Hi Paul,
On 09/05/2014 7:45 PM, Sunclocks North America wrote:
Hi Steve,
[ snip] Being from Canada, as you are, do you know if our laws are
similar to those in the USA, and do you know what rules apply to
images being used outside of North America?
We amended our copyright law in 2012 and Canada and USA have very
similar rules. Yours are marginally more favourable to the user of an
image, whereas ours are a bit more favourable to the copyright owner. We
have some fairly nasty penalties that apply if a person, even
unknowingly, infringes on electronic anti-copying mechanisms for digital
materials.
[snip] I'm not the actual owner or creator of the image.
That changes things substantially. As Frank King discovered and
indicated in his reply, the actual copyright owner did give permission
to the newspaper to use the image, by virtue of the public licence. The
fact that you're using it doesn't preclude use by others, and my
discussion of Fair Dealing is made redundant.
Everyone,
I just discovered that in 2013, the was a change in UK law that affects
copyright of images. A one-sided discussion:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
In summary, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act has provisions that
relate to so-called Orphan Works. Basically, if someone finds an image
on the web and cannot identify the copyright owner, they are free to use
the work. There has to be a "reasonable" attempt to try to contact the
owner, but unless you mark your images very clearly as yours then your
ownership is at risk. You might have your name and contact details on
your website but for example if somebody rips your image onto a site
with no contact information, or embeds it in an email from a non-defunct
email address , then reasonable efforts to find the owner will fail and
the image can then be used freely.
So, it seems that if you have a valuable image that you want to post
online for some reason, you should think twice. If you choose to
proceed, watermark it with a copyright statement and contact details, or
edit the metadata (non-visible image file attributes) to include owner
details. Even then, watch out as your favourite photo-sharing website
may strip your metadata out of images you upload, replacing it with
their own.
If ownership details get seperated from the image, you risk a person or
business in the UK taking it and use it however they like. Most of us
aren't great photographers but I've seen some lovely sundial images on
the web too.
Steve
Thank you,
Paul Ratto
SunClocks North America
438-792-4823
www.sunclocks.net <http://www.sunclocks.net>
On May 9, 2014, at 18:15, Steve Lelievre
<steve.lelievre.can...@gmail.com
<mailto:steve.lelievre.can...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 09/05/2014 5:08 PM, Sunclocks North America wrote:
Also, I was wondering if anybody could tell me what are the typical
requirements for people to be allowed to use random copyrighted
images from the internet, and what my rights and possible recourses
are in such cases of the unauthorized use of my logo.
Hi Paul,
My experience is in the context of academic use of materials under
Canadian law, so what follows is not offered in an expert or
professional capacity and is not qualified legal opinion.
Copyright law is complex and full fo special cases. Although there
are treaties that establish a general framework, the details vary
from country to country. Generally, the owner of the copyright is
entitled to set terms of use including fees before a copy can be
made. However, in some circumstances the principle of Fair Dealing,
called Fair Use in the USA, allows copying without permission of, or
compensation for, the copyright owner. Whether Fair Dealing applies
is influenced by various criteria: the consequences (has the owner
lost income or reputation), the extent of the copying, the use made
of the copy or copies, the benefit gained by the person doing the
copying, and other factors, as well as precedent and case law. In the
event of a claim going to court, damages are assessed depending on
how unfair the copying was.
Although people sometimes assume otherwise, the mere posting of an
image on the Internet by the copyright owner does not transfer the
imagine into the public domain. Any subsequent copying must either be
with consent or be allowed under Fair Dealing. As well, there is no
requirement for the copyright owner to include a copyright caption or
watermark with the image (but doing so certainly helps demonstrate
that you do want to protect your rights).
In the present instance, the copying was done by a newspaper. In most
countries News Reporting is accepted as a situation where Fair
Dealing generally applies, subject to there being no gross abuse of
other criteria. The newpaper in question is probably so used to this
arrangement that they don't even think about it case by case.
However, even if this was Fair Dealing, they're in the wrong in at
least one way: the person or organization making the copy should
still acknowledge the source used.
In practice, your options are very limited - any damages have to be
weighed against lawyer fees and the chances of the defense of Fair
Dealing being accepted by a court. Personally, if it were me, I'd
write to protest their use of the image without any apparent attempt
to seek permission and their subsequent failure to identify the
source of the image used. It's not unreasonable to hope for them to
add a caption to the image on their website, thus properly citing and
acknowledging the source. Cynic that I am, I doubt they would agree
to a correction notice in the print edition.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------
https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/sundial
