guys, it's fair use.

[photobiscuits]

<p>I am not american but, from the "Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code"<br /> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107<br /> <br /> By this law it is ok to post someone else's intellectual property (photos) for the purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".<br /> http://www.photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00Tvc9?unified_p=1<br /> <br /> Why does photonet not allow this in the discussion forums? It seems a bit over the top and protectionist - like we are so afraid of having our pictures stolen, we won't even allow them to be used fairly. We should be embracing all of the advantages afforded by copyright law including it's fair use provisions.<br /> <br /> Am I wrong in my understanding of fair use? Hoping for civil debate.</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>I don't know the real answer, but maybe it's because there's a better way. Post a link to it, rather than posting the actual photo.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Posting a link <em>to</em> someone else's image completely removes any concern about whether PN (a commercial, revenue-generating, ad-running, lots-of-subscriptions-involved web site with affiliate marketing relationships and other cash-related entanglements that have no value without the content posted here) has to worry about infringement, or even about having to spend the potentially <em>substantial</em> time it would take to explain to third parties what Fair Use is each and every time the photographer involved complains.<br /><br />Easier to err on the side of no friction, no lawyers, and less need for moderators to comb over every thread, all the time, playing Solomon about an issue that even confounds many professional judges in intellectual property suits. <br /><br />Just link! The web <em>works</em> that way - it's what it's all about. Anybody web savvy and generally intelligent enough to actually care about being involved in a critical or educational discussoin involving a third party's photograph is smart enough to open a new browser window from your link so that they can see the image in its natural habitat while still having PN open where they can participate in the thread.<br /><br /><em>Right click, "Open in New Window"<br /><br /></em>Not sure what to tell those poor, long-suffering Mac users who only have one mouse button.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Just link! The web <em>works</em> that way - it's what it's all about.]</p>

<p>If it were only that easy...</p>

<p>My biggest complaint with only allowing linking to external photos when having discussions on technique, style, composition, etc. is that the thread becomes useless when the external site changes. Without the context of the original photo, very little good information can actually be passed on after that.</p>

[photobiscuits]

<p>Agreed, linking is easy and avoids potential problems from ignorant people. However I agree with what Rob said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the thread becomes useless when the external site changes. Without the context of the original photo, very little good information can actually be passed on after that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's odd that photonet would allow social bookmarking and ecards (by default, last I checked a year ago) but will not allow fair use for the purpose of discussion and learning.</p>

<p>Thank you however, for the explanation, Matt, I can see how it simplifies things.</p>

[jackaldridge]

<p>Matt Matt Matt!<br>

We do (Mac users) have a right mouse button....<br>

You've gotta keep up!</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Fair use requires passing a "four factor" test that is well-defined <a href="http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html">on this page</a> . As you can see from that page, it is more complicated than simply saying "criticism, comment, etc." Photo.net does not want to get in the situation of evaluating and then defending fair use in a legal process, since it is easy to bring a lawsuit arguing against fair use. Photo.net also does not want to hire someone to handle constant DMCA takedown notices that have added considerable cost to running some web businesses. </p>

<p>There's no need for "civil debate." It's not really up for "debate." </p>

<p>Regarding links changing, that usually doesn't happen during the active life of a thread. While a link may disappear, a photo uploaded to photo.net will not.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Just having some fun, Jack! I know you can use two-button mice on a Mac... maybe even mice with scroll wheels and crazy stuff like tablets. :-)<br /><br />I do know some Mac people who have multi-button mice, but who just can't make themselves stop reaching for the keyboard with their other hand, just to pop up a context menu or reverse-select something. I think it all depends on which decade you started using one. I know people who started with original Mac tombstone machines, and they still think that color displays are a fad.<br /><br />I'd post a picture of one, but I don't think it would be fair use! On which subject - thanks, Jeff, for being clearer about the overhead costs of dealing with DMCA correspondence. It doesn't matter how much merit such a claim/complaint has - you still have to <em>deal</em> with them, and leave a paper trail, too.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Matt: Actually, most Macs have had two or more buttons for some time now, and for the old timers who don't it's called an "option-click".</p>

<p>Why argue about it, it's just easier for everyone if things that are potentially in copyright are linked to. Even if you were to post under fair use, you'd still need to provide citation data, so it's not more complicated to put in a link, IMHO<br>

There is a gray area as to what is under copyright anyhow, and the present copyright act has created nightmares by putting many formerly public domain items back into copyright. Sometimes the moderators here are a little over-zealous, but even though I've personally been chastised on occasion, I have to agree "better safe than sorry".</p>

[joshroot]

<p>There are two reasons for this on photo.net:</p>

<p>1. Copyright legality. Photo.net doesn't need to waste time or resources getting into defending copyright violation fights with photographers who are angry that their images are posted here without their permission. Sure, something like that might ultimately be defended as "fair" use, but it also might not. And either result would require time, money and energy to fight that could be better used on other projects.</p>

<p>2. Simple respect. Photographers are constantly fighting the misuse and copyright violation of their images on the web. As anyone can tell from reading the forums regularly, it is a regular source of problems and questions. Many of our members have been furious to see images from photo.net swiped and stuck onto other websites, even in ways that might be defended as "fair use". We understand that and as a measure of respect to the photographers of the world, don't allow people to do the same thing here. Photo.net's reputation loses far more by appearing to be a site that supports copyright violation (even if that use is ultimately legally defensible) than it gains by having those images on our servers.</p>

<p>It is easy enough to link to images you want to discuss. The fact that external sites change is just a way of life on the web and not really a sufficient argument to trump the reasons above.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's odd that photonet would allow social bookmarking and ecards (by default, last I checked a year ago) but will not allow fair use for the purpose of discussion and learning.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are a user choice to have the option to generate more traffic to their PN images. Photo.net users can choose to turn those links off if they wish. The photographers who's images we stop people from posting on PN aren't given that choice. I suppose in theory if everyone who wanted to post a photo for discussion that wasn't theirs went out and got some form of proof that the photographer had given them permission to do so, then we might have to have a different discussion. but you and I both know that never happens. And even if it did, it just muddies the waters and would cause more problems. Overall the way we have things set up is the easiest, most respectful, most defensible system we have come up with thus far.</p>

<p>While people are free to discuss if usage here would constitute "fair use" or not until the cows come home, I'm here to tell you that this isn't something that is likely to change on PN. Absolutely not while I'm in charge anyway. There is just too little to gain and too much to lose for me to consider it to be worthwhile.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>If you had to regulate the behavior of thousands of users from a couple of hundred countries, and all of those countries had their own copyright laws, what rule would be better than to control your own images and their display?</p>

<p>Posting your own photos and linking to the others is a very effective set of rules. Let's say someone posted a link to your photo, and you did not like that. You could use simple controls in your portfolio to take it down or move it around. If everyone manages their own stuff, even though we have so much variance in what we think and do, as a group, it'd be easier for them to manage any problems that come up. </p>

<p>Let's say 25 different people, from 25 different places posted and re-posted your photo in 25 different threads. Would you want to be the person who sorted out what was right and what was wrong? Would that be efficient and fair? Now imagine they had about 16 of those a week. </p>

<p>Use your own and control your own, as it is, it just a very effective system; not only for here, but in general. </p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>I just have to comment that it's nice to see a civil debate about something where people act like adults. There is a debate close to this over at apug.org that is just the worse I've ever seen. Even the mods are calling posters nasty names. Glad to find grown ups.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>John makes an excellent point as well. With a worldwide user base, it would be a logistical nightmare trying to figure out copyright laws and how they are applied in each individual country.</p>

<p>Again, time that is better used for other things around here.</p>

[jackaldridge]

<p>I know Matt...just had to poke at ya!...</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Registered photo.net members agreed to photo.net's policy regarding what photo.net considers fair use within the context of photo.net. Just by completing the registration process all photo.net members agreed to this policy.</p>

<p>Photographers and copyright owners who are not members of photo.net and who did not agree to this policy should not be expected to agree to our reproduction of their work, published elsewhere, on this site.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[it is easy enough to link to images you want to discuss. The fact that external sites change is just a way of life on the web and not really a sufficient argument to trump the reasons above.]]</p>

<p>I hope you're not suggesting that I felt it was a sufficient argument, Josh. I can only barely appreciate the position you are in with regard to running this site. </p>

<p>But the fact does remain that broken links (in any capacity) do some harm to photo.net's position as a source of excellent information. As more and more broken links accumulate, the archives have less and less value. Of course, as technology progresses, some of (perhaps many of) these topics cease to have value as a whole anyway (through advances in software and hardware design). (Also, the scale of the problem is not known nor is it likely to be worth the resource requirements to even study it...)</p>

<p>I would never claim that the stability of the archives is more important than not being sued into oblivion by a idiot with no understanding of copyright law and a lawyer all too happy to take his/her money... That would be foolish. I just wish there was a better option.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>No Rob, I wasn't trying to say that you were. I was just trying to say that out of the two issues, the "posting images from other photographers without permission" issue trumps the "links go out of date" issue. After all, links to a specific image are hardly the only link type that goes out of date on an internet message board. Even on PN, they make up a vast minority of incorrect links. Check out the archives for all the out of date posts about kodachrome processing.</p>

<p>However, I agree that they both are annoying problems that one wishes could be solved in a better fashion (but that likely never will).</p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>I tend to think that I might have one of my own images to support an idea or discussion (maybe even find an excuse to go out and shoot it), and then link or reference to well known sources for credibility. That way I am more connected to the subject by my own experience.</p>

<p>Legal or not, I'm for respecting and not ruffling feathers of my peers. There is far more damage that can be done to ones reputation and standing simply because it's the very act and not just the law that others will judge us by. Common sense.</p>

[shaloot]

<p>uhm... just hold down "ctrl" while clicking the button to activate the "right" button feature on a mac...</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>civil debate about something where people act like adults</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can bet that if this goes on long enough, someone will do something to fix that problem....</p>

[photobiscuits]

<p>^let's hope not. <br>

I just find it silly that we are so pro-copyright, and yet so willing to throw away the parts that are useful and lawful but potentially inconvenient. Anyone can socially bookmark someone else's work, with accompanying thumbnail (in the case of Facebook anyway), yet we are afraid to post a picture for the purpose of discussing and learning from it. Surely any judge would find that to be fair use, even by your four factors test. But it's not my money potentially being spent on lawyers so by discussing that which is "not up for debate" (thanks for that Jeff) I suppose I am wasting my time.<br>

In the end it's not a big deal and nothing I want to make enemies over. The linking works fine and is nothing more than a small annoyance.</p>

[Barry Thomas]

<p><em>There's no need for "civil debate." It's not really up for "debate."</em><br>

Wearing your jack boots a bit tight there aren't you Jeff? Isn't the a forum the right place for a "debate"? And Josh very nicely continues the debate, so your attempt to put a lid on it seems a) aggressive, b) defensive, c) rather lacking in charm.<br>

YMMV of course.</p>

 

[edgreene]

<p >Mark: <strong><em>I don't know the real answer, but maybe it's because there's a better way. Post a link to it, rather than posting the actual photo.</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong><em></em></strong></p>

<p >There is a "Better way": tabbed browsing; use it all the tme.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Barry: Jeff's point is that this subject is pretty cut and dry, from the PN point of view. There's no debate on the subject because it's a settled matter of long-established site policy, to which users agree if they're going to participate on the site. So, no, there really isn't much debate at all. And I can't believe you Godwin-ed the thread with the jack boot reference!<br /></p>

[Barry Thomas]

<p>Sorry Matt, don't recognise the Godwin reference?<br>

My point was simply that Jeff's intervention came across badly. Not being a noob he aught to appreciate how one's tone of voice can be misinterpreted.<br>

I agree that if this is standard PN policy then that's it, I'm not attempting to change it. Your explanation of the situation was perfectly clear and also polite, Jeff's came out like he's wearing his, erm, serious leather footwear, or other garments, way tighter than the situation demanded.<br>

The mods rightfully expect we punters to play nicely, so when a mod leaves his charm and good manners in the other room, it weakens his case next time he attempts to break up a spat between a couple of noobs with a bad attitude.</p>