View Single Post
  #5  
Old June 20th 20, 08:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Phillip Helbig[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default A cautionary tale about infringement of copyright in photographs - with a twist.

In article ,
RichA writes:

On Thursday, 18 June 2020 21:39:13 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

I've never understood why I can use a quote or short passage from a
copyrighted book as "fair use" and I can't cut and paste a photo where no
commercial revenue is seen? However, I fully appreciate that anything that
might be used for commercial purposes is under protection.


even a short passage could be considered infringing, depending on
circumstances.

fair use is a *defense*, not a right.


The concept of fair use is not to allow limited excerpts in general, but
to allow criticism. A photo could claim fair use under such
circumstances. Similarly, one does not have to ask for permission to do
a parody. However, one cannot just infringe copyright and then claim
that it is a parody or criticism.

Has anyone ever read a technical article? Some of them have HUNDREDS
of attributions. I'm wondering if they have to get permission from them
all?


Of course not, but that is different, for two reasons. First, the point
is to back up one's claims, which is usually done via citations. Direct
quotations are rare, but are OK if necessary. However, such an article
has to make a substantial new contribution in order to be published.
Second, writers of technical articles are not paid to write them, in
general, so loss of revenue is not an issue. They actually want to be
cited, since it increases their fame.

As long as you are citing other written works, and not quoting extensive
passages, this is no problem, even if it is not a technical article.
Wikipedia is a good example: there is a text, with few if any direct
quotations, and citations to back it up.

What I hate are "musicians" who sample other recorded works and think
that is OK, neither asking permission from nor paying royalties to the
original artist. While anyone can record a new version of a song
(paying royalties to the author, of course), sampling is a different
issue, as it is actually just repackaging the original work, so where
the laws are sensible both persmission is required and royalties have to
be paid.