You people need to take some serious time to actually LEARN what copyright is and how it works. Most people here are completely faulty on their statements about copyright.
Ten Big Myths About Copyright Explained
monorail_man said:
I'll say this again. When an image is changed, edited, cut, ect 10% or more, it is now a new image and the "copyright" law no longer applies.
WRONG! And I quote:
U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.
monorail_man said:
Images do not fall under the same copyright laws as company logos.
WRONG AGAIN!
monorail_man said:
Example. If one were to go to the Coke web site and take their logo you would haev to change more then 10% to make it a new image. Thats how you can have shirts that have things like the T-Shirt that looks like the FORD logo but read LORD.
WRONG A THIRD TIME. That is VERY often challenged - and the infringers lose. Big time. The rare times it doesn't is the very specific case of Parody.
Once again I quote:
There is a major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.
An additional resource is
Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Center. There is
extensive information within.
Other false ideas?
Just because it's online, means I can use it. False.
It doesn't hurt anyone so there's no harm. False.
I don't charge for it, so it's ok. False.
It didn't say it was copyrighted so it wasn't. False.
I can totally understand the frustrations of photographers who have had their materials blantently ripped off and stolen. It's unfair, it's rude and, yes folks,
it's illegal. You may want to act like it's not, but you're wrong. Stealin someone's image online is no less then stealing something from someone's house. It's not yours, you don't have rights to it so no matter where you find it online, unless it specifically says it's public domain,
you can not take it or use it in anyway. Period.
I've tracked down more sites then I can count over the years that stole images, articles I've written and related. In each and every case, the ISP/host/owner removed the items because the usage was illegal.
It flat out stinks that we as a whole have to miss out on the works of people, their artistic expression and their eye for a shot just because there's a lot of willfully ignorant people out there that can't keep their grubby fingers out of the metaphorical cookie jar. What gets me most is that the vast majority of people would gladly allow you to use their images
if you simply asked in the first place. I know I have and I know others have allowed me to do the same. Common courtsey and legal rights.
-m
