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

From: Skywise (
Date: Sat May 28 2011 - 20:44:04 UTC

  • Next message: Brian Weeden: "Re: Title 17 US Code section 107 was Re: about frame sequences, images use and copyright"

    Richard Crisp wrote:
    > 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...
    In the US, copyright is automatic. No need to register a copyright,
    although that does have it's uses.
    But Theirry's use of Ralf's images, and Ralf's response to request they
    be removed is EXACTLY why I brought up the copyright issue.
    I am not suggesting Ralf (or anyone else) give up their ownership or
    all their rights to any imagery. But it should be quite obvious now
    that in order for imagery to be of much use to this list - and to allow
    independent analysis at all - that the copyright owner should be
    required when presenting images to the list to clearly state their
    position on copyright.
    Here's some scenarios and my take on them.
    1> A person presents images to the list but reserves all rights, not
        even allowing others to do anything with the images. This, in my
        opinion, should not be allowed on the list. Why? Because all this
        does is give the poster bragging rights and little to no room for
        discussion of the conclusions drawn regarding the images. This is
        antithetical to the purpose of this list, which is to share data
        and discuss it. This is one extreme.
    2> A person presents images and releases all their rights and places
        the images into the public domain. Although the imager certainly
        can do this if they so choose, I do not think it is necessary for
        the purpose of this list. This is the other extreme.
    3> A person presents images and states clearly that others may use
        the images for non-profit purposes of evaluation, discussion, and
        education, as long as full credit is given to the original source
        with contact information, in perpetuum. Or something similarly
        worded. This is the middle ground that I feel should be striven
        for. The imagery can be presented, and others can use it to do
        their own analysis free of any worries of inadvertent infringement
        of copyright. The 'in perpetuum' part I think is very important
        to prevent retraction of use, which devolves into scenario 1 above.
    Personally, I think a release notice should be required for postings
    re imagery to this list for the simple reason that it clarifies to
    all subscribers what the copyright status of the imagery is and what
    uses others have a right to. It also would eliminate and resolve
    scenarios as what we just witnessed.
    Copyright law is a very murky thing. I may have mentioned this already,
    but there are no hard and fast rules on what is considered a copyright
    infringement. Only a court of law and a jury can decided on a case by
    case basis. Before that, it's all a gray area and open to individual
    interpretation and opinion.
    By clearly stating the copyright and what rights are released, it
    resolves any potential dispute before it starts and satisfies the old
    dictum of "covering your a**", for all parties.
    By way of example, there is a computer graphics contest I am aware of
    wherein participants must state that they comply with the contest's
    copyright release rules in order to have their entry accepted. The
    release clearly states what rights the author of the original work
    is granting to the competition hosts and how the images will be used.
    If you don't agree, then you don't submit.
    -- - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
    Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
    Seesat-l mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 28 2011 - 19:45:24 UTC