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

From: Brian Weeden (
Date: Sat May 28 2011 - 20:46:03 UTC

  • Next message: Ed Cannon: "re: DoD paper says we should self censor"

    For those that want to release their data/images under something a bit more
    flexible than the default "all rights reserved" copyright law, take a look
    at Creative Commons licenses:
    On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Skywise <> wrote:
    > 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.
    > Brian
    > --
    > - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
    > Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
    > _______________________________________________
    > Seesat-l mailing list
    -------------- next part --------------
    An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
    Seesat-l mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 28 2011 - 20:48:06 UTC