4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 35:
Line 35: − +
Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing? (view source)
Revision as of 01:35, April 17, 2007
, 01:35, April 17, 2007→Comment
: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)
: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)
:P. S. Are libraries breaking the law? No, "right of first sale." Is Conservapedia breaking the law when it uses copyrighted photographs without permission, which it sometimes does? Yes. (Is everything that ''says'' it is copyrighted actually validly copyrighted? No, and that's a sore point with me.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:P. S. Are libraries breaking the law? No, "right of first sale." Is Conservapedia breaking the law when it uses copyrighted photographs without permission, which it sometimes does? Yes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 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)