Hello everyone, Thank you to everyone who contributed to this discussion, as I found it to be quite interesting as well as educational.
Hi Steve, I appreciate your reply. I hadn't realized that the file had been put into the public domain by Douglas Hunt, but either way, the GNU license states that the author of the work must nevertheless be attributed to the author. I am rather stunned by the change in UK copyright laws, for which the article you linked to suggested that the law was illegal under the Berne convention and mentioned that the UK could expect a "firestorm" of international litigation if the law went ahead. As they say, "It's as if Britain decided it owned Disney, and let anybody pirate the company's DVDs while it keeps the proceeds". Can you confirm whether or not the law did eventually pass, and if so, has the "firestorm" of litigation started? Thank you, Paul Ratto SunClocks North America 438-792-4823 www.sunclocks.net On May 10, 2014, at 08:49, Steve Lelievre <steve.lelievre.can...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >> On May 9, 2014, at 18:15, Steve Lelievre <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
