fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Digital Art, Smartphone & Abstract | Join Upload & Sell

1              end
  

Archive 2008 · copyright and derivative works

  
 
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · copyright and derivative works


HinduG wrote:
By your definition, that thread's OP is a pirate, and likely a thief because he posted an image ,copyrighted by Lifetouch, of his nephew who was the victim of a hatecrime.


The definition is complicated, and that's the point. First off, Lifetouch, wouldn't bring an action against that posting, because it doesn't make sense for them from a business perspective. From a legal perspective, the owner of the image copy could credibly argue that has been given an implied license by the studio to display the image in this way. What do you buy digital images or prints for, after all, than to display freely?

After paying money for an image, there is generally implied license to certain rights, unless a sale contract stipulates otherwise. My own sales contracts actually expressly permit unlimited printing and display, as the value of a wedding photograph to me is little more than promotional once product is delivered to the client.

Those facts are quite clearly distinguished from Rod's situation. He used someone's work without their permission, and was later told by the original author in no uncertain terms that the use was unwelcome.

Again, the moral of the story is that the law is very complicated, and usually sensitive to the facts. Title 17 and the cases that annotate to it are numerous and complicated, and no one knows the importance of all of them. So it's best to ask a right holder before appropriating their work, rather than crafting creative but flawed defense to marginally indefensible conduct.

RodBarker wrote:
Thanks for your insite Arka , I was a jerk in making a mistake and your a jerk for your public slander .


I may be a jerk, but I didn't slander you. Slander is, at bottom, an offense where I call you out for something you didn't do. Hence, the truth is my defense. You concededly misappropriated someone else's art on one occasion without permission. You don't deny it and never did. That's hardly laudable conduct, and I expressed an opinion on that, as did Kevin. The only person who's conduct has affected your reputation is your own, and your feeble defense of it only worsens matters.

Arka C.


Edited by lordarka on Feb 18, 2008 at 05:17 PM GMT


Edited on Feb 18, 2008 at 04:17 AM



Feb 18, 2008 at 03:54 AM
HinduG
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · copyright and derivative works


So that OP isn't a pirate and a thief, but RobBarker is? Why, because he didn't agree with your "permission first" rule?

Here's a better rule: the first rule for FM is to be courteous and polite, and this thread has been anything but.

It's one thing to point out someone is in the wrong, it's another to levy personal attacks against them.

Edited on Feb 18, 2008 at 04:03 AM



Feb 18, 2008 at 04:03 AM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · copyright and derivative works


HinduG wrote:
So that OP isn't a pirate and a thief, but RobBarker is? Why, because he didn't agree with your "permission first" rule?


No, because the OP in the other post paid for the picture (presumably), and in so doing may acquire certain limited display rights. Rodbarker paid nothing, asked nothing, and distorted the image in a manner objectionable to the original author. That's an important difference.

It's one thing to point out someone is in the wrong, it's another to levy personal attacks against them.

The pendulum swings both ways on that. But my assertions are rooted in conduct that Rod has freely admitted to. Rod doesn't like the characterization, but when the shoe fits...

Anyway, I am done here. And as a simple point, the "ask permission" 'rule' is not mine... it's common sense. I am just amazed that common decency, when buttressed by force of positive law, is so controversial.

Arka C.

Edited on Feb 18, 2008 at 04:16 AM



Feb 18, 2008 at 04:15 AM
RodBarker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · copyright and derivative works



" The pendulum swings both ways on that. But my assertions are rooted in conduct that Rod has freely admitted to. Rod doesn't like the characterization, but when the shoe fits..."

When the shoe fits ,,,, your a jerk on a soap box and that fits like a glove .

I have denied stealing from the get go , I have denied dishonesty from the get go , I have freely admitted making a mistake , there is a huge difference between the too yet you continue to falsely accuse and then lay down a mudmap in a spin of word twisting smoke and mirrors , I have never been a thief or dishonest , but the local bush lawyer rules it different .

I have admitted my wrong but Im not going to take your condescending crap quitely .

Rod



Feb 18, 2008 at 04:42 AM
1              end




FM Forums | Digital Art, Smartphone & Abstract | Join Upload & Sell

1              end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account