Copyright and Picasa

Joseph Testagrose wrote in
:

People, stop the stupid comments in reference to us copyright law and
read up on it. Once you have published your work you do not have an
absolute right to it, fair use trumps your rights. If you do not want
fair use to trump yorr rights then dont post your pictures, READ THE
CASE LAW AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAIR USE OF YOUR COPYRIGHT
PICTURES. GROW UP AND LEARN ABOUT FAIR USE

Care to cite your sources?

This is an issue that interests me and I've done quite a bit of reading...
and from what I see, you honestly don't know what you're talking about.

"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited
use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights
holders, such as use for scholarship or review." (Wikipedia)

The Copyright act of 1976 says "the fair use of a copyrighted work,
including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any
other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom
use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Is it for criticism of the photo or the plane? Maybe it qualifies. But
just saying "gee, pretty picture" wouldn't count as criticism.

Is it for comment? Again, I don't think "gee, pretty airplane" is what
they had in mind.

News reporting? Hard to say how that applies to a photo of planes that are
(sometimes) many years old. If someone is reporting on a airshow, they
MIGHT have some legitimate fair use claim, but I doubt that most websites
could legitimately call themselves "news sources," even in a world where
bloggers are getting press credentials.

Teaching? Even less likely than news reporting.

Scolarship or research? Again, it's a real stretch that most people could
make a legitimate claim.

Wikipedia also sites several misunderstandings of fair use. The following
are also from their article on that subject:

Acknowledgment of the source makes a use fair. Giving the name of the
photographer or author may help, but it is not sufficient on its own.
Copyright is a matter of law. Citing sources generally prevents accusations
of plagiarism, but is not a sufficient defense against copyright violations
(otherwise, anyone could legally reprint an entire copyrighted book just by
citing who wrote it).

Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Not true, though a judge may take the
profit motive or lack thereof into account. In L.A. Times v. Free Republic,
the court found that the noncommercial use of L.A. Times content by the
Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the
public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for.

AND BY THE WAY LEARN ABOUT WHETHER YOUR PICTURE IS EVEN ENTITLED TO COPY
RIGHT PROTECTION.

Well, it's clear that YOU need to learn about copyright law. ALL photos
that I take are automatically copyrighted (and entitled to copyright
protection), the moment I take them. That is the law in more than 150
countries and is enforced by international treaty, the Berne Convention.

In the US you have to register the copyright to be able to sue for damages,
but that's the only "official" step you need to take.




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-