|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/05/06 18:54
"Bill" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
news:m46dnfXu5JzhNujYnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@golden.net...
> jeremy wrote:
>
>> You want to be allowed to lift someone else's images off of web sites and
>> re-post them on other sites of your choice? Perhaps you want to alter
>> them or try to improve them first? Ever hear of a "Derivative Copy?"
>> The copyright law addresses that.
>
> I never said that. But, at the moment, if I take a picture of someone
> else's building, I might or might not have the right to use that photo
> commercially. If copyright were absolute, there would be no question:
> can't use it. But I can use a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge. But I
> can't use a picture of the Empire State Building (?!).
You certainly can use a picture of the Empire State Building:
17 U.S.C. 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works
(a) Pictorial representations permitted. The copyright in an architectural
work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the
making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs,
or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the
work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
>>
>> Who has conferred upon you the right to take someone else's intellectual
>> property and to recycle it as you see fit, without the creator's
>> knowledge or permission? Where in the copyright law does it say that the
>> right to reproduce the work of another is not absolute?
>
> Do you mean the right to NOT have your work reproduced?
>
> For one thing-- the most obvious-- reviewers can freely quote from books
> and articles (with obvious limitations) for the purpose of review and
> discussion.
That's fair use and, as I said in another post, reflects the tension between
the First Amendment and Article I, Section 8. The six reserved rights are
absolute in the sense that they are exclusive to the copyright owner absent
a statutory exception.
> For another thing, you can quote extensively for the purpose of satire
> and parody (thank you "Mad Magazine" for that), though that right is being
> eroded.
Parody also comes within fair use.
> And another: journalists generally have different rules when writing
> stories about copyrighted material.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Commentary comes within fair use.
> And another, schools and educational institutions have some rights of
> research and discussion.
Some kinds of educational uses are also within fair use. There's also a
statutory exception for libraries.
> And yet another: in Canada, it is perfectly legal to borrow a CD and copy
> it. You paid for it when you bought the blank media. That is the law.
I can't comment on Canadian law.
> And yet another: it is perfectly legal to tape a television program so
> you can watch it later.
Also fair use.
>
> Please resist the temptation to create straw men here. I never said there
> shouldn't be copyright. My whole point is that there is a reasonable
> middle ground on this debate. To me it's reasonable that if an architect
> designs a public building that everyone can see every day, he gives up the
> right to control the use of a photographic image of that building.
And he does, as a matter of law. See above.
> It would be too ridiculous to demand that people taking pictures or film
> or video should have to pay the owner of every building in view. That's
> unreasonable.
It's also not the law.
> But if you insist on "absolute" copyright, that's where we end up.
>
>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|