Some Thoughts on Copyright

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 21:59 -0400, Stephen wrote:
> The copyright debate has been interesting, but clearly polarized. Most 
> here are on the “fair use” side.

"Fair use" is the American term.  In Canada we get "Fair Dealing".  They
are similar, but have important differences.  For example there is a
"parody and satire" exemption in Fair use in the USA.  There is no such
exemption in Fair Trade in Canada.  Australia appears to have a satire
exemption in their Fair Trade law.  

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing

> But what, really, is fair use?

That's a question for you and the lawyer that you are paying.  ;-)  

> When I was in university, 35 years ago, we were given a photocopy of
> a 
> book. And not a text book.
> 
> Is that considered “fair use”?

That sounds like infringement to this layman, but:
Quote below is from the CIPO website linked above:
> One category is non-profit educational institutions. These are
> permitted to make copies and perform works and other subject matter
> protected by copyright, free of charge, in the classroom, subject to
> certain restrictions. Educational institutions are also permitted to
> make use of works protected by copyright if they are done on the
> premises of an educational institution for educational or training
> purposes, provided there are no suitable substitutes available in the
> commercial marketplace.

Also from the CIPO site, as an example of infringement:
> Infringement:
>       * reprinting an article without the copyright owner's
>         permission;

Perhaps this is "over-ruled" by the educational exemption above?  Law is
fun for laymen!  

Back to quoting Stephen, On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 21:59 -0400, Stephen
wrote:
> Many people have the opinion that if they buy something, they have
> the 
> right to use what they buy in any way that they please.

I believe that to be true.  If I've paid you for the photo, you can't
prevent me from setting fire to it.  Or whatever other lunatic plans I
may have.  Setting fire to your creative work (if I've bought it!) does
not infringe your copyright.  Obviously setting fire to your photo while
you are still holding it is an entirely different set of laws to
discuss.  

> Now, I am a serious photographer. I hope to someday sell my
> photographs. 
> Would a buyer of one of my photographs have the “right” to scan the 
> photograph into digital form, 

I'd say yes to scanning.

> and do some digital manipulation to it, 

I'd say yes to manipulating it.

> then post it to a web site?

Ah.  Here we have a point for the lawyers again.  Has my digital
manipulation of your photo been enough to transform it into a new
creative work?  Then perhaps yes.  Am I displaying only a thumbnail
teaser as part of an ad to re-sell the original photo?  Then perhaps
yes.  Is your photo some small part of a greater collective work?  Then
perhaps yes.  

But can I scan your photo and offer it as wallpaper with a minor change
like my name emblazoned across the middle of the desktop?  Almost
certainly not.  Can I make "prints" of your photo and try to sell 2000
copies?  No, that sounds exactly like copyright violation.  

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists