Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: A Wave of People  (Read 3389 times)
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2011, 11:19:44 PM »
ReplyReply


And even if it were copyrighted, I suspect that photobloke's photo would fall under a fair use doctrine.
It could fall under fair use if he wasn't trying to sell it, distribute it or submit it to a photo contest as his own work.

I will leave you with this case in point about a well-publicized lawsuit brought against graphic artist Shepard Fairey by the Associated Press. Fairey used a copyrighted photo without permission to make what was arguably the most famous icon of the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign. He altered the original photo substantially, but as he learned he had opened a hornet's nest of a legal battle.

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-the-associated-press-shepard-fairey-reach-settlement-in-fair-use-lawsui/

Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5647



WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2011, 11:44:25 PM »
ReplyReply

It could fall under fair use if he wasn't trying to sell it, distribute it or submit it to a photo contest as his own work...

Once again, not true. Even pure commercializing is not precluding fair use doctrine, let alone using it for a photo contest.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2011, 12:44:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Once again, not true. Even pure commercializing is not precluding fair use doctrine, let alone using it for a photo contest.
good luck convincing a jury of that.
Logged
EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2011, 01:52:23 AM »
ReplyReply

In some places of the world, a work of art loses most of its copyright restrictions as soon as it is willingly exposed in a public place (like a statue in a park, for example, but obviously not a painting in a galley). So, if the author of those photographs allowed to display them in a public place, photobloke might have the right to make a photograph of them.

Just my two cents.
Logged

Dave (Isle of Skye)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003


Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2011, 07:22:00 AM »
ReplyReply

good luck convincing a jury of that.

Can I just say in my defence and as a possible conclusion to this surprisingly heated debate, that I have never taken images of other people's work before or after that image was taken, nor do I intend to do so ever again and also as a resident of the UK, I am not even sure that the limitation infringements you are assuming to ascribe to this image (however debatable) as well as the assumed illegality of me showing it to you all, would actually apply to me outside of the US anyway. Neither did I or will I ever claim, that the subject/content of the image was wholly and solely the product of all my own work.

I freely admit that the wall of images it is based on are not mine and never will be nor do I want them to be, but I thought the interpretation was mine.


Photobloke
Logged

Photography Tuition holidays on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2011, 08:13:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Every architecture photograph should pay the architect, every landscape photographer should pay god .....
 Tongue
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5647



WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2011, 10:59:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Can I just say in my defence and as a possible conclusion to this surprisingly heated debate...

Naah... just popnfresh having a bad hair day Grin
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5647



WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 03, 2011, 11:06:10 AM »
ReplyReply

good luck convincing a jury of that.

It would be indeed foolish to rely on luck in legal matters. We have legal precedents instead.

"Common misunderstandings:... If you're selling for profit, it's not fair use. While commercial copying for profit work may make it harder to qualify as fair use, it does not make it impossible. For instance, in the 2 Live Crew—Oh, Pretty Woman case, it was ruled that commercial parody can be fair use...." (Wikipedia)
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2011, 11:45:54 AM »
ReplyReply

It would be indeed foolish to rely on luck in legal matters. We have legal precedents instead.

"Common misunderstandings:... If you're selling for profit, it's not fair use. While commercial copying for profit work may make it harder to qualify as fair use, it does not make it impossible. For instance, in the 2 Live Crew—Oh, Pretty Woman case, it was ruled that commercial parody can be fair use...." (Wikipedia)
Yes, parody is a special case, but we're not taking about parody here.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5647



WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2011, 11:58:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, parody is a special case, but we're not taking about parody here.

Man, you are taking things too literally! Parody was given just as an example, not as a sole criteria. There are other precedents of commercial use, outside of parody, that were considered fair use by courts. There are four basic criteria for fair use, and photobloke's photo would not fit any one of those, let alone taken together.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6167



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2011, 01:42:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Copyright is effectively perpetual in the US. I guarantee there will be another act to extend this.

You're right, Harri. I forgot about the Mickey Mouse extension act. My early copyrights are still good.
Logged

popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2011, 05:27:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Man, you are taking things too literally! Parody was given just as an example, not as a sole criteria. There are other precedents of commercial use, outside of parody, that were considered fair use by courts. There are four basic criteria for fair use, and photobloke's photo would not fit any one of those, let alone taken together.
Actually, his picture crosses the line on one of the four criteria. And that's all it would take to justify a cease and desist order. Here's what the U.S. Copyright Office has to say about it:  
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
« Last Edit: March 03, 2011, 05:32:23 PM by popnfresh » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5647



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 04, 2011, 09:51:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually, his picture crosses the line on one of the four criteria. And that's all it would take to justify a cease and desist order...

Which one? And who's to request a cease and desist order?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad