If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   When lawyers say "fair use", they don't mean fair to humans. But then you knew that when you saw the word lawyers   (wired.com) divider line 36
    More: Ironic, economic history, Infoworld, illustrated books, Death of a Salesman  
•       •       •

7785 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2013 at 10:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-07 10:31:13 AM  
When lawyers say "fair use", we're referring to a specific legal doctrine, which in copyright has been codified at 17 USC 107, and not just "you want me to pay for stuff?! That's unfaaaaaaair!"
 
2013-08-07 10:37:50 AM  
I was going to suggest we had a scumbag lawyer trifecta in play and I realized we were at 70% scumbag lawyer today. Really puts me in the mood to advocate mandatory wood-chipping of lawyers. Someone put that in latin for me so I can sneak that into some legislation.
 
2013-08-07 10:41:11 AM  
Article reads like it was written by an algorithm.
 
2013-08-07 10:42:54 AM  
Interesting, I learn something new every day.
 
2013-08-07 10:51:05 AM  
A friend suggested adding some photos from 1949 and 2012 (the years when the first and latest productions reached Broadway) because the book used these events as a way to understand just how life and our economy had changed. Adding pictures of the production in 1949 and 2012 would really bring the manuscript to life.

Translation: I wrote a shiatty book and i wanted to use other people work in it (because it would make my work better, and therefore sell more and make me more money) but i didn't want to have to pay for it.
 
2013-08-07 10:55:41 AM  

vudukungfu: Article reads like it was written by an algorithm.


No! His book didn't sell because of the lack of pictures, not his horrible writing skills! Pictures! Because of, uh... copyright! Fair use!
 
2013-08-07 11:02:02 AM  
LemSkroob: "Translation: I wrote a shiatty book and i wanted to use other people work in it (because it would make my work better, and therefore sell more and make me more money) but i didn't want to have to pay for it."

"And accepted that, but noted that bullshiat sites like BuzzFeed can do the same sorts of things, on a massive scale, without paying anyone a dime."
 
2013-08-07 11:04:06 AM  

ringersol: LemSkroob: "Translation: I wrote a shiatty book and i wanted to use other people work in it (because it would make my work better, and therefore sell more and make me more money) but i didn't want to have to pay for it."

"And accepted that, but noted that bullshiat sites like BuzzFeed can do the same sorts of things, on a massive scale, without paying anyone a dime."


"Peretti told me this morning, BuzzFeed pays licensing fees to Reuters, AP, and Getty Images for the use of their libraries."
 
2013-08-07 11:08:02 AM  
Theaetetus: ""Peretti told me this morning, BuzzFeed pays licensing fees to Reuters, AP, and Getty Images for the use of their libraries"

Which doesn't remotely cover the breadth of places they... source their photos from.

From your article:

"I would love if every image contained some secret metadata and a way to license that image," Peretti told me. "But the practical reality is that it is pretty challenging, particularly in the web culture of animals and the images that spread on Pinterest and Tumblr."

And it's in cases like these that things really get interesting. With these kinds of posts, Peretti is willing to make a Fair Use argument ..."
 
2013-08-07 11:09:46 AM  
But I suppose you have a point. They do pay a few people a dime.

Good lawyering - attack the casual statement for not being specific, while ducking the actual subject at hand.
 
2013-08-07 11:11:21 AM  

ringersol: But I suppose you have a point. They do pay a few people a dime.


Thanks.

Good lawyering - attack the casual statement for not being specific, while ducking the actual subject at hand.

Bad lawyering - dismiss any errors or misstatements of your own as "casual", rather than attempting to learn something.
 
2013-08-07 11:12:06 AM  

Theaetetus: "Peretti told me this morning, BuzzFeed pays licensing fees to Reuters, AP, and Getty Images for the use of their libraries."


To be fair, Buzzfeed also sources quite a bit of imagery from twitter and facebook and I'm fairly sure they don't pay the creators any licensing fees.
 
2013-08-07 11:12:27 AM  
I found the pictures would cost about $300-$600 per image... The automated machines have me and the photographers beat.

LOL, no the photographer already beat themselves with that price.
 
2013-08-07 11:14:15 AM  
Its almost as if "fair use" is not a magic password that lets you do whatever you want.

/but man it would be cool if it was
//dude you stole my wallet!
fair use!
///you humped my girlfriend!
fair use!
////you overused slashies!
Welcome to Fark!
 
2013-08-07 11:24:57 AM  

RexTalionis: Theaetetus: "Peretti told me this morning, BuzzFeed pays licensing fees to Reuters, AP, and Getty Images for the use of their libraries."

To be fair, Buzzfeed also sources quite a bit of imagery from twitter and facebook and I'm fairly sure they don't pay the creators any licensing fees.


True, though they've been hit by a lawsuit* for exactly that practice, which means that maybe BuzzFeed can't do the same sorts of things, on a massive scale, without paying anyone a dime...

*the lawsuit asks for both actual damages and statutory damages. This is why going pro se is a bad idea.
 
2013-08-07 11:25:42 AM  
Copyright rule must change. It's not a question of ethics or law; it's a situation of a tidal wave of sharing by hundreds of millions of people at least a million times faster than you can sue them.  Artists will have to find a way to live with it.  Surely the artists will, but the transition is going to hurt.
 
2013-08-07 11:26:29 AM  
Perhaps I just misunderstood the point of the article, but it sounds like the author wants Google, and presumably other search engines, to take on the responsibility of creating and administering a payment system that will compensate content-creators whose works might be used by sites like Tumblr and Fark (particularly in the photoshop contests).  So how is it the responsibility of a search engine, that is only indexing the content of the internet, to arrange compensation for content creators?  Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the site that's actually using the work in question?
 
2013-08-07 11:27:25 AM  

Theaetetus: *the lawsuit asks for both actual damages and statutory damages. This is why going pro se is a bad idea.


oh no . . . come on guys, reading the statute isn't that hard!  "instead of actual damages" is RIGHT THERE.
 
2013-08-07 11:28:56 AM  
Theaetetus: "Bad lawyering - dismiss any errors or misstatements of your own as "casual", rather than attempting to learn something."

I dismissed my 'error' as a casual statement because it was: Hyperbole is a thing humans use for emotional effect, even though it's almost never technically true, and with no expectation that anyone is going to treat it as a claim of literal truth. They don't do this in contexts that demand specificity, but Fark is hardly one of those.

So what am I to 'learn' here? That someone on the internet is going to nit-pick?
 
2013-08-07 11:33:27 AM  

Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: *the lawsuit asks for both actual damages and statutory damages. This is why going pro se is a bad idea.

oh no . . . come on guys, reading the statute isn't that hard!  "instead of actual damages" is RIGHT THERE.


I've seen judges say "you asked for actual damages of $20k and statutory damages of up to $150k. The statute is in the alternative, so we're capping your damages at $20k... if you can prove that amount."
 
2013-08-07 11:36:44 AM  

GenericLifeform: Perhaps I just misunderstood the point of the article, but it sounds like the author wants Google, and presumably other search engines, to take on the responsibility of creating and administering a payment system that will compensate content-creators whose works might be used by sites like Tumblr and Fark (particularly in the photoshop contests).  So how is it the responsibility of a search engine, that is only indexing the content of the internet, to arrange compensation for content creators?  Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the site that's actually using the work in question?


I got the impression that the author considers the "search results page" itself to be an independent work comprised of many photographs, and that Google should be on the hook for serving up each of those images, at $300-600 a pop, for each page of results they deliver.

Of course, one can also make the argument that a collection of magnetic data that ceases to meaningfully exist when the cached content expires (really, it ceases to exist well before that, but giving the benefit of the doubt) isn't a "work" so much as it is a "report" done for educational purposes - and unless the injured party can show that 'user083586420696094' performed a search for commercial purposes and gained from it, there'd be nothing to recover anyway.

Sites like BuzzFeed often pair these "stolen" photos with some original text, yes? How is that not exactly like Puffy's theft of Kashmir for the Godzilla soundtrack (three things I wish had never happened)?
 
2013-08-07 11:39:40 AM  

Theaetetus: I've seen judges say "you asked for actual damages of $20k and statutory damages of up to $150k. The statute is in the alternative, so we're capping your damages at $20k... if you can prove that amount."


Yup, me too.  Its like most lawyers dont actually read the damages section of statutes.  Wait.  They dont.  (except of course, at our firms)
 
2013-08-07 11:52:17 AM  

vudukungfu: Article reads like it was written by an algorithm.



What an algorithm might look like:
news.bbc.co.uk
 
2013-08-07 12:06:33 PM  

Snarfangel: vudukungfu: Article reads like it was written by an algorithm.


What an algorithm might look like:
[news.bbc.co.uk image 315x180]


holy shiatsnacks, made me laugh.  let me retort,

im rhythmus biden

img2-3.timeinc.net
 
2013-08-07 12:13:45 PM  
Back in the early days of the web, my website was caught up in the Great Viacom Crackdown (Viacom was going after Star Trek fan sites for supposed copyright infringement). Some things I've learned about both sides of the fence (content creator and viewer):

1) Any content you create and post to a public-facing web page is automatically "fair use" for non-commercial purposes.

1a)Public-facing means any page that is not behind a pay-wall, and does not require a signup/registration to access it.

1b) Non-commercial means the copy made of your content will be for the user's personal use only, AND the user may not claim credit for your content, AND the user may not use your content in any works that may earn the user money or notoriety.

2) Even with "Fair Use", the creator of the content is legally justified to demand that they be given proper credit in any derived works which contain their content, in whole or in part. Failure to comply with such a legal demand may result in forfeiting their derived work to the original content creator.

3) If you want to use another person's work in your own creations, the best policy is to ASK THEM DIRECTLY (and get written permission, if possible).
3a) Upon securing permission, it is best policy to include a copyright by-line, and the phrase "Use with permission by the author".
3b) Most content creators who post their content on the web will happily grant permission, in exchange for the added exposure, as long as you adhere to the above rules.

Back when Viacom was going after fan sites, mine was briefly targeted. Rather than piss and moan and stamp my feet with the phrase "Fair Use!", I actually communicated with them. This included discussing which pictures and soundbites actually fell under the "fair use" clause, and for ones that were not covered, I secured permission from them to use it.

And honestly, it turns out all I had to do, as a fan site author, was ASK for permission, and put up copyright notices where appropriate. The people I communicated with turned out to be fair and reasonable, and even began sending me photos and promos that I could add to my site.
 
2013-08-07 12:24:55 PM  
Unless there is an actual price sticker on the item in question, F*CK YOU!!

Maybe you should have taken measures to have said items protected. if you leave your house unoccupied and with the doors wide open, don't whine when the burglars and crackheads rush in.
 
2013-08-07 12:41:30 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

     Homer: I reluctantly accept your proposal!
Bill Gates: Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!

     Homer: Hey, what the hell's going on!
Bill Gates: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!
 
2013-08-07 12:44:51 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Maybe you should have taken measures to have said items protected. if you leave your house unoccupied and with the doors wide open, don't whine when the burglars and crackheads rush in.



Sure, it would be foolish.  But it is still illegal for "burglars and crackheads" to rush in.  And you would still be within your rights to seek prosecution (for laws broken) and restitution (for loss).  Yeah you would be stupid, but being stupid doesn't preclude ownership.
 
2013-08-07 12:51:40 PM  

RyansPrivates: Sure, it would be foolish. But it is still illegal for "burglars and crackheads" to rush in. And you would still be within your rights to seek prosecution (for laws broken) and restitution (for loss). Yeah you would be stupid, but being stupid doesn't preclude ownership.


pshaw.

Didn't you know that if you leave your material easily accessible, its your fault for doing so and they will use it wrongfully.  Of course, if you attempt to stop people from dosing this, that is hateful DRM, and it is your fault for doing so and they will use it wrongfully.
 
2013-08-07 02:33:16 PM  
I heard on the radio this morning that the owners of the Deep Throat copyright are trying to block the distribution of a Sundance Film about the star for infringement.  Its ridiculous that a porno from the 70's is still under copyright at this point.
 
2013-08-07 02:50:32 PM  

Super_pope: I heard on the radio this morning that the owners of the Deep Throat copyright are trying to block the distribution of a Sundance Film about the star for infringement. Its ridiculous that a porno from the 70's is still under copyright at this point.


As noted above - under the terms of copyright that existed since 1831, a work could have an initial term of 28 years, with the possibility of getting an a renewal and a further set of years (for 14 years prior to 1909, for 28 years after that).  Thus even 150 years before the invention of "life of the author + 70 years," "a porno from the 70's" would be likley still be under protection.
 
2013-08-07 03:05:25 PM  

Teiritzamna: As noted above - under the terms of copyright that existed since 1831, a work could have an initial term of 28 years, with the possibility of getting an a renewal and a further set of years (for 14 years prior to 1909, for 28 years after that). Thus even 150 years before the invention of "life of the author + 70 years," "a porno from the 70's" would be likley still be under protection.


Which is ridiculous given how fast we outgrow old entertainment content in a society as rapidly capable of disseminating information as we are today.
 
2013-08-07 03:19:15 PM  

Super_pope: Teiritzamna: As noted above - under the terms of copyright that existed since 1831, a work could have an initial term of 28 years, with the possibility of getting an a renewal and a further set of years (for 14 years prior to 1909, for 28 years after that). Thus even 150 years before the invention of "life of the author + 70 years," "a porno from the 70's" would be likley still be under protection.

Which is ridiculous given how fast we outgrow old entertainment content in a society as rapidly capable of disseminating information as we are today.


Yup we sure outgrow stories and characters invented:

upload.wikimedia.org
in 1939

upload.wikimedia.org
in 1937

upload.wikimedia.org
in 1900
 
2013-08-07 06:07:06 PM  
4closurefraud.org
 
2013-08-07 06:43:20 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: [4closurefraud.org image 640x380]


You realize that the character that Shakespeare wrote that line for was a brutish rebel who was trying to overthrow the king. In fact, right after that line was said, that character and his fellow rebel executes a man for the crime of knowing how to read and write.
 
2013-08-08 01:18:05 AM  
the biggest problem with this is that they (photos) should never have been protected with a copyright ..
the pictures were stolen from the land owners / country they were taken from ... its just STOLEN LIGHT ...or is it even theft when the light bounces ... so is it theft if the photos are then photoed? it shouldn't be ... its the same idea .. light capture vs light capture .. meh..
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report