Re: [photo-3d] Copyright concerns

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), but I do have some knowledge of this topic.
If you want legal advise consult a lawyer.

Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:
> >> I always acknowledge the source and I am not making a penny.
> >> Is that enough?
> >
> >Actually it isn't. IMO. To give an extreme but I think valid 
> >example [snip]
> 
> I was trying to make it short and sweet but I should have
> known someone would create a story like that...  So,
> let me fully reply to Mike Canter's idiotic remark:
> 

Actually Mike is right, you are in violation of the Copyright laws.
His example, although correct, is not really related to what you are
doing.  Violation of the Copyright laws does not require that the
violator show any profit.  The act of copying is the violation.

> >And I trust that you fully respected the copyrights of all 
> >of the original artists whose work and labour you've pirated, 
> >oops, copied...maybe I should say "borrowed"?
> 
> I have not pirated or "borrowed" anything!!!  This is material
> that I have bought. I have bought Boris' slides and I have
> bought a copy of the Museum 3D book.  I want to show these
> stereo images to a small group of people, inside the
> premises of a private institution.  I have copied a few
> images from the book on slide film and have remounted a
> couple of Boris' images in Realist format so I can 
> show the images in projection, instead of passing a viewer
> or a book around.  I have not stolen anything and I am not 
> selling anything.  So, what's wrong with that?
> 

Buying an item (book, audio recording, video, slides) does not give
you the right to alter (remount) or distribute (project at a public
showing) that work.  Buying the item gives you the right to view
(listen, read) the item yourself.  Sharing or selling the original
item as used are considered special cases (mostly to allow libraries
to function).

If you examine the Copyright notice of many works you'll see and
additional phrase "All rights reserved".  This means that although you
have purchased the individual item, you do not have any other rights
regarding the use of that item.  These rights that have been reserved
to the Copyright holder include alteration, duplication, and
distribution via alternate media (copying from a book to slides).  It
is my understanding that the "All rights reserved" phrase is no longer
necessary, just as it is no longer necessary to formally register a
Copyright (all works since the US entered into the Berne Convention
are automatically copyrighted) unless you are seeking punitive
damages.

I've checked a set of Boris' slides.  They have the "All rights
reserved" phrase.  If you have spoken to Boris, and he has said that
remounting his slides is OK, then he has granted you the right to do
so.

Before anyone else brings it up, "Fair Use" allows for the limited
copying (or quoting) of Copyrighted items for very specific purposes
(academic research and editorial review).  "Fair Use" is much more
tightly defined in the courts than many people believe.  I do not
think this is a case of "Fair Use".

> The worse that can happen is for someone to say, "Oh, now 
> that I have seen a sample of Boris' work, I don't need to buy 
> any of his images", or "Well, now that I have seen a small sample 
> of these painting conversions in the Museum 3d book, there is
> no reason for me to buy the book."  But you know that exactly
> the opposite will happen, people will rush to buy Boris'
> slides and Museum 3D books because they are very impressed
> with the samples they saw. I am doing free advertisement for
> these guys!
> 

This unforutnately is the justification that many software pirates
use.  It does not hold water.  It is not up to you to decide if the
author of the work needs (or wants) free advertising.

> These are the only example of recent & copyrighted work I can 
> think of.  The rest are basically all my images, or not 
> copyrighted work (amateur slides form the 50s) or images that 
> no one really knows or cares if they are copyrighted (Keystone
> stereoviews from 100 years ago).
> 

Anything created in the US since about 1989 is automatically
copyrighted, and the Copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of
the author (or until Disney gets it extended again).

I don't really think that Boris or the publisher of the Museum 3D book
are going to sue you for Copyright violation, but that does not mean
that what you did was not wrong.

There are several very good Copyright documents and FAQs available
online.  A good starting point is the Copyright FAQ:

<URL:ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/news.answers/law/copyright/faq>

Another is "10 Big Myths about copyright explained" at:

<URL:http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html>

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"