> John it is fair use do not worry google "lawgeek" and read his post on > lane hartwell
I did it for you: http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2007/12/copyright-fair.html Its a good post. Jason points out that the real issue isnt what law is being broken, but what are the *ethics* that we want to see online. Ethics, on the other hand, might just be the right hammer for this nail. > Ethical behavior is behavior that leads to the "greater good." It goes > beyond the mere moral choices of right or wrong and deals with the broader > question of the correct choice for society as a whole. If we, as an online > society, want people like Lane to succeed in their work, to be successful > and profitable photographers, we need to take care to promote them in a way > that feels respectful and supportive. We need to make sure they succeed so > that they will continue to provide us with amazing photos and make them > available online. Equally, if we want people like TRS to be able to make > funny videos about the Bubble quickly and easily so everyone online can > enjoy them, we must take care to allow creative uses of material without > imposing draconian requirements before publication. > > So what is the right ethical balance? Well, I'm no Internet ethicist, of > course, so I can 't really say what the proper ethical outcome should be for > this or other similar situations. However, for me, the idea of attribution > and promotion have strong appeal. They respect who the artist is and try to > help them thrive in their work. I also think ethical online users should > consider tithing any financial gain from the use of other people's works > back to the original creator -- in essence voluntarily offer to post-date > royalties if the project amounts to anything profitable. Such steps would, > IMO, go a long way to building a stronger online creative community rather > than tearing it down or apart. > John is having fun with that woman's work and giving her proper linkback. he's playing with another member of a video community and not financially profiting off it. he even contacted them about using their work. I think about how the Simpsons recently parodied the guy who took pictures of himself everyday: http://preash.blogspot.com/2007/12/tv-simpsons-parody-picture-for-day.html I think it's totally parody, but what sucks is they didnt talk to the person who made the music, or give any credit at the end of the show. it's more about their ethics in reusing work than about whether they broke copyright or not. I bet if they called the web creators had said, hey, we're going to have some fun with your work and give you a big fat credit at the end of the show" ....then everyone would have been happy. By the way, that Simpsons clip got taken off of Youtube, not because the web creators complained, but because Fox didnt want the Simpson clip on Youtube. *http://tinyurl.com/2ah2eg *that's funny. oh, the irony. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
