Title 17 US Code section 107 was Re: about frame sequences, images use and copyright

From: Richard Crisp (rdcrisp@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat May 28 2011 - 16:08:05 UTC

  • Next message: Markus Mehring: "Re: about frame sequences, images use and copyright"

    I don't want to get involved in this dispute but I do want to point out 
    legal standings regarding what is called "fair use" under US Copyright law.
    Obviously if one hasn't copyrighted the material then there is no standing 
    whatsoever to control it..... and the internet is certainly larger than the 
    reach of US law...
    still having said that, it appears to me that Mr. Legault is legally 
    entitled to use the works of Mr Vandebergh for "criticism, comment, news 
    reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research" as outlined below at least 
    in jurisdictions where US Laws apply, assuming Mr Vandebergh has copyrighted 
    the materials in dispute.....
    One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to 
    reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or 
    phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 
    107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more 
    important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair 
    use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the 
    years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
    Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the 
    reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, 
    comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 
    also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a 
    particular use is fair:
    The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of 
    commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
    The nature of the copyrighted work
    The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the 
    copyrighted work as a whole
    The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the 
    copyrighted work
    The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not 
    easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that 
    may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the 
    copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
    The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the 
    U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as 
    fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of 
    illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or 
    technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s 
    observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; 
    summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; 
    reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a 
    damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work 
    to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial 
    proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a 
    newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being 
    Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It 
    does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a 
    The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner 
    before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this 
    When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material 
    should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the 
    situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may 
    be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is 
    any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
    FL-102, Reviewed November 2009
    -----Original Message----- 
    From: Ralf Vandebergh
    Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 8:50 AM
    To: SeeSat-L@satobs.org
    Subject: about frame sequences, images use and copyright
    Before I definitely disappear from this list the following;
    Recently Mr Legault presented over this list a page were he ‘analysed’ my 
    images to discredit them.
    As a matter of fact, he did not even ask for permission to use the images. I 
    remember an other
    amateur contacting him to use one of his own images for analysis, and he did 
    not give permission.
    The worst is that at the end of his page he concludes with; no real detail, 
    no real color based on his
    own thoughts.
    My presentation of images and animations is not based on subjective 
    conclusions of one person,
    but they show what is really captured, and an expert in astro-imaging or 
    even someone less
    then an expert is able to see what is a seeing artefact or not. This is 
    clearly real:
    I would ask again to Mr Legault to be so kind and remove the images from his 
    page to
    not force the copyright rules.
    Best regards,
    Ralf Vandebergh
    -------------- next part --------------
    An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
    Seesat-l mailing list
    Seesat-l mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 28 2011 - 16:09:16 UTC