a copyright lawyer, or better, obtain permission and skip the need for a lawyer.
Perhaps the photos you’ve already downloaded are not usable. I would suspect that there are many other photos you could freely use. If you go to the creative commons website, you’ll see links to photo archives where you are given permission to use the photos posted, provided you meet the terms stated. (many versions of terms, non commercial use might be one for example). Flickr is another good source for photos you can use. You generally are required to credit the photo source, which is fairly easy, just a link at the end of the video.
About music. If you use more than 15 seconds (or maybe it’s 30 in the US (I’m not in the US)) of a song, you’re required to obtain permission from the artist. It’s more complicated than that of course, but know that the RIAA bullies people beyond their rights. Don’t believe everything you read about that. There are also many creative commons musical selections to choose from where you can freely use the tunes.
doodlebee, you have suddenly raised the issue of theft. But aren’t stealing and copying entirely different things?
Say, for example, you stole a piece of artwork from a gallery and kept it for yourself. In that situation, you are clearly depriving other people of that artwork. Or, alternatively, if you stole someones food, or their clothes, then you may be depriving them of things they need to survive. These things are all scarce resources.
However, if you are making a copy of some digital information, then the original creator is never deprived of their own work. In fact nobody is deprived, nothing has been taken away; the information is an infinitely abundant resource.
In my mind, it is actually unethical to provide people with information while prohibiting them from sharing it. By doing so you are using copyright law to unnecessarily deprive people of resources, and remove peoples’ freedoms.
The problem with “sharing” images/music/writing you see on the internet is that you never know who the original artist is, and whether or not they actually gave permission for the “sharing”. *That* is what’s unethical. …
Why are we ethically obliged to obtain permission before we can copy (or adapt, and improve) pieces of information?
(You also suggest that we would be obtaining this permission from the original artist, but I suspect this is rarely the case. We would probably be dealing with the copyright-holder, who may not even be an individual.)
Isn’t it unethical for these copyright holders, empowered by the law, to take away the natural freedoms to share and adapt information from everybody else?
Hi graphox,
it most certainly isn’t just an ethical question. Read the link provided and be enlightened.
You will be anyway the moment someone rips and uses material from you which you yourself created, wish to sell and find strewn all over the internet without even correctly attributing it and under these circumstances suffering quite some financial and other loss.
I concede to you that there needs to be a point past which copyright needs to be revisited. This most certainly is not the case while the author or his family are still alive. Oh, and I have no problem with a firm coming up with creative work and holding copyright either – or do you think it would be of no effect at all, if the copyright of the Coke bottle was widely used by anyone from Pepsi to the streetvendor?
>>In my mind, it is actually unethical to provide people with information while prohibiting them from sharing it.<<
I know of several people who think this way. And this is *precisely* why I take my own advice – if you don’t want it stolen, don’t put it on the ‘net. Because a lot of people think that the internet is free, and anything in it is up for grabs. “Sharing” is the problem – the definition is very broad. Fo example, I have a website right now where I “share” my knowledge, and I even say on the site that the purpose of the site is to share and for people to take what they will and use as they can. However, I have several pieces of artwork I have done over the years which I will no longer post on the internet because people think that, because it’s online, it’s up for grabs and meant to be “shared”. I’ve even had several pictures I have purchased rights to so I could have permission to use them, only to find someone has hotlinked or stolen them to use on their own site. “Sharing” is a matter of opinion, it seems. I’d ratehr stay out of it, so I no longer make the option available. But ask any other artist out there who *does* use the internet to sell their work so they can put food on the table – this idea of “sharing” does harm.
>>You will be anyway the moment someone rips and uses material from you which you yourself created, wish to sell and find strewn all over the internet without even correctly attributing it and under these circumstances suffering quite some financial and other loss.<<
Exactly.
>>Using someone else’s work isn’t necessarily stealing. I don’t like it when I see those two words married. If I did a news story on doodlebee’s artwork being stolen on the nightly news, I can freely broadcast her work as part of my story. This would be a fair use.<<
Excellent point, manstraw. Maybe I should have been more clear – that *would* be fair use. I was adressing the issue, though, on the side of creators of artwork/music/writing/whatever who get their stuff taken and reused on the internet in ways that it was not intended to be used. “Fair use” is fair use – if someone wanted to create a parody of me, or report something on me, then that’s fine. But to just take music or use my artwork to decorate their page (or print them out and decorate their office) is *not* fair use. But most definitely good point.
And another point:
>>You also suggest that we would be obtaining this permission from the original artist, but I suspect this is rarely the case. We would probably be dealing with the copyright-holder, who may not even be an individual<<
Copyright belongs to the individual or entity which created the original work in question. The *only* way copyright is given away in the US is if there is a signed, legal document transferring copyright to someone else. So yes, in normal, general cases (of course there are exceptions to the rule) the orginiator of the work *is* the person who holds copyright, and thus that is who you need to ask.
In the end, the safe way to go: if you didn’t create it yourself, then ask first. It’s a simple matter of respect for others. That’s all.
- The topic ‘copyright and fair use: what do they mean vis-a-vis the internet?’ is closed to new replies.