copyright issue on Inet
RGlukov
who has some pics on his site which I "copied"
and used on my site. This guy is ordering me to
remove those pics. However, I claim I shouldnt
have to as he doesnt have the copyright to those images;
the images are stills he "copied" from a movie
and manipulated through whatever means (probably
photoshop). My site is not-for-profit.
My argument goes something like this:
A) Nothing on the Internet is copyrighted.
B) There is no such thing as "rights" and
"wrongs" on the Internet.
C) If you dont want your materials copied,
dont put them up.
D) Copying images manipulated by a 3rd party
does not infringe on the rights of that party,
it infringes on the holder of the copyright
to the original images.
ex: An image of Marilyn Monroe is mated with
a man to simulate sexual activity on a pic;
Would that be considered an original work of art?
Can it be copyrighted?
Can I be ordered to remove that pic from my site?
Paul Tauger
"RGlukov" <rgl...@aol.combatSPAM> wrote in message
news:20001001180731...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
> I have gotten into an argument with someone
> who has some pics on his site which I "copied"
> and used on my site. This guy is ordering me to
> remove those pics. However, I claim I shouldnt
> have to as he doesnt have the copyright to those images;
> the images are stills he "copied" from a movie
> and manipulated through whatever means (probably
> photoshop). My site is not-for-profit.
It doesn't matter whether your site is for profit or not.
>
> My argument goes something like this:
> A) Nothing on the Internet is copyrighted.
Wrong.
> B) There is no such thing as "rights" and
> "wrongs" on the Internet.
Wrong.
> C) If you dont want your materials copied,
> dont put them up.
If you don't want to incur liability for copyright infringment, don't copy
the protected expression of others.
> D) Copying images manipulated by a 3rd party
> does not infringe on the rights of that party,
> it infringes on the holder of the copyright
> to the original images.
Wrong again. Notwithstanding whether the manipulated pictures constitute
copyright infringement of the underlying work, whether or not authorized,
the author of original expression embodied in a derivative work (which these
are) acquires copyright in that portion of the expression which is original
to the author.
> ex: An image of Marilyn Monroe is mated with
> a man to simulate sexual activity on a pic;
> Would that be considered an original work of art?
A "work of art"? Doubtful. Protectable expression? Absolutely.
> Can it be copyrighted?
Copyright isn't a verb, but a noun. Copyright protection accrues when
original expression is fixed in a tangible medium; no formalities are
necessary for original expression to obtain copyright protection.
> Can I be ordered to remove that pic from my site?
Yes, and worse.
>
nos...@isp.com
>I have gotten into an argument with someone
>who has some pics on his site which I "copied"
> and used on my site.
And so unless those pictures have been dedicated to the public (or to you), the
copyright owner may have an infringement claim against you.
> This guy is ordering me to remove those pics.
And this is your first experience with the truism, because largely true, that
anyone can demand that anyone else do anything?
> However, I claim I shouldnt have to as he doesnt have
> the copyright to those images; the images are stills he
> "copied" from a movie and manipulated through whatever
> means (probably photoshop).
Do you mean to suggest by your quotation marks surrounding the word "copied"
that this person (or you) did not in fact copy those photos from some source
and, instead, that he (or you) created those images yourself? If he (or you)
copies images that are copyright protected then published those images, e.g.,
by posting them on a web site accessible by/to others, see comments above and
below re. infringement.
> My site is not-for-profit.
In real life, and in real lawsuits, this is a factoid sometimes of (at best)
little but, usually, of no relevance to answering the question, Liability for
copyright infringement?
>
>My argument goes something like this:
>A) Nothing on the Internet is copyrighted.
This is not an "argument" but rather a statement which, at that, is profoundly
incorrect.
>B) There is no such thing as "rights" and
>"wrongs" on the Internet.
One may of course try to make a moral or political argument to this effect; and
some have; but this statement is misleading if meant to be some sort of report
of reality.
>C) If you dont want your materials copied,
>dont put them up.
Fine.
But this does not mean that someone who copies then republishes copyright or
otherwise protected images is free to do so.
>D) Copying images manipulated by a 3rd party
>does not infringe on the rights of that party,
>it infringes on the holder of the copyright
>to the original images.
Though there conceivably may be exceptions to this statement as well, it
nonetheless is a generally correct statement both of fact and of law.
And if you are correct that the fellow who is demanding that you stop using
various photos obtained from his site without permission is not the copyright
owner, you are also correct that (by definition) he almost certainly does not
have standing to assert a copyright infringement claim against you by reason of
that copying; and although, conceivabley, he he may have the ability to assert
some other law-redressable claim against you, you don't provide enough facts to
enable someone reading just your posting to judge.
>ex: An image of Marilyn Monroe is mated with
> a man to simulate sexual activity on a pic;
> Would that be considered an original work of art?
Maybe.
> Can it be copyrighted?
Yes.
> Can I be ordered to remove that pic from my site?
>
If you publish photos of Marilyn Monroe on your web site without permission and
if the photographer or other person who owns the copyright did not give you
permission, the correct answer is: Undoubtedly, Yes. Further, for reasons in
part having to do with copyright but also having to do with other principles of
law, if the executors of the estate of Marilyn Monroe were to learn that you
are using images of her, as such, without their permission, it is likely, maybe
even probable, that you would hear from them, too (and with good reason).
And, of course, if you were to point out that any number of folk use/publish
images of Marilyn Monroe in a variety of contexts without the permission either
of the copyright owner of the original image or of the executors of the estate
of Marilyn Monroe, you would be correct as well and reporting the corresponding
truism: Not everyone who is exposed to some sort of law-redressable liability
is caught and, of those that are, not all are sued.
But you would be mistaken, to your possibly severe prejudidce, if you were to
conclude from this obvious, and trivial, fact that you have some sort of free
license (let alone "right") to publish images of Marilyn Monroe, or of any
other copyright protected images, on your web site.
David Marc Nieporent
RGlukov <rgl...@aol.combatSPAM> claimed:
>I have gotten into an argument with someone who has some pics on his site
>which I "copied" and used on my site. This guy is ordering me to
>remove those pics. However, I claim I shouldnt have to as he doesnt have
>the copyright to those images; the images are stills he "copied" from a
>movie and manipulated through whatever means (probably
>photoshop). My site is not-for-profit.
You can claim that you shouldn't have to because you're a descendant of
King Arthur, and your argument would have just as much legal validity.
That is to say, none.
>My argument goes something like this:
>A) Nothing on the Internet is copyrighted.
Your argument is wrong.
>B) There is no such thing as "rights" and
>"wrongs" on the Internet.
Your argument is even more wrong than the previous one.
>C) If you dont want your materials copied, dont put them up.
That's not an argument; that's merely a helpful hint. "If you didn't want
me to steal your car, you should have locked the doors." It's a good tip,
but when they arrest you for grand theft auto, I wouldn't suggest making
it your opening statement.
>D) Copying images manipulated by a 3rd party does not infringe on the
>rights of that party, it infringes on the holder of the copyright
>to the original images.
It infringes on both. The 3rd party of whom you speak may have infringed
on the holder of the copyright to the original images, but you're
infringing on his rights in the derivative work he created.
>ex: An image of Marilyn Monroe is mated with
> a man to simulate sexual activity on a pic;
> Would that be considered an original work of art?
By whom?
> Can it be copyrighted?
That's not the right term; it is protected by copyright, though, yes.
> Can I be ordered to remove that pic from my site?
Yes.
--
David M. Nieporent Roberto Petagine for the
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu Hall of Fame
Lee Hollaar
>>D) Copying images manipulated by a 3rd party does not infringe on the
>>rights of that party, it infringes on the holder of the copyright
>>to the original images.
>
>It infringes on both. The 3rd party of whom you speak may have infringed
>on the holder of the copyright to the original images, but you're
>infringing on his rights in the derivative work he created.
From 17 USC 103(a) "..., but protection for a work employing preexisting
material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the
work in which such material has been used unlawfully."
In the Committee Report that accompanied the Copyright Act of 1976,
House Report No. 94-1476:
The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a)
deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work
unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that
protection does not extend to "any part of the work in which such
material has been used unlawfully," the bill prevents an infringer from
benefiting, through copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act,
but preserves protection for those parts of the work that do not employ
the preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could
not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of
poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though
the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was
unauthorized. Under this provision, copyright could be obtained as long
as the use of the preexisting work was not "unlawful," even though the
consent of the copyright owner had not been obtained. For instance, the
unauthorized reproduction of a work might be "lawful" under the doctrine
of fair use or an applicable foreign law, and if so the work incorporating
it could be copyrighted.
>> Can it be copyrighted?
>That's not the right term; it is protected by copyright, though, yes.
Then even the people who wrote the law also use the wrong term. Note the
sentence "Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not be
copyrighted at all ..." in the Committee Report above.