At 11:43 PM 4/17/2007, Axle Gear wrote:
>Then please show me proof of people jailed for reposting artwork that was
>originally posted to a public median without permission. I dare you to try.
>You'll find almost no cases, and those you do will always and solely be
>handled out of court, or as a civil matter.
Who said anything about jailed? Civil law is still law. Sure, you won't
get jailed, but you could end up with your wages garnished for the rest of
your life.
I find it amusing that you think that things are only "illegal" if they are
criminal law. Breaking civil law is still "illegal" and subjects you to
civil action. We discussed this at the beginning of my prior message.
The term "Illegal" in this usage is "breaking the law", whether it be
criminal remedies or civil remedies. So... In light of your constriction
on the term "illegal" as "going to jail", we'll make this simple:
You take artwork and post it.
Artist sues you.
You lose.
Court orders you to pay.
You do not do so.
You get slapped with contempt of court.
You go to jail.
Better?
Now, let's address your defense...
At 11:37 PM 4/17/2007, Axle Gear wrote:
>106A (a) (2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result
>of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and
>placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or
>other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification
>is caused by gross negligence.
Misquoted law section.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
17 106A (a) (2) is:
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. Subject to
<
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107>section 107 and
independent of the exclusive rights provided in
<
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106>section 106, the author
of a work of visual art
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the
author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation,
or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her
honor or reputation; and
Above you actually quoted 17 106A (c) (2)
Note: 106A (c) is exceptions to 106A (a) and 106A (b)
However...
What the above actually means is:
If you laminate it or if the light falls on it wrong in legal public
display, this shall not be considered a modification that infringes on 106A
(a).
This does not allow you to copy from FA to FChan.
>106A (a) (3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection
>(a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other
>use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in
>subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in
>section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use
>of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other
>modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).
In fact, NOTHING in 106A applies to copying work from FA to FChan. The
above (Which is actually 106A (c) (3)) says that you are allowed to destroy
a globe, newspaper, magazine, etc, and it does not covered by rights to
avoid mutilation or modification.
Again, this does not grant you the right to redistribute.
>Also, reguarding expiration and transfer:
>106A (d) (4) All terms of the rights conferred by subsection (a) run to
>the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.
Yes, 106A still does not apply to reproduction.
§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
Which notably, are "independent of the exclusive rights provided in
<
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106>section 106"
>and
>
>106A (e) (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be
>transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees
>to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such
>instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to
>which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and
>uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more
>authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author
>waives such rights for all such authors.
>
>(2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a
>work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or
>of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.
>Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a
>copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a
>waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise
>be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a
>waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of
>visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of
>that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under
>a copyright in that work.
Again, all this applies to the author's right to attribution and integrity.
This does not in any way give you the right to redistribute.
>Now, reguarding fair use and distributions:
>
>107 [ ...In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular
>case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — ]
>(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
>a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>
>and
>
>108 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the
>provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a
>library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of
>their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a
>work... ...or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions
>specified by this section, if —
>(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct
>or indirect commercial advantage;
>(2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public...
>(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of
>copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under
>the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work
>may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy
>or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.
>
>108 (f) Nothing in this section — (4) in any way affects the right of fair
>use as provided by section 107, or any contractual obligations assumed at
>any time by the library or archives when it obtained a copy or phonorecord
>of a work in its collections.
Woot! Copyright owners love slamming people who claim fair use. :)
Step 1: Non-Profit != Not asking for money. There is a legal definition of
Non-Profit, and if your organization does not fit it, you're NOT non-profit.
Step 2: Using "more than a small amount" of a work (ie, posting the whole
picture) will slap fair use right out the door.
>Also
>
>109 (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a
>particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any
>person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the
>copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that
>copy or phonorecord. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, copies or
>phonorecords of works subject to restored copyright under section 104A
>that are manufactured before the date of restoration of copyright or, with
>respect to reliance parties, before publication or service of notice under
>section 104A(e), may be sold or otherwise disposed of without the
>authorization of the owner of the restored copyright for purposes of
>direct or indirect commercial advantage only during the 12-month period
>beginning on...
>109 (b)(1)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless
>authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner
>of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other
>medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in
>the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular
>phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a
>computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such
>program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial
>advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of
>that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other
>medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any
>other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending. Nothing
>in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of
>a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes...
That says that if you have a copy, you are allowed to TRANSFER (not
duplicate) THAT COPY (No others) to another person as long as the copy
LEAVES your possession fully and becomes the property of the other
person. That means that if you still have a copy, or more than one person
has a copy, you are not covered here. You are also allowed to trash it.
Example:
I buy a Michelle Light print. I am legally allowed to sell THAT ONE PRINT
to somebody, rip up the print, or give it to somebody else as long as I
don't keep a copy of it.
>Now, read this one closely:
>
>109 (b) (4) Any person who distributes a phonorecord or a copy of a
>computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such
>program) in violation of paragraph (1) is an infringer of copyright under
>section 501 of this title and is subject to the remedies set forth in
>sections 502, 503, 504, 505, and 509. Such violation shall not be a
>criminal offense under section 506 or cause such person to be subject to
>the criminal penalties set forth in section 2319 of title 18.
"Illegal" does not mean "Criminal". "Illegal" means in violation of the law.
<
https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fillegal>il·le·gal
/ lig l/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-lee-guhl]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.forbidden by law or statute.
2.contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.
Law includes both criminal and civil.
Criminal == You go to jail, don't have to work, get free gay sex from Butch.
Civil == You get sued for breaking the law, owe somebody else lots of
money, and potentially get your wages garnished, credit screwed, and life
fucked over for decades.
>109 (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(5), the owner of a
>particular copy lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized
>by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner,
>to display that copy publicly, either directly or by the projection of no
>more than one image at a time, to viewers present at the place where the
>copy is located.
That means you are allowed to put the art on your wall without breaking
copyright, even in a public place like a restaurant.
>110 (5)(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), communication of a
>transmission embodying a performance or display of a work by the public
>reception of the transmission on a single receiving apparatus of a kind
>commonly used in private homes, unless —
>
>(i) a direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission; or
>
>(ii) the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public;
Applies to performance art. Still not allowed to repost to FChan.
>111 (a) Certain Secondary Transmissions Exempted. — The secondary
>transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary
>transmission is not an infringement of copyright if —
>(3) the secondary transmission is made by any carrier who has no direct or
>indirect control over the content or selection of the primary transmission
>or over the particular recipients of the secondary transmission, and whose
>activities with respect to the secondary transmission consist solely of
>providing wires, cables, or other communications channels for the use of
>others: Provided, That the provisions of this clause extend only to the
>activities of said carrier with respect to secondary transmissions and do
>not exempt from liability the activities of others with respect to their
>own primary or secondary transmissions;
This means that the internet company isn't responsible when you
infringe. You are.
>Now, specifically stated for digital art posted online, considered
>computer software:
Unrelated to a digital copy of an art piece. Computer software is a
completely different classification.
>Now, most specifically to stuff reguarding non-commercial redistribution:
>
>§ 118. Scope of exclusive rights: Use of certain works in connection with
>noncommercial broadcasting54
><snip>
You forgot:
(g) As used in this section, the term “public broadcasting entity” means a
noncommercial educational broadcast station as defined in section 397 of
title 47 and any nonprofit institution or organization engaged in the
activities described in paragraph (2) of subsection (d).
You don't meet that definition, so section 118 does not apply to you at all.
>There ya go.
As it sits, you are losing a lawsuit.
Consult a lawyer.
Here... Let's go to "layman's terms" so you can figure this out better:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter6/index.html
We'll focus on the most important line:
"Copyright infringement occurs whenever copyrighted material is transferred
to or from a website without authorization from the copyright owner."
For reference on fair use, look at
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html#3
Important text:
"Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of
portions of a work, not complete works."
(Hint: Reposting the picture is a complete work. Reposting the signature
is not.)
Are you willing to put your future on the line? Are you willing to owe me
thousands, have your wages garnished, screw your credit, etc? Do you
believe that not criminal is the same as not illegal? Do you believe that
you have a strong enough defense to win a case, even though you didn't
understand the law and didn't ask a lawyer?
There is a small group that has made a living off people like you and
people who believe you. These people take a pseudonym, post a registered
piece, wait for it to be reposted, then sue the posters. Every one of them
is living comfortably off the garnished wages of a few dozen people each.
Don't become a statistic. CONSULT A LAWYER before you decide to defend
yourself based on things that you appear to have very little understanding
of. US Copyright law is VERY creator-friendly.
The best advice I've EVER seen is simple:
Assume it's protected.
Seek permission or don't do it.
Received on Wed Apr 18 2007 - 00:19:08 CDT