4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + + +
Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing? (view source)
Revision as of 01:31, April 17, 2007
, 01:31, April 17, 2007→Comment
Your gas station metaphor does not hold up. Gas is not being stolen, just customers.
Your gas station metaphor does not hold up. Gas is not being stolen, just customers.
:No, customers are ''not'' being stolen. That's the point. A gas station does not "own" customers. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Say I got ahold of an advance copy of the new Harry Potter book and posted it online. Thousands of people download it and the publisher loses millions in royalties. Wouldn't I have stolen from them?
Say I got ahold of an advance copy of the new Harry Potter book and posted it online. Thousands of people download it and the publisher loses millions in royalties. Wouldn't I have stolen from them?
:No. You would have done something illegal, unethical, and harmful, but "stealing" is not the correct word. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
As a librarian, I'm very familiar with copyright laws. And Conservapedia is breaking them. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 17:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
As a librarian, I'm very familiar with copyright laws. And Conservapedia is breaking them. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 17:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ah. A librarian. That means you buy one copy of a book and let dozens of people check it out and read it. If you hadn't done that, they would have been forced to buy a dozen copies (or go without). Surely the existence of libraries reduces the number of copies of books sold. Are libraries, then, "stealing" from publishers? No. Do publishers ''feel'' they are? Probably. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Related to this discussion is the fact that photographs of '''pre-existing works of art''' are not, in themselves, copyrightable. Though it could be argued that a compilation of such photographs as in a pictorial anthology or "coffee table" book could be copyrightable...but then unless you publish a significant portion of such a work it would likely fall under "fair use". [http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm| Cite]<br>[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 17:21, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:Related to this discussion is the fact that photographs of '''pre-existing works of art''' are not, in themselves, copyrightable. Though it could be argued that a compilation of such photographs as in a pictorial anthology or "coffee table" book could be copyrightable...but then unless you publish a significant portion of such a work it would likely fall under "fair use". [http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm| Cite]<br>[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 17:21, 14 April 2007 (EDT)