Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Lucian G. writes: > As a lay-person / photographer (and ex-academic) > interested in these issues I understand that > copyright law usually allows "reasonable" and "fair" > copying for educational and artistic purposes. You may be alluding to "fair use" provisions in copyright law. These are far more restrictive than many academics believe, and as a general rule, you can get away with many unauthorized uses of copyrighted material, not because they represent "fair use," but because there is simply nothing to be gained for the copyright holder in suing you (you aren't making vast amounts of money, or affecting his reputation, or whatever). In some jurisdictions, not only does "fair use" not exist (at least not in statute), but the creator of a work has very strong "moral" rights that practically prohibit you even looking at his work without permission. I consider these excessive, but they are widespread; fortunately, the U.S. is more concerned about tangible effects of infringement than about some abstract "moral" infringement. > On the same point I always take the view that > anything in the public arena is fair game to be > photographed - so long as it's "reasonable" (I know, > fairly nebulous and vague definition here). That's a separate issue from copyright, although the principle you state is widely applicable. And like everything in this domain, it is indeed nebulous and vague. > Sorry, a bit off topic - but copyright always raises > some interesting issues. Copyright and trademark law are mostly a headache for me. They are much more likely to restrict my photo work than to protect it. And I am not too concerned about my own copyrights, unless someone is making a pile of money from unauthorized use of my photos (yeah, right!) or somehow using them to damage my reputation (such as it is!).