fair use.

AnCatDubh

Simple question -

for you what constitutes fair use, and is it the same in your opinion for other media - music, text, print, performance, etc....

I think its an interesting exploration when you consider other peoples use of your work and your use (or potential use) of other peoples work. It strikes me that the internet is full of unstructured 'fair use' (and probably lots of 'unfair use').

for example (an example, not suggesting its correct) - Should we all be ok with non commercial use ie. someone taking your image and sticking it on their blog to demonstrate or accompany something else. Should it be ok with attribution, or if an effective orphan work (unable to tell reasonably who the owner is), to correct the attribution if or when the owner comes across the publication.

This isn't intended to be a legal argument of "what the law says and because it says something i'm gonna clobber you for *innocently* not understanding your theft of my image". More so, i'm wondering if there is any swell of support for a reasonable (fair) use scenario which is not defined by a solicitor (which i mostly believe no one will benefit from).

What do you think?

DaireQuinlan

Isn't this precisely what all those different CC licenses actually enable, very explicitly ? The beauty of it being that you're actually opting in. You don't have to, it's entirely up to you, and if you DO then the appropriate license is there for the choosing and sets down exactly what it is that -you- regard as the fair use for your image.

At the end of the day it's all about choice and consent. A couple of times in these copyright threads that pop up on the forum people who have had their images used without their consent have been chided by people on thread. 'Sure what problem would you have with it', 'isn't the exposure great', 'I'd be happy to have...' etc etc etc. They're missing the important point that if I (for example) want to only allow my images to be licensed on tuesdays (but not on any tuesday immediately after a full moon), and not to anyone called 'Mark', then so be it. The image is mine. I dictate its usage.

PCPhoto

Fair use for me is usage that I have agreed to

if it means usage of an image on a blog or charity website for free - no problem.

The important part being that I know about it and I have given permission - illegal usage such as robbing an image from a photographers website or flickr etc should not be permitted - its copyright theft !!

jpb1974

In my opinion the whole thing is a can of worms simply due to the conflicting nature of people's choices and opinion... often with a pinch of hypocrasy and ignorancy to top it all off.

I often find it strange seeing photographers rant about someone nicking an image belonging to them and then a few weeks later asking people what do they think of the slide show they created for a wedding they recently photographed with 'Flying without Wings' by Westlife playing away in the background.

I agree with the following simple principles irrespective of how your photo is to be used-

"If you want to use my photos please ask"

and

"If you plan on making money from it then I want to be paid/compensated"

(Charities subject to review)

sineadw

Yep, I think Creative Commons is the way forward. I've used it plenty of times now for sounds in particular, and I think the whole concept of it raises awareness of what IP *is*, and that you can't just do anything you want. It should always be opt in though. I wouldn't want just any of my images floating about doing what they wanted, non-commercial or not. Some images have far too personal a meaning for that.

Fair use is different though. I'm assuming you mean in the context of US copyright law? From Wikipedia: Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship., where there *Isn't* explicit consent from the copyright holder. This is not opt in, but a general rule of thumb for IP materials. It's a lot broader than the one we have here, and I think that might just be the healthier option. I don't know enough about it to be sure though TBH.

Do you mean that the concept of fair use should be widened to incorporate all non-commercial usage? If so, then I would have to say a big fat NO. My images (and whatever else I produce) are mine, and should always be mine to decide what others do with them. Fair use is important for journalism, literature and academia, and that's all it should be used for.

magicbastarder

hands up anyone on this forum who *doesn't* have MP3s of copyrighted music on their computer that they didn't pay for?

PCPhoto

magicbastarder wrote: »

hands up anyone on this forum who *doesn't* have MP3s of copyrighted music on their computer that they didn't pay for?

*RAISES HAND UP*

I don't have any MP3's

and with regards to illegal software - don't have any - as a full-time working professional photographer its not worth my while to do it the illegal way (A lot of my work is based around the courts)

Aren't I a proper little goody goody two shoes !!

I did purchase a sealed copy of photoshop 4 via Adverts a few years ago - only to find out the product code didn't work - the seller claimed he got a copy through college so didn't need one he purchased .... shortly after I got home and tried to upload he promptly ignored my calls after that....despite his promises of accepting it straight back if there was an issue.

jpb1974

Ever watch a pirated DVD, don a Tommy Hullfugger shirt or wear your jeans low so that the ladies can see your Celvin O'Brien boxers?

Just checking...

sineadw

I doubt there'd be anyone who can say that. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to address the whole mess that IP law has become though. It's a perfect example of why it's so badly needed. There needs to be a whole new outlook on how materials can be legally disseminated. Look at Spotify for instance. It's bloody brilliant, perfectly legal, and STILL not technically available here AFAIK. More of that type of thing, and I think the tide will start to turn. If it doesn't, the industry collapses, and no-one's making decent music that anyone wants to nick any more.

CabanSail

When I was giving a talk on Composition I was looking for images to use as examples, both good & bad. I used some of my own images and some from friends. I needed other images and the copyright law does allow use without permission for educational purposes. This meant I could use images which were online in my lecture quite legally, as Sineadw pointed out above.

When I moved to Ireland in 2006 I left most of my music behind. I did download some MP3's but they were things I have on CD back home. Some of it I had bought as LP's and cassettes in the past. I had paid for the licence already, cannot see why a new one is required for a change of media.

ScumLord

I think when it comes to art your trying to tell people something and once you say what you want to say it's out there like a breath of air and can't be taken back.

What's the point in creating something if your going to restrict peoples access to it, what was the point in making it in the first place?

In a commercial sense though if someone's going to be making money off your work then you should get your cut.

In some respects I think it's ridiculous to tell someone something and then put your hand out, but at the same time we always value experts as they put in the time required to specialise in something we all want produced.

I think big business has ruined the relationship between the artist and the public, their egos have become inflated past their actual worth, they've hijacked art for profit. At the same time more people understand the arts and can make their own art devaluing it as a whole across the board.

Zillah

The term "Fair Use" might mislead people into thinking it is a subjective concept, but it actually has fairly specific definitions and limitations in the law.

AnCatDubh

Today, Wired published a creative commons article (Katie Scott) and what it means for photographers. Some interesting takes on it from various stand points.

While creative commons appears to have gained significant popularity with amateur photographers, it would appear (from the linked piece) that professionals either don't trust the licence, see little value in the reuse of their work licenced under the creative commons framework, or are just playing the dinosaur and rely on "its my copyright, do something with the image and i'll sue you for your pants" approach to their licencing.

I am wondering, if what might ultimately happen is that those who rely on the traditional form of licencing ie. "copyright is mine" will find certain work dries up in some publishing fields which were previously profitable for them - this at least in part due to the availability of high quality amateur coverage, and thus those who rely on copyright would ultimately be forced into a situation of being the dinosaur and become extinct (or perhaps become just irrelevant) - obviously not for specific assignment type of work, but for incidental work where it may have been taken by amateurs and is freely availability under less restrictive creative commons licence.

For example, we see some amazing images posted on our forum from time to time. If much of what we see ultimately becomes available through a creative commons licence then there may be slim pickings for those relying on this type of photography for income - this appears to be the tenet of the copyright wielding folk and copyright is the only defense which they have. Put creative commons in as a game changer and well, life will change for certain folk.

Nothing wrong with copyright either. It is what it is. But it is dated and hasn't changed with the times using the same basic principles of dogmatic inflexibility and being protectionist. Some may argue copyright being just and fair on the creator of the work and they indeed have a point. It may well be just their choice and their right. That said, I think what we are witnessing is that the world is changing. Photography is changing. How we interact in our daily activities has changed. Social media v traditional media. The pace quickens. Ultimately, those who refuse to change may find a situation of living in an environment of general irrelevance.

My own experience of creative commons is that it is hit and miss. I think greater effort is required for consumers of such images released under creative commons to be more educated and adopt a 'responsible citizen' approach and understand and abide by the terms of the creative commons licence. If you release an image and seek attribution, you have an absolute expectation of said attribution. Again, only a personal experience, but at least where I get a 'hit' and attribution is present, then creative commons has worked and there is some value to it multiplied by the popularity of the published medium. Where there is a 'miss' and your rights are abused the same as the present day copyright - it is incredibly annoying and I can understand those who would seek amends through litigation.

EyeBlinks

Maybe the "art" world should try in some way to link Copyright and Patent together.

We certainly would not be having the same discussion were it about patents. :mad: