.....Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107

On the Huh

On the Huh

Little Ball of Fur
Messages
4,405
Name
Zulfi
Edit My Images
Yes
Noticed this on YouTube.

.....Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship, and research
Click to expand...

Does that mean we can legally discuss and post pics from photographers without permission from the owner, which has always been a no-no on here?
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
Well

1) that's a law belonging to the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

2) this is a UK based forum

3) UK copyright law has no 'fair use'. It has 'fair dealing' under ss 29-30 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, which is rather more limited in its scope than the US equivalent.

3) Forum rules ≠ the law.
Click to expand...

Ahh! Forgot about our cousins accross the pond. Thanks for contributing.
I guess when stuff becomes News that's another story?
 
Made me think more than once or twice that one in the past.

But how do folk stand in this age of the World Wide Web and international travel?

Posted in one country, viewed in a second and if they like it, copied in many.:help:
 
Musicman said:
Well

1) that's a law belonging to the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

2) this is a UK based forum

3) UK copyright law has no 'fair use'. It has 'fair dealing' under ss 29-30 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, which is rather more limited in its scope than the US equivalent.

3) Forum rules ≠ the law.
Click to expand...


I've wondered this myself. Why do Photgraphy forums like this ignore the fact that you can post another's image

30 Criticism, review and news reporting.(1)Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement [F1 and provided that the work has been made available to the public].
[F2(1A)For the purposes of subsection (1) a work has been made available to the public if it has been made available by any means, including—
(a)the issue of copies to the public;
(b)making the work available by means of an electronic retrieval system;
(c)the rental or lending of copies of the work to the public;
(d)the performance, exhibition, playing or showing of the work in public;
(e)the communication to the public of the work,
but in determining generally for the purposes of that subsection whether a work has been made available to the public no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.]
(2)Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
(3)No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of current events by means of a sound recording, film [F3 or broadcast where this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise].


Posting a photo on here for educational purposes, so long as it is not for profit, fully acknowledged and also available for public consumption (also on the photographer's site for example) does not infringe copyright... yet forums like this do not allow it.

This is why I am allowed to put examples of people's work on lecture notes, readers, and also on the college website space for students to look at and download. I see no difference here.

If I posted a piece of work on here by a photographer as an example of something in a critique thread, and that image was also published online for public consumption by the author, how would I be infringing copyright? You can simply insist that it is forum rules and leave it at that, but I'm struggling to see how I'd be in infringement of the law.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
If I posted a piece of work on here by a photographer as an example of something in a critique thread, and that image was also published online for public consumption by the author, how would I be infringing copyright? You can simply insist that it is forum rules and leave it at that, but I'm struggling to see how I'd be in infringement of the law.
Click to expand...

You know the answer, forum rules are written by the mods and rarely revisited.

I'm a member of a rather amateur IT forum at work, and they'll allow discussion of copying of music, video etc only if the poster uses the term 'non-copyright' :cuckoo:

I had a discussion with the mods, stating that there's no such thing:cuckoo: and although he completely agreed that legally I was correct, they'd had the managers input to the rules and weren't about to make them more complicated by using any other disclaimer:shrug:
 
Suspect also that forums might not be seen by a court as criticism or review for private study (clearly the academic get outs that permit educational establishments to go a bit further don't apply there). And for a forum mod the fair use also has to take into account the quantity of material from a given source, which would be a nightmare to police.
 
On the Huh said:
Does that mean we can legally discuss and post pics from photographers without permission from the owner, which has always been a no-no on here?
Click to expand...

I dont think (in fact I am pretty sure) that this forum rule has nothing to do wiht laws.. more with common decency to fellow photogrpahers who arn't here to defend any criticism..
 
Pookeyhead said:
I've wondered this myself. Why do Photgraphy forums like this ignore the fact that you can post another's image........................
Click to expand...

KIPAX said:
I dont think (in fact I am pretty sure) that this forum rule has nothing to do wiht laws.. more with common decency to fellow photogrpahers who arn't here to defend any criticism..
Click to expand...

Nail & Head Tony. :thumbs:
 
KIPAX said:
I dont think (in fact I am pretty sure) that this forum rule has nothing to do wiht laws.. more with common decency to fellow photogrpahers who arn't here to defend any criticism..
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense.:)
 
Fair enough.. no real argument from me, I was just curious why copyright law was being cited as a reason when it's clearly not a reason.
 
Notice that's a 'not equal' sign.

The forum is free to set its own rules, within the law of course.
 
Times like this I wish I had a lower res monitor... you wouldn't believe how small that symbol is. Just looked at it on my iPad and it's blatant.

My bad :)
 
Phil V said:
I'm a member of a rather amateur IT forum at work, and they'll allow discussion of copying of music, video etc only if the poster uses the term 'non-copyright' :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

[youtube]KQxhOYqLPdY[/youtube]
:D

They were written by the Admin/Owners and are regularly discussed as to their suitability :)
 
KIPAX said:
I dont think (in fact I am pretty sure) that this forum rule has nothing to do wiht laws.. more with common decency to fellow photogrpahers who arn't here to defend any criticism..
Click to expand...

i've seen that being as the reason for this policy stated on this forum before, but it is logically flawed, surely?

for instance, there are plenty of outlets for people to critique things where the original 'artist' has no means to defend or respond to such criticism - newspaper reviews of films, tripadvisor, magazine reviews, amazon reviews and so on.

nobody says "you can't write a bad review about a film because the director isn't given an opportunity to defend himself", or that you "can't write a bad review on tripadvisor because the manager can't respond or that it might damage his business or reputation".

are we saying that you can't have an opinion on a photograph unless the photographer can be there to rebut anything negative that comes their way?

it's the glaring unbalanced inconsistency which seems strange to me and it seems strange that photographers are given this special privilege when pretty much everybody else in a creative industry isn't by wider society.

i look at it this way: if you don't want people to say unkind things about your work, don't put it in the public domain. i'm not saying it would be very nice to be on the receiving end of a review that concludes something that you are very proud of or have invested a lot of time into is a load of old crud, it will surely hurt.

but i also like to give human beings the benefit of the doubt: just because somebody says a photograph, film or computer game is sɦite doesn't mean that it is, i'm clever enough to make up my own mind and i think most other people are too.
 
Last edited:
cuthbert said:
i've seen that being as the reason for this policy stated on this forum before, but it is logically flawed, surely?
Click to expand...

I don't think so but lets see :)

cuthbert said:
for instance, there are plenty of outlets for people to critique things where the original 'artist' has no means to defend or respond to such criticism - newspaper reviews of films, tripadvisor, magazine reviews, amazon reviews and so on.
Click to expand...

Correct however they are not same for same... take trip advisor.. is it hotel owners commenting on hotels or holidaymakers? amazon is it other online shop owners commenting on amazon or buyers? this forum is a forum of photogrpahers.. if it was a forum of shoppers talking about buying pictures then yes...



cuthbert said:
nobody says "you can't write a bad review about a film because the director isn't given an opportunity to defend himself"
Click to expand...

but thats usualy a critique whos job it is to write a review or someone who has been to see the film.. i doubt you mean a film director writing a review about another film dfirectors work..


You seeing it yet?:)

cuthbert said:
it's the glaring unbalanced inconsistency which seems strange to me and it seems strange that photographers are given this special privilege when pretty much everybody else in a creative industry isn't by wider society.
Click to expand...

Your missing the point that its photogrpahers commenting on other photogrpahers ..or artist on artist or hotellier on hottelier or chef on chef or ?
as apposed to every single other example you ahve given

cuthbert said:
i look at it this way: if you don't want people to say unkind things about your work, don't put it in the public domain.
Click to expand...

I look at it like this.. why say unkind things about peoples work behind there back?


cuthbert said:
but i also like to give human beings the benefit of the doubt: just because somebody says a photograph, film or computer game is sɦite doesn't mean that it is, i'm clever enough to make up my own mind and i think most other people are too.
Click to expand...


the difference is that most photogrpahers think its wrong to attack another photogrpahers work when he isnt here... a customer can.. a buyer can a critique can..but it doesnt seem right for other photogrpahers to.. however you seem to think its OK.. :) Nothing wrong wiht that..its what makes the world go around.. however the forum owners are thankfully in the other catagorie :)
 
Interesting that in a discussion on copyright and why we cant post other photographers work it seems we can post clips from ABC/CBS show Scrubs... also copyrighted. :suspect:
 
Good call ^^^^^^^

Why isn't that being removed?

I think it may be useful for tuition and critique purposes if we could put up links for famous images and photographers, so long as we attribute them as copyright holder. It's therefore covered under the educational clause.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I think it may be useful for tuition and critique purposes if we could put up links for famous images and photographers, so long as we attribute them as copyright holder. It's therefore covered under the educational clause.
Click to expand...

So go start your own photgraphy forum - that way you can make what rules you like and deal with the consequences

however marcel , matty, and brian started this one, they own it, they pay the server fee, they (and their merry band of fearless moderators) maintain it and keep it spam free and running mostly smoothly.

So its fair enough tht they should be able to make whatever rule they wish - if people don't like them they don't have to post here... simples
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I think it may be useful for tuition and critique purposes if we could put up links for famous images and photographers, so long as we attribute them as copyright holder. It's therefore covered under the educational clause.
Click to expand...

I agree. There's a world of difference between pulling an Ansel Adams apart and some hapless snapper's wonky out of focus shots on Flickr.


Or is there?

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.co.uk/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html
 
big soft moose said:
So go start your own photgraphy forum - that way you can make what rules you like and deal with the consequences
Click to expand...


LOL.. nice attitude you got there :)
 
swanseamale47 said:
Interesting that in a discussion on copyright and why we cant post other photographers work it seems we can post clips from ABC/CBS show Scrubs... also copyrighted. :suspect:
Click to expand...

The forums unwritten/written rule on this subject is broken almost everyday but some posts get away with it. I do it to a certain extent when I post youtube cips but where do we draw the line.

Personally, I think Cuthbert's post sums it up best. Once you put your work in the public domain it is there for all the world to critique and moan or applaud whether the artist is present or not. Using those images for gain is a totally different issue and what the copyright is there for.
 
Pookeyhead said:
LOL.. nice attitude you got there :)
Click to expand...

just sayin - Fabs explained where mods/admin are coming from (well actually he said kipax had), marcel explained that the rules are regularly reviewed by admin, okay so you don't agree they are right, but where's the point in banging on about wanting to change the rules ?
 
Last edited:
If the rule was removed this section of the forum would just be full of threads like those blog posts about how shockingly bad a piece of work is.
Regardless of the copyright implications having to wade through threads of that type to get to anything worthwhile would be annoying and having the first thing you see be a thread of bitching about bad photoshopping would not create a positive view of the forum for new members.
 
DazJW said:
If the rule was removed this section of the forum would just be full of threads like those blog posts about how shockingly bad a piece of work is.
Regardless of the copyright implications having to wade through threads of that type to get to anything worthwhile would be annoying and having the first thing you see be a thread of bitching about bad photoshopping would not create a positive view of the forum for new members.
Click to expand...

Two points,

if there is just a link supplied and no photos the thread is in the wrong part of the forum as there is a section for photo C&C and a section for discussion topics.

and secondly, this forum caters not just for new members. Maybe the new members need to have a look around and familiarise themselves with how, what and why before diving straight in at the deep end.
 
Football supporters are always criticizing other teams and thinking they could be a better manager than the best of them etc...

This forum would just turn into a photography based equivalent which in turn would make it a bit of a joke.

I already think football supporters are quite sad when they start banging on about what managers decisions should be etc and is a big influence in why I play football but don't watch it or talk about it :)
 
Phil Young said:
Football supporters are always criticizing other teams and thinking they could be a better manager than the best of them etc...

This forum would just turn into a photography based equivalent which in turn would make it a bit of a joke.

I already think football supporters are quite sad when they start banging on about what managers decisions should be etc and is a big influence in why I play football but don't watch it or talk about it :)
Click to expand...

But you are talking about football!

By the way, is this in the wrong thread?
 
swanseamale47 said:
Interesting that in a discussion on copyright and why we cant post other photographers work it seems we can post clips from ABC/CBS show Scrubs... also copyrighted. :suspect:
Click to expand...

its american and hosted on you tube - see the point in post 1 about fair use exemption under US law
 
big soft moose said:
just sayin - Fabs explained where mods/admin are coming from (well actually he said kipax had), marcel explained that the rules are regularly reviewed by admin, okay so you don't agree they are right, but where's the point in banging on about wanting to change the rules ?
Click to expand...

So the whole idea of a forum where we can suggest possible changes is a waste of time then. /thread.
 
umm there is iondeed a whole forum where you can discuss possible changes - and indeed a thread on how you'd like to shape the forum

however this isnt either of them , this is a discssion about copyright in the general photography board , so its neither the time nor the place to whine about stuff you don't like
 
big soft moose said:
umm there is iondeed a whole forum where you can discuss possible changes - and indeed a thread on how you'd like to shape the forum

however this isnt either of them , this is a discssion about copyright in the general photography board , so its neither the time nor the place to whine about stuff you don't like
Click to expand...

I know... but of the general attitude is one of "The mods have made the rules, so what's the point of moaning about it" then it would make no difference where it was posted I reckon.
 
my point was , you asked, they explained, and then you carried on moaning

theres no problem with raising an issue, but carrying on about it when its been explained is just daft - like i said if you want a photography forum where you have the power to change the rules then go start one.
 
big soft moose said:
my point was , you asked, they explained, and then you carried on moaning
Click to expand...

Well perhaps I disagree with the rationale given?

Some very good points have been made in this thread already. Why does no one explode into rage when you tube videos are posted in here, or links to other websites? I could post a LINK to another photographer's work, and that's fine.. just not the image itself. What's the difference?

Anyway... I give up :) Not worth fighting over... the attitude of "You've been told, shut up or **** off", is not really one you can argue against, so I won't.

Apologies if I've caused offence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top