Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites
theft only when there is an actual loss involved - money, prestige, etc. Copying a CD or DVD instead of buying it is theft, but if a CD is not available for sale, why enforce the copyright? If a grad student uses your photo in a presentation and doesn't pay you for it, what have you lost (unless the student might really be willing and able to pay for it)? I should however add that there are a lot of photos relevant to ecology that really are commercial. Aside from those taken by professionals, which are often sold to publications like National Geographic, I have discovered that very few photos of gelatinous cnidarians are available for free. I recently searched the ASLO website for photos of ctenophores and siphonophores and found almost none. A colleague explained to me that most of the photos are taken commercially and are only for sale, which is perhaps not surprising given the work involved - also of course photos are often the primary data in studies of these animals. I respect the rights of those who expect to profit from their work and who lose out when their photos or other materials are copied or stolen. But if there is no real loss involved, I am not very sympathetic, and I also think that when a copy is properly acknowledged, they benefit even if they did not give prior authorisation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites Jim, Please note that what follows is meant mainly as a general discussion of intellectual property, not of your particular case. Why would you think that you can use my hard work without asking? For the same reason you can cite or quote a paper of mine without asking -- even if you're using it to make a case I strongly disagree with. (That case is not directly analogous, as you wouldn't be copying the entire paper, but then if I use a photo of yours in a presentation, it'll only be on screen for 30 seconds or so.) Moreover, you can make copies of my paper and give them to students or colleagues without my permission. They can read the paper or use it to line the birdcage. If I'm sending you, say, a prepublication copy as a favor, I can ask you not to redistribute it, but once it's published, it's out of my hands. I am honestly intrigued by how people come to think of copying as stealing. If I walk into your house and steal your TV, you no longer have a TV. If I use a photo from your website and credit you, what have you lost? Now, the situation is different if you are a professional photographer and rely on photography to make money. Then the problem becomes truly difficult -- and beyond the scope of ECOLOG! (But keep in mind that hardly anyone is going to pay for a photo for a presentation. If it's not free, I'm just not going to use it.) Don't worry -- I'm not actually going to use anything from your website. You can set whatever conditions you want and, morally and legally, I have to abide by them. But this line of discussion is closely related to that about access to the scientific literature. BTW, why do you set such restrictive conditions on who can use your photos? Best, Jane -- -- David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes. --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_
[ECOLOG-L] Internet potential yet to be realized Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites
Duffy's message is the essence of the 'net; brevity. And to the core of the matter. Early in our development as a social species, we used a far more advanced form of communication--oral. The Internet, and email, always will be an inferior substitute. But, in a world gone terminally populous, it is serving to knit a patchwork together that unites and divides across cultural barriers. Ironically, it may provide a temporary bridge to a means of reconciling the babble of a terminal multiple of billion in which a radical, if not final, reckoning lies. Once again we may come to know each other without the eternal pool of Narcissus, and see ourselves primarily in every other being, stripped of the burdensome and cursed reflection that leads to such self-absorption that we are willing to kill, or in some ways, worse, dis- each other--individually and collectively. WT They tell us we are wasting TIME--but we are wasting our LIVES! --Eric Hoffer - Original Message - From: David Duffy ddu...@hawaii.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites Save the web! steal this picture? The web was originally meant for the free exchange of information and web prestige was measured in success in making it available rather than in making a profit (or restricting access if you couldn't). The resulting innovations have changed society and continue to do so. Few of the major innovations originated from a profit motive even if profit eventually resulted. The web may not reach its full, as yet unimagined, potential if information is isolated by proprietary moats and bound by lawyers. This conversation is accepting these boundaries; as scientists we need to think about how to keep the web the subversive place it was, a place to exchange information, not just to make a profit. David Duffy, University of Hawaii Manoa At 08:25 AM 5/14/2009, David M. Lawrence wrote: Now I'll argue the opposite of what I posted the other day :) While I am largely sympathetic to what Bill posts here, the counter argument for the originators of creative works is that by unauthorized use of our work, the theft is in the loss of earnings from a potential sale of said work. For example, I should get a royalty every time someone buys a new copy of my first book, Upheaval from the Abyss. (I get nothing from resales, however). If someone uploads a pdf of the work for all to download -- I get no royalty. Everyone who would download that copy for free would be doing the same thing as someone who grabs a box of cigars and runs out of the store without paying. For authors in particular, such theft of individual copies may also hurt an author's chances to get future book contracts, as a prospective publisher would say, Well, your last book didn't sell so well. In that case, the loss of income is compounded. As for journal articles, I have little sympathy for commercial publishers who charge dozens of dollars for individual copies of the work. They force the creative agents -- those of us who do the research -- to sign over copyright prior to publication. Such contracts are coercive and should be fought. The publishers can protect most of their commercial interests by allowing us -- the creators -- to retain copyright in exchange for us assigning them non-exclusive uses in print, electronic databases, etc., in perpetuity. They could also request clauses that prohibit publication of the identical work elsewhere, which I think is fair -- as long as they allows re-use of graphics by the creators, a right I feel is important for us to retain. My guess is that such contracts will allow the commercial guys to continue to make boatloads of money, while removing any impediment to our ability to use, and share, our work. (Frankly, I doubt they get a significant income from single-copy sales -- most of their money has to come from institutional subscriptions.) Most of these battles over rights would likely have to be fought on the scientific society side, as I doubt an individual researcher's complaint would carry much weight. Dave William Silvert wrote: Jane's posting brings two thoughts to mind. First, there are scientists who feel that you have no right to use their published results without their permission. On one occasion I even had a colleague within DFO lodge a formal internal protest because I used his data from an international journal in a paper of my own (fully attributed of course). The complaint was of course dismissed, and the idea that one could not publish a paper refuting someone else's work without their permission is absurd. The other has to do with the idea of copying as stealing. Copyright owners believe that they have absolute control over their intellectual property, and legally this is pretty much the case, but this is not widely respected. Some restrictions, such as that of someone who decided that his software could
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites; educational use
Note that the segment of the Copyright Act does NOT say that things posted without said notice are technically open for use by anyone. The bottom line, if you can SEE it, you should assume it is copyrighted, unless you know it to be in the public domain. Dave malcolm McCallum wrote: copyrighted? yes. but read: Chapter 4, section 401 of the current US copyright law. regarding visually perceptible copies, specifically part (d) where it discusses evidentiary weight of the notice. If you have it, the person who uses it w/o permission has virtually no defense in a court case (if a registered copyright its even stronger), whereas if the notice is not on your copy, there is weight given to the defendant. This is the key reason for including the notice. However, someone else could take your picture or paper, place their own copyright on it and without registration of the copyright it may be very difficult to prove your case. § 401. Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies^1 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#4-1 (a) General Provisions. — Whenever a work protected under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. (b) Form of Notice. — If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements: (1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright”, or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and (2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and (3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner. (c) Position of Notice. — The notice shall be affixed to the copies in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright. The Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation, as examples, specific methods of affixation and positions of the notice on various types of works that will satisfy this requirement, but these specifications shall not be considered exhaustive. (d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2). http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504 On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:11 PM, David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com mailto:d...@fuzzo.com wrote: malcolm McCallum wrote: Most figures from textbooks are now open use at the textbook companies push. they were spending a lot getting and keeping records of permissions and gave up some years ago. Anything that is posted on the internet without Copyright (c) YEAR. NAME OF COPYRIGHT HOLDER. is technically open for use by anyone. I got this directly from the copyright office a few years back. Your information is outdated. According to U.S. copyright law, no copyright notice is required. Anything, once it is put into tangible form -- that is printed, uploaded to a Web site, recorded, etc. -- is inherently copyrighted. Here are the relevant passages from the Copyright FAQ (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/) When is my work protected? Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. What is a copyright notice? How do I put a copyright notice on my work? A copyright notice is an identifier placed on copies of the work to inform the world of copyright ownership that generally consists of the symbol or word “copyright (or copr.),” the name of the copyright owner, and the year of first publication, e.g., ©2008 John Doe. While use of a copyright notice was once required as a condition of copyright protection, it is now optional. Use of the notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office. See Circular 3, Copyright Notice, for
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites; educational use
In addition, the Berne Convention clearly states that copyrights for literary and artistic works are in force, without been declared. That is, the author/illustrator has all copyrights, also to derivative works. Except if the author has disclaimed or signed off the rights. The U.S. and many other countries have joined the Berne Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works). A number of times, I have used nice illustrations made by others in presentation for teaching, with proper reference. I simply wrote to the illustrators and asked for permission, always getting a kind reply with yes. Best regards, Jan Nielsen Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 01:27:13 -0400 From: d...@fuzzo.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites; educational use To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Note that the segment of the Copyright Act does NOT say that things posted without said notice are technically open for use by anyone. The bottom line, if you can SEE it, you should assume it is copyrighted, unless you know it to be in the public domain. Dave malcolm McCallum wrote: copyrighted? yes. but read: Chapter 4, section 401 of the current US copyright law. regarding visually perceptible copies, specifically part (d) where it discusses evidentiary weight of the notice. If you have it, the person who uses it w/o permission has virtually no defense in a court case (if a registered copyright its even stronger), whereas if the notice is not on your copy, there is weight given to the defendant. This is the key reason for including the notice. However, someone else could take your picture or paper, place their own copyright on it and without registration of the copyright it may be very difficult to prove your case. § 401. Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies^1 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#4-1 (a) General Provisions. — Whenever a work protected under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. (b) Form of Notice. — If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements: (1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright”, or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and (2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and (3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner. (c) Position of Notice. — The notice shall be affixed to the copies in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright. The Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation, as examples, specific methods of affixation and positions of the notice on various types of works that will satisfy this requirement, but these specifications shall not be considered exhaustive. (d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2). http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504 On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:11 PM, David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com mailto:d...@fuzzo.com wrote: malcolm McCallum wrote: Most figures from textbooks are now open use at the textbook companies push. they were spending a lot getting and keeping records of permissions and gave up some years ago. Anything that is posted on the internet without Copyright (c) YEAR. NAME OF COPYRIGHT HOLDER. is technically open for use by anyone. I got this directly from the copyright office a few years back. Your information is outdated. According to U.S. copyright law, no copyright notice is required. Anything, once it is put into tangible form -- that is printed, uploaded to a Web site, recorded, etc. -- is inherently copyrighted. Here are the relevant passages from the Copyright FAQ (http
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites
Dear list, I haven't seen this item mentioned yet and when I did, I thought of the current content/copyright discussion. Sir John Sulston, Nobel prize winner and one of the architects of the Human Genome Project, has teamed up with Bloomsbury to edit a new series of books that will look at topics including the ethics of genetics and the cyber enhancement of humans. The series will be the first from Bloomsbury's new venture, Bloomsbury Academic, launched late last year as part of the publisher's post-Harry Potter reinvention. Using Creative Commons licences, the intention is for titles in the imprint to be available for free online for non-commercial use, with revenue to be generated from the hard copies that will be printed via print-on-demand and short-run printing technologies. Publisher Frances Pinter is talking to very high-level academics across the disciplines to build up the list, which she hopes to reach 200-odd titles a year by 2014, but Sulston and his colleague John Harris, professor of bioethics at Manchester University, are the first editors of a series she's signed up. The books she hopes to publish are intended to appeal to the educated layman as well as to academic circles and should help the academic world speak to people who should be listening to what they have to say, she said today. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/12/bloomsbury-science-free-online So Bloomsbury is going both ways with their product: free science content on the web that they hope to print and make a profit from. These aren't journals and I don't know what the plan is for images, but does this sound like a step in the right direction? John
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites
Jane's posting brings two thoughts to mind. First, there are scientists who feel that you have no right to use their published results without their permission. On one occasion I even had a colleague within DFO lodge a formal internal protest because I used his data from an international journal in a paper of my own (fully attributed of course). The complaint was of course dismissed, and the idea that one could not publish a paper refuting someone else's work without their permission is absurd. The other has to do with the idea of copying as stealing. Copyright owners believe that they have absolute control over their intellectual property, and legally this is pretty much the case, but this is not widely respected. Some restrictions, such as that of someone who decided that his software could only be used by white christian gentlemen, probably would not stand up in court. But others, that restrict access even though there is no loss to the copyright holder, are not widely seen as reasonable and are therefore not respected - this accounts for a fair share of what legally is piracy. Examples include the widespread copying of old material that is no longer for sale, such as old computer games like Pong and discontinued recordings, those in cut-out limbo. Recent extension of the copyright term has made this situation worse. Other practices, such as that of Hollywood studios which buy up the rights to classic movies and suppress them so that they can turn them into corny blockbusters, are really abusive to the whole concept of creativity which copyright is supposed to protect. (For example, a major studio bought up the entire Marcel Pagnol trilogy and pulled it from the screens so that they could make their own version of Fanny.) The distorted publicity given to some cases of copyright violation has further weakened the posture of copyright holders. Why do software companies go after teen-age kids with shelves full of cracks of protected software and not after the businessmen who who run whole typing pools on a single pirated copy of an office suite? Do they really think that if the kids were not pirates they would pay the millions of dollars that they claim as theft losses? So I think that what it boils down to is that although copyright law grants all kinds of legal protection, the guideline that most of us follow is the one that Jane puts forward, copying is really considered theft only when there is an actual loss involved - money, prestige, etc. Copying a CD or DVD instead of buying it is theft, but if a CD is not available for sale, why enforce the copyright? If a grad student uses your photo in a presentation and doesn't pay you for it, what have you lost (unless the student might really be willing and able to pay for it)? I should however add that there are a lot of photos relevant to ecology that really are commercial. Aside from those taken by professionals, which are often sold to publications like National Geographic, I have discovered that very few photos of gelatinous cnidarians are available for free. I recently searched the ASLO website for photos of ctenophores and siphonophores and found almost none. A colleague explained to me that most of the photos are taken commercially and are only for sale, which is perhaps not surprising given the work involved - also of course photos are often the primary data in studies of these animals. I respect the rights of those who expect to profit from their work and who lose out when their photos or other materials are copied or stolen. But if there is no real loss involved, I am not very sympathetic, and I also think that when a copy is properly acknowledged, they benefit even if they did not give prior authorisation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites Jim, Please note that what follows is meant mainly as a general discussion of intellectual property, not of your particular case. Why would you think that you can use my hard work without asking? For the same reason you can cite or quote a paper of mine without asking -- even if you're using it to make a case I strongly disagree with. (That case is not directly analogous, as you wouldn't be copying the entire paper, but then if I use a photo of yours in a presentation, it'll only be on screen for 30 seconds or so.) Moreover, you can make copies of my paper and give them to students or colleagues without my permission. They can read the paper or use it to line the birdcage. If I'm sending you, say, a prepublication copy as a favor, I can ask you not to redistribute it, but once it's published, it's out of my hands. I am honestly intrigued by how people come to think of copying as stealing. If I walk into your house and steal your TV, you no longer have a TV. If I use a photo from your
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites; educational use
This semester, I had students in my physiological ecology course create websites as a class project. They chose an animal and an environmental stressor, and discussed the physiological mechanisms the species has to handle the stressor. They presented information on natural history, and also results from two primary research articles. They were expected to fully cite the research articles, and provide sources for the natural history information as well, which sometimes included range maps and photos. This discussion has me thinking about their use of photos. Students typically found photos of their animal online, and used those photos with attribution but not prior permission. The website URLs were distributed only to the class for other students to view and comment on. I would be interested in the list's opinion of this type of project, and how best to allow students to create interesting and educational websites without violating fair use of images. Obviously, they are not going to be able to obtain their own pictures of red kangaroos and arctic springtails. Thanks in advance, Mary Beth ~~ Mary Beth Voltura, Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences SUNY Cortland Cortland NY 13045 607-753-2713 marybeth.volt...@cortland.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites; educational use
MaryBeth Voltura wrote: snip I would be interested in the list's opinion of this type of project, and how best to allow students to create interesting and educational websites without violating fair use of images. Obviously, they are not going to be able to obtain their own pictures of red kangaroos and arctic springtails. Flickr allows you to search for photos that are available under a creative commons licence, which means you can re-use them. Check the advanced search options. Bob -- Bob O'Hara Department of Mathematics and Statistics P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b) FIN-00014 University of Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 51479 Mobile: +358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 51400 WWW: http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/ Blog: http://network.nature.com/blogs/user/boboh Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites; educational use
Most figures from textbooks are now open use at the textbook companies push. they were spending a lot getting and keeping records of permissions and gave up some years ago. Anything that is posted on the internet without Copyright (c) YEAR. NAME OF COPYRIGHT HOLDER. is technically open for use by anyone. I got this directly from the copyright office a few years back. However, when using google image search or similar methods, you must be certain you actually open the website as they often place the copyright info in the html instead of on the picture. By posting your pictures without copyright info you are by default making them free open access. Now, if you are seeking to use a picture for which there is no copyright posted, it would be polite to ask for permission. In fact, you might find the photographer willing to give you more! Now the big complexity. A few years ago I posted a picture of a rooster that I had permission to use from the website owner. A few months later someone contacted me, rather irate, and asked me to take it down! I did so, and informed them that I had obtained it from another website! They later allowed me to use it, but I never put it back up. My point being that just because you make the effort doesn't mean the person you get the pic from is even honest!!! When constructing websites, I believe you can link the picture so that it shows on your site but is posted on their site without any problem. But, this may be inaccurate so don't take my word from it. The bottom line is that just because something is legal doesn't make it prudent, right, or polite. An ounce of courtesy goes a long way. Unfortunately, many of us get so wrapped up in the moment we forget this. Hopefully, this discussion will wind down soon! :) On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:35 AM, MaryBeth Voltura marybeth.volt...@cortland.edu wrote: This semester, I had students in my physiological ecology course create websites as a class project. They chose an animal and an environmental stressor, and discussed the physiological mechanisms the species has to handle the stressor. They presented information on natural history, and also results from two primary research articles. They were expected to fully cite the research articles, and provide sources for the natural history information as well, which sometimes included range maps and photos. This discussion has me thinking about their use of photos. Students typically found photos of their animal online, and used those photos with attribution but not prior permission. The website URLs were distributed only to the class for other students to view and comment on. I would be interested in the list's opinion of this type of project, and how best to allow students to create interesting and educational websites without violating fair use of images. Obviously, they are not going to be able to obtain their own pictures of red kangaroos and arctic springtails. Thanks in advance, Mary Beth ~~ Mary Beth Voltura, Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences SUNY Cortland Cortland NY 13045 607-753-2713 marybeth.volt...@cortland.edu -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Texas AM University-Texarkana Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org http://www.twitter.com/herpconbio Fall Teaching Schedule Office Hours: Landscape Ecology: T,R 10-11:40 pm Environmental Physiology: MW 1-2:40 pm Seminar: T 2:30-3:30pm Genetics: M 6-10pm Office Hours: M 3-6, T: 12-2, W: 3-4 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites
(unless the student might really be willing and able to pay for it)? I should however add that there are a lot of photos relevant to ecology that really are commercial. Aside from those taken by professionals, which are often sold to publications like National Geographic, I have discovered that very few photos of gelatinous cnidarians are available for free. I recently searched the ASLO website for photos of ctenophores and siphonophores and found almost none. A colleague explained to me that most of the photos are taken commercially and are only for sale, which is perhaps not surprising given the work involved - also of course photos are often the primary data in studies of these animals. I respect the rights of those who expect to profit from their work and who lose out when their photos or other materials are copied or stolen. But if there is no real loss involved, I am not very sympathetic, and I also think that when a copy is properly acknowledged, they benefit even if they did not give prior authorisation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites Jim, Please note that what follows is meant mainly as a general discussion of intellectual property, not of your particular case. Why would you think that you can use my hard work without asking? For the same reason you can cite or quote a paper of mine without asking -- even if you're using it to make a case I strongly disagree with. (That case is not directly analogous, as you wouldn't be copying the entire paper, but then if I use a photo of yours in a presentation, it'll only be on screen for 30 seconds or so.) Moreover, you can make copies of my paper and give them to students or colleagues without my permission. They can read the paper or use it to line the birdcage. If I'm sending you, say, a prepublication copy as a favor, I can ask you not to redistribute it, but once it's published, it's out of my hands. I am honestly intrigued by how people come to think of copying as stealing. If I walk into your house and steal your TV, you no longer have a TV. If I use a photo from your website and credit you, what have you lost? Now, the situation is different if you are a professional photographer and rely on photography to make money. Then the problem becomes truly difficult -- and beyond the scope of ECOLOG! (But keep in mind that hardly anyone is going to pay for a photo for a presentation. If it's not free, I'm just not going to use it.) Don't worry -- I'm not actually going to use anything from your website. You can set whatever conditions you want and, morally and legally, I have to abide by them. But this line of discussion is closely related to that about access to the scientific literature. BTW, why do you set such restrictive conditions on who can use your photos? Best, Jane -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites
What is meant by stealing and by the ownership? It depends on the author of the original photo or illustration, and even on the author's institution. I considered a courtesy to ask whether or not I could use a scan of a picture from the published book in my PowerPoint presentation and the author of the book said definite NO. Never mind, I had a much better picture drawn in a few minutes. There are court cases where the photographer's institution claimed the ownership of the author's photographs, hence the ownership and stealing is not a laughing matter: This was exactly the subject of a court decision involving the Royal Ontario Museum some years ago. The issue was some bird pictures that someone took on a[n] [entomological collecting] field trip in the Arctic and then published in a magazine. The ROM claimed the photos were theirs and the curator said that he did the photos with his own gear on his day off and so they were his. The court held that the curator would not have been able to take the pictures if the ROM had not paid to get him to the location and therefore, the pictures were the property of the ROM. I think that the curator's mother should have claimed the ownership, since the curator would not have been able to take the photos, had not she gave the birth to him. My conclusion from these cases is that it is a good courtesy to ask the author(s), but you should never ask the lawyers. Adolf Ceska, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites; educational use
I apologize for getting into this late and not reading all the previous posts, but has anyone considered that any photograph taken as a result of work funded by public dollars (grants, University salaries) would be / should be public domain? Your tax dollar at work? Credits would be appropriate. Tom -- Thomas R. Cuba, Ph.D., CEP, CLM President, Delta Seven Inc. http://www.delta-seven.com 727-823-2443
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites; educational use
malcolm McCallum wrote: Most figures from textbooks are now open use at the textbook companies push. they were spending a lot getting and keeping records of permissions and gave up some years ago. Anything that is posted on the internet without Copyright (c) YEAR. NAME OF COPYRIGHT HOLDER. is technically open for use by anyone. I got this directly from the copyright office a few years back. Your information is outdated. According to U.S. copyright law, no copyright notice is required. Anything, once it is put into tangible form -- that is printed, uploaded to a Web site, recorded, etc. -- is inherently copyrighted. Here are the relevant passages from the Copyright FAQ (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/) When is my work protected? Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. What is a copyright notice? How do I put a copyright notice on my work? A copyright notice is an identifier placed on copies of the work to inform the world of copyright ownership that generally consists of the symbol or word “copyright (or copr.),” the name of the copyright owner, and the year of first publication, e.g., ©2008 John Doe. While use of a copyright notice was once required as a condition of copyright protection, it is now optional. Use of the notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office. See Circular 3, Copyright Notice, for requirements for works published before March 1, 1989, and for more information on the form and position of the copyright notice. Dave -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites
I don't see any disagreement here between what I posted and David's concern. His book is in print and anyone who wants to read it should buy a copy (*). But if his book is out of print he doesn't get a royalty no matter what anyone does. (*) Books are a bit more complex - aside from the resale issue which he mentions, there is no royalty whenever anyone reads a library copy. Some publishers have criticised libraries on that ground. My only strong feeling about that is that if my mother had not spent her poverty-stricken childhood in public libraries she never would have become a successful writer and editor. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites Now I'll argue the opposite of what I posted the other day :) While I am largely sympathetic to what Bill posts here, the counter argument for the originators of creative works is that by unauthorized use of our work, the theft is in the loss of earnings from a potential sale of said work. For example, I should get a royalty every time someone buys a new copy of my first book, Upheaval from the Abyss. (I get nothing from resales, however). If someone uploads a pdf of the work for all to download -- I get no royalty. Everyone who would download that copy for free would be doing the same thing as someone who grabs a box of cigars and runs out of the store without paying...
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites; educational use
Two quick corrections malcolm McCallum wrote: Anything that is posted on the internet without Copyright (c) YEAR. NAME OF COPYRIGHT HOLDER. is technically open for use by anyone. I got this directly from the copyright office a few years back. Must have been quite a few: changes to US copyright law in 1979 eliminated this requirement. From: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html When is my work protected? Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Once it is published, then copyright protection is automatic. Copyright _registration_ is a more complex process, and useful in case of legal action, but not required (see above link). See also: http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/symbol/ When constructing websites, I believe you can link the picture so that it shows on your site but is posted on their site without any problem. But, this may be inaccurate so don't take my word from it. This is called hotlinking, and is generally a very bad idea. It doesn't violate copyright (according to legal precedent), but if you hotlink to a small provider's images, you then force that person to pay for the bandwidth that _your_ site is using to display that image. In some cases it is fine, or even encouraged - Flickr, Amazon book cover images - but in others it could cost the image creator/host quite a bit of money. As has already been said, the best solution is to ask if there is no explicit license. Sarah --- Dr. Sarah Goslee USDA-ARS Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit Penn State
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites
software companies go after teen-age kids with shelves full of cracks of protected software and not after the businessmen who who run whole typing pools on a single pirated copy of an office suite? Do they really think that if the kids were not pirates they would pay the millions of dollars that they claim as theft losses? So I think that what it boils down to is that although copyright law grants all kinds of legal protection, the guideline that most of us follow is the one that Jane puts forward, copying is really considered theft only when there is an actual loss involved - money, prestige, etc. Copying a CD or DVD instead of buying it is theft, but if a CD is not available for sale, why enforce the copyright? If a grad student uses your photo in a presentation and doesn't pay you for it, what have you lost (unless the student might really be willing and able to pay for it)? I should however add that there are a lot of photos relevant to ecology that really are commercial. Aside from those taken by professionals, which are often sold to publications like National Geographic, I have discovered that very few photos of gelatinous cnidarians are available for free. I recently searched the ASLO website for photos of ctenophores and siphonophores and found almost none. A colleague explained to me that most of the photos are taken commercially and are only for sale, which is perhaps not surprising given the work involved - also of course photos are often the primary data in studies of these animals. I respect the rights of those who expect to profit from their work and who lose out when their photos or other materials are copied or stolen. But if there is no real loss involved, I am not very sympathetic, and I also think that when a copy is properly acknowledged, they benefit even if they did not give prior authorisation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites Jim, Please note that what follows is meant mainly as a general discussion of intellectual property, not of your particular case. Why would you think that you can use my hard work without asking? For the same reason you can cite or quote a paper of mine without asking -- even if you're using it to make a case I strongly disagree with. (That case is not directly analogous, as you wouldn't be copying the entire paper, but then if I use a photo of yours in a presentation, it'll only be on screen for 30 seconds or so.) Moreover, you can make copies of my paper and give them to students or colleagues without my permission. They can read the paper or use it to line the birdcage. If I'm sending you, say, a prepublication copy as a favor, I can ask you not to redistribute it, but once it's published, it's out of my hands. I am honestly intrigued by how people come to think of copying as stealing. If I walk into your house and steal your TV, you no longer have a TV. If I use a photo from your website and credit you, what have you lost? Now, the situation is different if you are a professional photographer and rely on photography to make money. Then the problem becomes truly difficult -- and beyond the scope of ECOLOG! (But keep in mind that hardly anyone is going to pay for a photo for a presentation. If it's not free, I'm just not going to use it.) Don't worry -- I'm not actually going to use anything from your website. You can set whatever conditions you want and, morally and legally, I have to abide by them. But this line of discussion is closely related to that about access to the scientific literature. BTW, why do you set such restrictive conditions on who can use your photos? Best, Jane -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan David Cameron Duffy Professor of Botany and Unit Leader Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit (PCSU) University of Hawai`i 3190 Maile Way St. John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822-2279 (808) 956-8218 phone (808) 956-4710 fax / (808) 956-3923 (backup fax) email address: ddu...@hawaii.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites
Jim, Please note that what follows is meant mainly as a general discussion of intellectual property, not of your particular case. Why would you think that you can use my hard work without asking? For the same reason you can cite or quote a paper of mine without asking -- even if you're using it to make a case I strongly disagree with. (That case is not directly analogous, as you wouldn't be copying the entire paper, but then if I use a photo of yours in a presentation, it'll only be on screen for 30 seconds or so.) Moreover, you can make copies of my paper and give them to students or colleagues without my permission. They can read the paper or use it to line the birdcage. If I'm sending you, say, a prepublication copy as a favor, I can ask you not to redistribute it, but once it's published, it's out of my hands. I am honestly intrigued by how people come to think of copying as stealing. If I walk into your house and steal your TV, you no longer have a TV. If I use a photo from your website and credit you, what have you lost? Now, the situation is different if you are a professional photographer and rely on photography to make money. Then the problem becomes truly difficult -- and beyond the scope of ECOLOG! (But keep in mind that hardly anyone is going to pay for a photo for a presentation. If it's not free, I'm just not going to use it.) Don't worry -- I'm not actually going to use anything from your website. You can set whatever conditions you want and, morally and legally, I have to abide by them. But this line of discussion is closely related to that about access to the scientific literature. BTW, why do you set such restrictive conditions on who can use your photos? Best, Jane On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Jim Boone jlbo...@aol.com wrote: Jane, If the photo is attributed but used without your explicit permission, would you call that stealing? In general, yes; but of course, it depends. I have a conditions for use statement on my website that spells out how people can use my hard work. Turning the question back to you, why would you think that you can use my hard work without asking? Cheers, Jim http://www.birdandhike.com -Original Message- From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: Jim Boone jlbo...@aol.com Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: Wed, 13 May 2009 3:06 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Open Access and Intellectual Imperialism Correction Jim, How do you define stealing? Is it only if the photo is not attributed to you? If the photo is attributed but used without your explicit permissi on, would you call that stealing? I'm just interested in how different people think about these issues. Best, Jane Shevtsov On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Jim Boone jlbo...@aol.com wrote: Tom, I work very hard at my photography, and if you stole a photo from my website to use in your presentation, I'd be pissed. Cheers, Jim http://www.birdandhike.com -Original Message- From: Tom Mosca III t...@vims.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wed, 13 May 2009 5:47 am Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Open Access and Intellectual Imperialism Correction Hello Folks, What are your thoughts on using a copyrighted image in a presentation at a meeting? No copies are distributed, but merely displayed. Thanks, Tom -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes. --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_ Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after instant savings! -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes. --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_
Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites
I would not have a problem with someone using my images that were related to my research. However, since I have a photography business on the side, I would not be pleased to see my photos used without acknowledgement. I think this is mostly an issue with print media - even organizations such as National Geographic buy stock photos. Marcus www.greenlightphotography.net On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com wrote: Jim, Please note that what follows is meant mainly as a general discussion of intellectual property, not of your particular case. Why would you think that you can use my hard work without asking? For the same reason you can cite or quote a paper of mine without asking -- even if you're using it to make a case I strongly disagree with. (That case is not directly analogous, as you wouldn't be copying the entire paper, but then if I use a photo of yours in a presentation, it'll only be on screen for 30 seconds or so.) Moreover, you can make copies of my paper and give them to students or colleagues without my permission. They can read the paper or use it to line the birdcage. If I'm sending you, say, a prepublication copy as a favor, I can ask you not to redistribute it, but once it's published, it's out of my hands. I am honestly intrigued by how people come to think of copying as stealing. If I walk into your house and steal your TV, you no longer have a TV. If I use a photo from your website and credit you, what have you lost? Now, the situation is different if you are a professional photographer and rely on photography to make money. Then the problem becomes truly difficult -- and beyond the scope of ECOLOG! (But keep in mind that hardly anyone is going to pay for a photo for a presentation. If it's not free, I'm just not going to use it.) Don't worry -- I'm not actually going to use anything from your website. You can set whatever conditions you want and, morally and legally, I have to abide by them. But this line of discussion is closely related to that about access to the scientific literature. BTW, why do you set such restrictive conditions on who can use your photos? Best, Jane On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Jim Boone jlbo...@aol.com wrote: Jane, If the photo is attributed but used without your explicit permission, would you call that stealing? In general, yes; but of course, it depends. I have a conditions for use statement on my website that spells out how people can use my hard work. Turning the question back to you, why would you think that you can use my hard work without asking? Cheers, Jim http://www.birdandhike.com -Original Message- From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: Jim Boone jlbo...@aol.com Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: Wed, 13 May 2009 3:06 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Open Access and Intellectual Imperialism Correction Jim, How do you define stealing? Is it only if the photo is not attributed to you? If the photo is attributed but used without your explicit permissi on, would you call that stealing? I'm just interested in how different people think about these issues. Best, Jane Shevtsov On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Jim Boone jlbo...@aol.com wrote: Tom, I work very hard at my photography, and if you stole a photo from my website to use in your presentation, I'd be pissed. Cheers, Jim http://www.birdandhike.com -Original Message- From: Tom Mosca III t...@vims.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wed, 13 May 2009 5:47 am Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Open Access and Intellectual Imperialism Correction Hello Folks, What are your thoughts on using a copyrighted image in a presentation at a meeting? No copies are distributed, but merely displayed. Thanks, Tom -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes. --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_ Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after instant savings! -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes. --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_
