----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos)
> > >>Respectfully Tom, you are wrong. It is illegal to copy copywritten work >>except in fairly limited circumstances, and there is nothing in copyright >>law that puts any onus on the copyright owner to mark the work as >>copyright >>protected. >>The person who owns the equipment used is liable for the work that comes >>off >>of it. >>It's not about enforcing the law, it is about obeying it yourself. That it >>inconveniences someone else isn't addressed by the copyright law. >> >>William Robb > > I agree with most of what you say, but you seem to be changing direction a > little bit. :-) > > All the libraries in the Unites States of America with banks of copy > machines are in dire danger then, I suspect. That falls under the limited circumstances part. I believe it is legal to copy portions of books under the fair use clause of the act, or some such. > > I suspect, in reality, a court of law would decide that posting a notice > is > really all that's required to protect onself as opposed to busybody > inspecting each person's material being copied. If not, all > manufacturer's > of recording equipment, scanners, etc., would be liable for the use of > their > equipment. Things change when the equipment is being used for commercial gain. I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been a lawsuit against equipment manufacturers yet. I believe you will find that a lot of DVDs and CDs are now copy protected, but the only way for the protection to work is for equipment manufacturers to be on board and adhere to standards so that their machinery can't be used to copy stuff. > > When is the last time a photographer came down to a lab demanding redress > because a lab let the photographer's client reprint a photo? Does the > photographer want to alienate the lab, the client? Isn't it a risk the > photographer takes because of the business they're in? Wouldn't it likely > be more risky and potentially cost the photographer more to press his > rights > to the letter of the law? I've had it happen. Not often, and not through actions of my own, but careless co-workers have caused me some grief in the past. The photographer can't alienate the lab, this sort of thing falls under the "customer is always right" clause. Besides, what can the lab do anyway? If they send out bad work because they hate the guy, then they gat a bad reputation on quality, and probably get to redo the work at their own expense. > > Isn't it similar to the risk I took, posting a picture on the WWW and > having > some jerk download it and claim it was his? It is, and you could probably have caused quite a stink, were you so inclined to do so. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
