Probably go on a little longer, at least until the Supremes refuse to hear it.
Or they're too drunk to hear the case.
It is very important to remember that almost all uses of images on the discussion board (outside of the Trade/Buy/Sell area) will fall under the "Fair Use Doctrine" (U.S. Code Title 17, section 107), as there is no profit motive and all such uses are for illustrative, research and educational purposes.
"So, copying third party photos and posting them here is not inherently free of liability just because of factor (1)."
"My point was (and is) the level of paranoia exhibited by some collectors over usage of simple images of stamps from their collection without first obtaining permission, is way out of proportion to any possible damage they might suffer. Isn't this supposed to be a hobby based upon exchange of ideas and information? Shouldn't we gladly share knowledge instead of hoarding it for our personal gratification?"
I respect your right to protect your intellectual property 100%. I opposed peer sharing of music from its inception as it took money from the pockets of hardworking musicians and writers. I support lawsuits such as the one against the USPS as they profited from the work of another without even credit being given. But does that compare with someone posting an image of a $2.60 Zep to demonstrate centering or an unusual cancel?
Is it a violation of copyright if the image was scanned by one person and used by another without a right to that scan? Yes. Has it harmed the owner of the copyright? I fail to see how. If a person uses that scan for nefarious purposes, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; but as a reference in a discussion on a philatelic discussion board? Cut me some slack here. Being in the right doesn't always mean you are doing the right thing.
Regardless, I am through arguing.
"I respect your right to protect your intellectual property 100%. I opposed peer sharing of music from its inception as it took money from the pockets of hardworking musicians and writers."
"I support lawsuits such as the one against the USPS as they profited from the work of another without even credit being given."
"But does that compare with someone posting an image of a $2.60 Zep to demonstrate centering or an unusual cancel? "
"Is it a violation of copyright if the image was scanned by one person and used by another without a right to that scan? Yes. Has it harmed the owner of the copyright? I fail to see how. If a person uses that scan for nefarious purposes, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; but as a reference in a discussion on a philatelic discussion board?"
"Cut me some slack here. Being in the right doesn't always mean you are doing the right thing. "
Lars,
If this decision were to stand and while riding on the Staten Island ferry I took a photo of the Manhattan skyline that I would need the permission of every design architect whose building was identifiable in the photo before it could be printed in the NY Post ?
Let's say it was entered in a contest and I won the top prize, a free weekend copy of the Post.
That was supposed to be a joke.
I don't have an opinion as to whether the sculptor should have a claim, but apparently the trial court thought he did, as did the appellate court. It's interesting that the USPS was arguing to the appeals court that a 10% royalty was too much, not that there should be no royalty at all.
Charlie,
I know you were kidding, but this is certainly a complicated issue. In general, it's typically just a matter of bad manners that can be prevented with a simple watermark in the image. In your example the prize was minimal and if you did photograph something that was copyright protected, you would likely just get a cease and desist notice because any judgment would be minimal. The Post, on the other hand, might have a problem if they published the photo.
Bobby said:
"Being in the right doesn't always mean you are doing the right thing."
Knew about this. It's been going on for a while.
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
Probably go on a little longer, at least until the Supremes refuse to hear it.
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
Or they're too drunk to hear the case.
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
It is very important to remember that almost all uses of images on the discussion board (outside of the Trade/Buy/Sell area) will fall under the "Fair Use Doctrine" (U.S. Code Title 17, section 107), as there is no profit motive and all such uses are for illustrative, research and educational purposes.
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
"So, copying third party photos and posting them here is not inherently free of liability just because of factor (1)."
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
"My point was (and is) the level of paranoia exhibited by some collectors over usage of simple images of stamps from their collection without first obtaining permission, is way out of proportion to any possible damage they might suffer. Isn't this supposed to be a hobby based upon exchange of ideas and information? Shouldn't we gladly share knowledge instead of hoarding it for our personal gratification?"
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
I respect your right to protect your intellectual property 100%. I opposed peer sharing of music from its inception as it took money from the pockets of hardworking musicians and writers. I support lawsuits such as the one against the USPS as they profited from the work of another without even credit being given. But does that compare with someone posting an image of a $2.60 Zep to demonstrate centering or an unusual cancel?
Is it a violation of copyright if the image was scanned by one person and used by another without a right to that scan? Yes. Has it harmed the owner of the copyright? I fail to see how. If a person uses that scan for nefarious purposes, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; but as a reference in a discussion on a philatelic discussion board? Cut me some slack here. Being in the right doesn't always mean you are doing the right thing.
Regardless, I am through arguing.
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
"I respect your right to protect your intellectual property 100%. I opposed peer sharing of music from its inception as it took money from the pockets of hardworking musicians and writers."
"I support lawsuits such as the one against the USPS as they profited from the work of another without even credit being given."
"But does that compare with someone posting an image of a $2.60 Zep to demonstrate centering or an unusual cancel? "
"Is it a violation of copyright if the image was scanned by one person and used by another without a right to that scan? Yes. Has it harmed the owner of the copyright? I fail to see how. If a person uses that scan for nefarious purposes, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; but as a reference in a discussion on a philatelic discussion board?"
"Cut me some slack here. Being in the right doesn't always mean you are doing the right thing. "
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
Lars,
If this decision were to stand and while riding on the Staten Island ferry I took a photo of the Manhattan skyline that I would need the permission of every design architect whose building was identifiable in the photo before it could be printed in the NY Post ?
Let's say it was entered in a contest and I won the top prize, a free weekend copy of the Post.
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
That was supposed to be a joke.
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
I don't have an opinion as to whether the sculptor should have a claim, but apparently the trial court thought he did, as did the appellate court. It's interesting that the USPS was arguing to the appeals court that a 10% royalty was too much, not that there should be no royalty at all.
Charlie,
I know you were kidding, but this is certainly a complicated issue. In general, it's typically just a matter of bad manners that can be prevented with a simple watermark in the image. In your example the prize was minimal and if you did photograph something that was copyright protected, you would likely just get a cease and desist notice because any judgment would be minimal. The Post, on the other hand, might have a problem if they published the photo.
Bobby said:
"Being in the right doesn't always mean you are doing the right thing."