Friday question - copyright

[Sassy Romano]

You're taking a walk and stop in the street. You take a photograph in a public place. I'n the street scene of your composition is an art shop displaying paintings behind the window.

You move closer and take another similar picture where the shop is prominent in your photo.

You move even closer and this time, only the shop window and the paintings are in the photo.

Next, you fill the frame of your picture with an image of just one painting and you take the picture.

Finally, you enter the shop and repeat the previous composition.

The question is, did you infringe copyright and if so, at what point?

(Question is for fun and discussion, not based upon a specific event. Assume that the artist is still alive and has not granted any free use.)

[Chaser Zaks]

In the first and second case, if that would infringe copyright, then any picture taken would infringe copyright in some way.

When photographing the paintings, I would say to follow in the steps of Wikipedia: Low resolution, credit the artists(Right next to the image), only use where and when absolutely necessary(EG: An article about the painting).

Should the photograph be a high resolution image, should it be with or without credit, of a single painting, without the permission of the artist, then copyright would be infringed.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a legal adviser. Do not take any of my words as fact or use them in the court of law. Should you follow my words, I am not responsible for any actions or consequences resulting from following my words. Besides should you take the words of a random person on a forum, specifically in a discussion for fun, then maybe you shouldn't get yourself into any legal trouble in the first place.

[Drongle McMahon]

If you are in Europe and the euro-politicians get their way, you are going to be breaching copyright of the architecht who disigned the shop before you even get close enough to see the picture, never mind the artist's copyright!

[Darrius Gothly]

Under USA law (as I understand it), you have not violated any copyrights or infringed on anyone's rights by simply taking the pictures. HOWEVER if you distribute those pictures then you may have an issue.

Distribute as keepsakes and memorabilia of places you've been, for no fee and even without attributing the image sources to anyone, and you're okay.

Distribute for income, fee, remuneration of any sort (including favors and other non-tangible benefits) and yes, you've stepped across a big line. You WILL promptly be shackled, tickled until your ears swell to the size of watermelons ...

... and then someone on the forums will make fun of your spelling eros.

 

errrr ... ERRORS!

[Rhonda Huntress]

I agree with Darrius.  If it is on public display you can take a picutre.  You can even do it in the shop unless they ask you not to.  Even then, most places that say no photos allowed are more worried about light damage from camera's flash and not so much about the photo.

[Nova Convair]

You don't infringe any copyrights. All photo's are ok.

but

If you dare to post that on the internet - Facebook for example - that's a different story.

In europe all of the photo's need permission if you post them. But there is some discussion in the works, so need to wait a bit.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Under USA law (as I understand it), you have not violated any copyrights or infringed on anyone's rights by simply taking the pictures. HOWEVER if you distribute those pictures then you may have an issue.

Distribute as keepsakes and memorabilia of places you've been, for no fee and even without attributing the image sources to anyone, and you're okay.

Distribute for income, fee, remuneration of any sort (including favors and other non-tangible benefits) and yes, you've stepped across a big line. You WILL promptly be shackled, tickled until your ears swell to the size of watermelons ...

... and then someone on the forums will make fun of your spelling eros.

 

errrr ... ERRORS!

---

I agree with this, except you are allowed to use the photos without permission under Fair Use.  Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

[Perrie Juran]

Good questions.

First of all in response to Darius, copying something for "personal use" is still a violation, though I'm not sure if the act of taking the picture would in and of itself be a violation.  But I certainly could not print or display the image in my home.

But answering the topic in general what is involved is whether or not the copyrighted material is "incidental" to the picture.  As an example if a film maker is doing a street scene but doesn't stop to focus on anything but the characters in his movie it would be considered "de minimus" use.  But if they stopped and focused on the image like in this scene from the movie "Twins," permission would be required.

It still becomes a subjective call by a Court if a use is "incidental" or not.

Sources:

http://www.out-law.com/page-4098

http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/02/article_0010.html

[Perrie Juran]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Under USA law (as I understand it), you have not violated any copyrights or infringed on anyone's rights by simply taking the pictures. HOWEVER if you distribute those pictures then you may have an issue.

Distribute as keepsakes and memorabilia of places you've been, for no fee and even without attributing the image sources to anyone, and you're okay.

Distribute for income, fee, remuneration of any sort (including favors and other non-tangible benefits) and yes, you've stepped across a big line. You WILL promptly be shackled, tickled until your ears swell to the size of watermelons ...

... and then someone on the forums will make fun of your spelling eros.

 

errrr ... ERRORS!

---

I agree with this, except you are allowed to use the photos without permission under Fair Use.  Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

---

All of those "fair use" examples still have rules that need to be followed.  There is no Carte Blanche.

[Darrius Gothly]

Courts (and Arbitrators) in the USA have primarily used the following test: Was the copied material sold or transferred to someone else for income purposes (violation), or was it used ancilliary or supportive to the intended use such as parody, reporting, etc. (non-violation).

When someone takes a picture of your artwork then tries to distribute or sell it as their own work, that's a violation. But simply taking the picture, especially if it only lives in your own inventory and is never given away (transfered to anyone) then you're totally in the clear ... in the USA.

Since Linden Lab is in the USA, and their ToS states that the courts and laws in their locale are the ones used to settle any disputes, it stands to reason the USA legal history would be most applicable.

It boils down to how you use it .. really. If you try and make it into something that you transfer for income purposes .. shame on you. Otherwise, you're just another gawker with a mobile phone and too many pixels to resolve.

[mikka Luik]

Good one. So define jurisdiction (if is possible). Resident of Quebec - nope, you have to ask me if I am in your Pic ( the long view ) and yes you do =^^=

And I did something similar - street scene, closer view, a building close, a view....

Interesting.

As I am doing an online course on generative - works - that has started to address this from another view.

Define a say 64 by 64 field of pixels wherein the restriction is the RGB 8 bit colours,,,

Fascinating. If you expand to what that basic form can represent. Even in SL that can be

a normal map with machine interpretation.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Courts (and Arbitrators) in the USA have primarily used the following test: Was the copied material sold or transferred to someone else for income purposes (violation), or was it used ancilliary or supportive to the intended use such as parody, reporting, etc. (non-violation).

When someone takes a picture of your artwork then tries to distribute or sell it as their own work, that's a violation. But simply taking the picture, especially if it only lives in your own inventory and is never given away (transfered to anyone) then you're totally in the clear ... in the USA.

Since Linden Lab is in the USA, and their ToS states that the courts and laws in their locale are the ones used to settle any disputes, it stands to reason the USA legal history would be most applicable.

It boils down to how you use it .. really. If you try and make it into something that you transfer for income purposes .. shame on you. Otherwise, you're just another gawker with a mobile phone and too many pixels to resolve.

---

10 Big Myths about copyright explained

2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."False.......

Additionally, your agreement to be bound by the Laws of CA in the TOS refers to disputes with LL, not with other users.  

 eta:shpelling

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Courts (and Arbitrators) in the USA have primarily used the following test: Was the copied material sold or transferred to someone else for income purposes (violation), or was it used ancilliary or supportive to the intended use such as parody, reporting, etc. (non-violation).

When someone takes a picture of your artwork then tries to distribute or sell it as their own work, that's a violation. But simply taking the picture, especially if it only lives in your own inventory and is never given away (transfered to anyone) then you're totally in the clear ... in the USA.

Since Linden Lab is in the USA, and their ToS states that the courts and laws in their locale are the ones used to settle any disputes, it stands to reason the USA legal history would be most applicable.

It boils down to how you use it .. really. If you try and make it into something that you transfer for income purposes .. shame on you. Otherwise, you're just another gawker with a mobile phone and too many pixels to resolve.

---

10 Big Myths about copyright explained

2)

"If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."

False.......

Additionally, your agreement to be bound by the Laws of CA in the TOS refers to disputes with LL, not with other users.  

 eta:shpelling

---

I tried very carefully to differentiate the actual outcome of the transfer .. apparently I failed. I did not mean that money has to change hands. In fact anything of value, tangible or otherwise, could be considered of benefit and thus would put you in violation of copyright laws. It could even be something as ephemeral as an increase in your status among your peers or associates. (But no way will I try and guess how they'd determine a monetary damages value on THAT!)

It's the transfer of ownership that walks you into dark areas. As the article you linked points out, if there really was no value gained (or lost by the original copyright holder) then chances are you'll skate by without being smacked. That is perhaps why so many copyrighted works go unchallenged in SL? The copyright holders feel that it's just free advertising for their own product line.

As for jurisdiction disputes: If either side of the legal action feels that having it relocated to California would be to their benefit, you can bet that they'll petition like crazy to have it moved and decided there. I won't theorize about why lawyers make the choices they do .. that's legal stuff I try very hard NOT to ponder. But I do at least know that when they spot an advantage of ANY sort, they grab for it.

There is actually some precedent for getting the case relocated. The actual copying occurs under the control of machines owned by Linden Lab. It could be argued that since the copying took place in their machines then their physical location (place of business) is where the offense occurred. It's not a strong argument, but since when has that sort of thing mattered in a court of law?

[Perrie Juran]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Courts (and Arbitrators) in the USA have primarily used the following test: Was the copied material sold or transferred to someone else for income purposes (violation), or was it used ancilliary or supportive to the intended use such as parody, reporting, etc. (non-violation).

When someone takes a picture of your artwork then tries to distribute or sell it as their own work, that's a violation. But simply taking the picture, especially if it only lives in your own inventory and is never given away (transfered to anyone) then you're totally in the clear ... in the USA.

Since Linden Lab is in the USA, and their ToS states that the courts and laws in their locale are the ones used to settle any disputes, it stands to reason the USA legal history would be most applicable.

It boils down to how you use it .. really. If you try and make it into something that you transfer for income purposes .. shame on you. Otherwise, you're just another gawker with a mobile phone and too many pixels to resolve.

---

10 Big Myths about copyright explained

2)

"If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."

False.......

Additionally, your agreement to be bound by the Laws of CA in the TOS refers to disputes with LL, not with other users.  

 eta:shpelling

---

I tried very carefully to differentiate the actual outcome of the transfer .. apparently I failed. I did not mean that money has to change hands. In fact anything of value, tangible or otherwise, could be considered of benefit and thus would put you in violation of copyright laws. It could even be something as ephemeral as an increase in your status among your peers or associates. (But no way will I try and guess how they'd determine a monetary damages value on THAT!)

It's the transfer of ownership that walks you into dark areas. As the article you linked points out, if there really was no value gained (or lost by the original copyright holder) then chances are you'll skate by without being smacked. That is perhaps why so many copyrighted works go unchallenged in SL? The copyright holders feel that it's just free advertising for their own product line.

As for jurisdiction disputes: If either side of the legal action feels that having it relocated to California would be to their benefit, you can bet that they'll petition like crazy to have it moved and decided there. I won't theorize about why lawyers make the choices they do .. that's legal stuff I try very hard NOT to ponder. But I do at least know that when they spot an advantage of ANY sort, they grab for it.

There is actually some precedent for getting the case relocated. The actual copying occurs under the control of machines owned by Linden Lab. It could be argued that since the copying took place in their machines then their physical location (place of business) is where the offense occurred. It's not a strong argument, but since when has that sort of thing mattered in a court of law?

---

Inter-jurisdictional disputes can an do get very interesting.

One of the safe guards in the DMCA is the right to recover legal fees if and when you do prevail but still persuing a claim can be a huge hassle, especially for individuals.

I'm not an attorney but have had some professional training on the subject due to my profession though its probably been slanted in the artists direction.  Really I consider my knowledge cursory.

There is still so much that is subjective when it comes to Court rulings on specific cases I know many decisions constantly baffle the lawyers.

[AlecDeBoeuil]

In the USA it's just like owning a gun. As long as you don't take it to school and kill several teachers and a bunch of your classmates it's perfectly legal.

Alec - to point out the difference between the USA and civilised countries

[Bree Giffen]

I don't believe any of the examples are a breach of copyright except for the one where the painting is the only item being photographed and even that is not a breach under certain circumstances.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/living/richard-prince-instagram-feat/