Helmet Use Diagram

[ursus]

No picture of the helmet on the handlebars?

[mstone]

No jaunty angle? (Would need front or rear view instead of profile view.)

[peterw_diy]

Or maybe giving credit to the source instead of just re-uploading a copy?

http://www.thehighdefinite.com/2010/09/proper-helmet-use/

? (Copyright nerd pet peeve)

[rcannon100]

@peterw_diy 136302 wrote:

Or maybe giving credit to the source instead of just re-uploading a copy?

http://www.thehighdefinite.com/2010/09/proper-helmet-use/

? (Copyright nerd pet peeve)

Perfect Fair Use. Use is legitimate; no copyright violation.

People confuse “giving credit” with copyright. No part of copyright law requires proper citation or “credit.” Your english teach liked to tell you that if you failed to cite your sources, you were violating their copyright – but your english teach was not a copyright attorney… and failed to cite the source for that proposition.

[jrenaut]

How is that fair use? It satisfies one of the four tests (non-profit/educational). You could maybe argue it doesn’t harm the market, but that test is so subjective (and likely unanswerable) that it shouldn’t be given much weight.

And I don’t know what country your cartoon is from, but in THIS country, copyright isn’t about encouraging creativity. It’s about making sure Mickey Mouse never falls into the public domain. The first time we retroactively extended the copyright term (you know, to encourage the creation of works already created), we lost the right to make arguments about “promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts”.

And. most importantly, your fair use argument fails to account for common social standards on the internet – since providing a link back to the source is now trivially easy, it is widely considered rude to post something out of context, whether or not you have a Fair Use argument.

[huskerdont]

Fair use and giving credit are different things. You can give all the credit you want, but if you didn’t obtain permission to use something, you are potentially vulnerable.

However, since it’s just the interwebs and there isn’t a lot of money to be gained, the worst you’d likely have happen is someone request you remove the graphic. You probably don’t want to take an entire graphic without permission and publish it though.

That said, giving credit is the right thing to do.

Edit: not a lawyer, but have worked in publishing for a long time.

[Tim Kelley]

@peterw_diy 136302 wrote:

Or maybe giving credit to the source instead of just re-uploading a copy?

Found on Tumblr without a watermark…

[peterw_diy]

@Tim Kelley 136316 wrote:

Found on Tumblr without a watermark…

So link to Tumblr.

[dkel]

@jrenaut 136312 wrote:

And I don’t know what country your cartoon is from, but in THIS country, copyright isn’t about encouraging creativity. It’s about making sure Mickey Mouse never falls into the public domain.

If copyright laws protect creative works, that is encouraging to those that create them.

[jrenaut]

@dkel 136324 wrote:

If copyright laws protect creative works, that is encouraging to those that create them.

Sorry, i didn’t mean that copyright laws don’t encourage people to create. I meant that the encouragement is just a side effect of the real goal of copyright law, which is to ensure a consistent and eternal revenue stream for multi-billion dollar corporations.

[Starduster]

@Tim Kelley 136247 wrote:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11165[/ATTACH]

You forgot “wearing it backwards”. Yes, I *still* see that.

[dkel]

@jrenaut 136325 wrote:

Sorry, i didn’t mean that copyright laws don’t encourage people to create. I meant that the encouragement is just a side effect of the real goal of copyright law, which is to ensure a consistent and eternal revenue stream for multi-billion dollar corporations.

Agreed, though I have received a few royalty checks in my time, and I am neither a billionaire, nor a corporation.

[Tim Kelley]

@peterw_diy 136321 wrote:

So link to Tumblr.

You mean you want a link to a random “funny pictures” dump that has reposted things from everywhere else? Why?

[peterw_diy]

@Tim Kelley 136367 wrote:

You mean you want a link to a random “funny pictures” dump that has reposted things from everywhere else? Why?

Because giving credit is the right thing to do. Or if you think they’re blindly stealing stuff such that you don’t have any real prospect of crediting the creator (or IP owner), don’t “use” (=copy without permission) it. (For your reading pleasure, the creator of The Oatmeal on dealing with one such dump that profited off illegal copies of his cartoons: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk )

The Internet is full of people freely giving their work away — bajilllions of Flickr pics explicitly released under Creative Commons licenses, etc. IMO it’s immature and selfish to just copy somebody else’s work without making even the slightest attempt to give credit.

[rcannon100]

@peterw_diy 136378 wrote:

Because giving credit is the right thing to do. Or if you think they’re blindly stealing stuff such that you don’t have any real prospect of crediting the creator (or IP owner), don’t “use” (=copy without permission) it. (For your reading pleasure, the creator of The Oatmeal on dealing with one such dump that profited off illegal copies of his cartoons: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk )

The Internet is full of people freely giving their work away — bajilllions of Flickr pics explicitly released under Creative Commons licenses, etc. IMO it’s immature and selfish to just copy somebody else’s work without making even the slightest attempt to give credit.

Okay, respect Peter.

But let’s be clear about a couple things.

“The right thing to do” is an opinion. It is not the law. Likewise “blindly stealing stuff” is an opinion. In this case, the law is Fair Use. Using a photo, with no commercial use, in a small forum, with potential parody overtones, with no impact on market – is fair use. If you want case law that supports this, please go to that Fair Use link I provided.

Did someone steal someone else’s property and harm their market? Maybe. I can’t speak to that. I don’t know the facts. Accepting the facts as true, then that would be a copyright violation. But that does not make the posting of images on this forum a copyright violation.

I copy stuff all the time. If you think I am being immature and selfish… That’s your opinion. I am also an attorney with expertise in Internet law. My opinion is that Fair Use is fantastic – it is one of the things that sets American copyright law apart. And in fact it – and Sec. 230 – are at the core of what has led to the success of social interactive media in the United States where it has been restrained by shortsighted policy in other countries.

People in the business of creating intellectual property may wish absolute control over their work. That simply is not US law. US law states

QUOTE

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;” – Constitution Section 8

END QUOTE

US Copyright law is a set of limited rights, and was designed as an incentive for invention and discourse. Fair Use:

QUOTE

has been viewed by courts as a safety valve that accommodates the exclusive rights conferred by copyright with the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. — Judge Kaplan in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F.Supp. 294, 322 (SDNY 2000) (finding that the hacker group 2600 had violated the DMCA by posting the DVD encryption breaking program DeCSS on their website).

END QUOTE

There is no part of this law that says “and provide a link to the creator.”

[video=youtube_share;Q_9O8J9skL0]http://youtu.be/Q_9O8J9skL0[/video]

So
* Copyright is limited
* One of the things it is limited by is Fair Use
* Reposting stuff to this forum, that does not impact the market, that has some parody in it, that is limited in selection, that is not for a commercial … That is people goofing around on social media … Probably is fair use. Case law certainly supports that conclusion.
* Copyright does not require linking to or crediting the source
* Your opinion may be that it is the right thing to do; it’s just an opinion (not to dismiss opinions – my purpose here it to distinguish from copyright law – that which we are required to do – for that which you wish Tim would do)

[Author]

Posts