Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Login to Like
this post
07:35:26am
Probably go on a little longer, at least until the Supremes refuse to hear it.
Login to Like
this post
Or they're too drunk to hear the case.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:57:33am
It is very important to remember that almost all uses of images on the discussion board (outside of the Trade/Buy/Sell area) will fall under the "Fair Use Doctrine" (U.S. Code Title 17, section 107), as there is no profit motive and all such uses are for illustrative, research and educational purposes.
Login to Like
this post
06:42:19pm
"So, copying third party photos and posting them here is not inherently free of liability just because of factor (1)."
Which us why it is a 4 step process with carefully considered choices to be made. Even then, as we know in our "sue happy" culture, there can be different interpretations. Copyright lawyers generally start billing at $250/hour and the very top ones, upward of $500/hour. Considering their liability to the litigious happy public just looking for deep pockets upon whom to prey, they earn every dime!
My point was (and is) the level of paranoia exhibited by some collectors over usage of simple images of stamps from their collection without first obtaining permission, is way out of proportion to any possible damage they might suffer. Isn't this supposed to be a hobby based upon exchange of ideas and information? Shouldn't we gladly share knowledge instead of hoarding it for our personal gratification?
Login to Like
this post
"My point was (and is) the level of paranoia exhibited by some collectors over usage of simple images of stamps from their collection without first obtaining permission, is way out of proportion to any possible damage they might suffer. Isn't this supposed to be a hobby based upon exchange of ideas and information? Shouldn't we gladly share knowledge instead of hoarding it for our personal gratification?"
And I, for one, am in total disagreement! I post my entire stamp collection online for anyone to view. I can't reasonably claim infringement if anyone re-posts one of my pages as long as they don't benefit financially from doing so. I do, however, think it is unseemly to post one of my images and claim it as your own. I have no problem with sharing information, and that's why I post my collection online, but a point is to be made that it is inappropriate to hijack someone else's material without attribution. This is an ethical question with a clear answer, as far as I'm concerned.
We seem to be conflating two issues. The first is fair use for educational purposes. Stealing images is still wrong, but likely protected. That applied to my stamp collection.
The second issue has to do with a business interest. When someone has a creative work that is unique, like Anglophile's hypothetical example, they need protection. I have been dealing with this very topic in my business (that has nothing to do with stamps) for 15 years. If you think I'm "happy" that I have to pay $400 per hour to my I.P. Attorney to stop people from STEALING my livelihood, you are very much mistaken. I'm not "sue happy". I'm rather p'd off that I have to resort to litigation. I would much rather they engage our services legitimately. It's a lot like shoplifting. If I catch you, I'm probably not going to just let you pay the sticker price if you try to steal the item.
Please don't demonize business owners that use litigation to protect themselves from thieves. Focus your disgust on the thieves themselves!
Lars
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
09:12:41pm
I respect your right to protect your intellectual property 100%. I opposed peer sharing of music from its inception as it took money from the pockets of hardworking musicians and writers. I support lawsuits such as the one against the USPS as they profited from the work of another without even credit being given. But does that compare with someone posting an image of a $2.60 Zep to demonstrate centering or an unusual cancel?
Is it a violation of copyright if the image was scanned by one person and used by another without a right to that scan? Yes. Has it harmed the owner of the copyright? I fail to see how. If a person uses that scan for nefarious purposes, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; but as a reference in a discussion on a philatelic discussion board? Cut me some slack here. Being in the right doesn't always mean you are doing the right thing.
Regardless, I am through arguing.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"I respect your right to protect your intellectual property 100%. I opposed peer sharing of music from its inception as it took money from the pockets of hardworking musicians and writers."
Agreed.
"I support lawsuits such as the one against the USPS as they profited from the work of another without even credit being given."
I agree that the lawsuit should have been allowed, but it's an interesting case in that the photographer of the work was paid. It was the sculptor that was left out. Apparently this was an unintentional infringement, especially since most similar works of sculpture typically grant rights to the government. I don't know HOW it should be settled, but WHERE is in the courts.
"But does that compare with someone posting an image of a $2.60 Zep to demonstrate centering or an unusual cancel? "
Absolutely not! In that case it would simply be a matter of bad form to not attribute the source. That's why I said we are conflating copyright infringement with bad manners.
"Is it a violation of copyright if the image was scanned by one person and used by another without a right to that scan? Yes. Has it harmed the owner of the copyright? I fail to see how. If a person uses that scan for nefarious purposes, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; but as a reference in a discussion on a philatelic discussion board?"
I totally agree. When the use is for "reference" purposes, to not provide attribution is simply poor manners. If the image is used for financial gain, then there may be an issue.
"Cut me some slack here. Being in the right doesn't always mean you are doing the right thing. "
I agree with that statement. My complaint is your coloring of the debate as a symptom of a "sue happy" culture.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
07:10:32am
Lars,
If this decision were to stand and while riding on the Staten Island ferry I took a photo of the Manhattan skyline that I would need the permission of every design architect whose building was identifiable in the photo before it could be printed in the NY Post ?
Let's say it was entered in a contest and I won the top prize, a free weekend copy of the Post.
Login to Like
this post
12:10:08pm
That was supposed to be a joke.
Login to Like
this post
I don't have an opinion as to whether the sculptor should have a claim, but apparently the trial court thought he did, as did the appellate court. It's interesting that the USPS was arguing to the appeals court that a 10% royalty was too much, not that there should be no royalty at all.
Charlie,
I know you were kidding, but this is certainly a complicated issue. In general, it's typically just a matter of bad manners that can be prevented with a simple watermark in the image. In your example the prize was minimal and if you did photograph something that was copyright protected, you would likely just get a cease and desist notice because any judgment would be minimal. The Post, on the other hand, might have a problem if they published the photo.
Bobby said:
"Being in the right doesn't always mean you are doing the right thing."
and that's good advice. There have been cases where we settled for a simple cease and desist even though that meant we had to eat some of our costs because it was obvious that the infringement was innocent.
But I would add this:
Just because it's easy to copy something doesn't mean it's legal.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
07:22:05am
Knew about this. It's been going on for a while.
Login to Like
this post
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
14 Feb 2015
07:35:26am
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
Probably go on a little longer, at least until the Supremes refuse to hear it.
Login to Like
this post
07:38:30am
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
Or they're too drunk to hear the case.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
14 Feb 2015
11:57:33am
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
It is very important to remember that almost all uses of images on the discussion board (outside of the Trade/Buy/Sell area) will fall under the "Fair Use Doctrine" (U.S. Code Title 17, section 107), as there is no profit motive and all such uses are for illustrative, research and educational purposes.
Login to Like
this post
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
14 Feb 2015
06:42:19pm
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
"So, copying third party photos and posting them here is not inherently free of liability just because of factor (1)."
Which us why it is a 4 step process with carefully considered choices to be made. Even then, as we know in our "sue happy" culture, there can be different interpretations. Copyright lawyers generally start billing at $250/hour and the very top ones, upward of $500/hour. Considering their liability to the litigious happy public just looking for deep pockets upon whom to prey, they earn every dime!
My point was (and is) the level of paranoia exhibited by some collectors over usage of simple images of stamps from their collection without first obtaining permission, is way out of proportion to any possible damage they might suffer. Isn't this supposed to be a hobby based upon exchange of ideas and information? Shouldn't we gladly share knowledge instead of hoarding it for our personal gratification?
Login to Like
this post
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
"My point was (and is) the level of paranoia exhibited by some collectors over usage of simple images of stamps from their collection without first obtaining permission, is way out of proportion to any possible damage they might suffer. Isn't this supposed to be a hobby based upon exchange of ideas and information? Shouldn't we gladly share knowledge instead of hoarding it for our personal gratification?"
And I, for one, am in total disagreement! I post my entire stamp collection online for anyone to view. I can't reasonably claim infringement if anyone re-posts one of my pages as long as they don't benefit financially from doing so. I do, however, think it is unseemly to post one of my images and claim it as your own. I have no problem with sharing information, and that's why I post my collection online, but a point is to be made that it is inappropriate to hijack someone else's material without attribution. This is an ethical question with a clear answer, as far as I'm concerned.
We seem to be conflating two issues. The first is fair use for educational purposes. Stealing images is still wrong, but likely protected. That applied to my stamp collection.
The second issue has to do with a business interest. When someone has a creative work that is unique, like Anglophile's hypothetical example, they need protection. I have been dealing with this very topic in my business (that has nothing to do with stamps) for 15 years. If you think I'm "happy" that I have to pay $400 per hour to my I.P. Attorney to stop people from STEALING my livelihood, you are very much mistaken. I'm not "sue happy". I'm rather p'd off that I have to resort to litigation. I would much rather they engage our services legitimately. It's a lot like shoplifting. If I catch you, I'm probably not going to just let you pay the sticker price if you try to steal the item.
Please don't demonize business owners that use litigation to protect themselves from thieves. Focus your disgust on the thieves themselves!
Lars
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
14 Feb 2015
09:12:41pm
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
I respect your right to protect your intellectual property 100%. I opposed peer sharing of music from its inception as it took money from the pockets of hardworking musicians and writers. I support lawsuits such as the one against the USPS as they profited from the work of another without even credit being given. But does that compare with someone posting an image of a $2.60 Zep to demonstrate centering or an unusual cancel?
Is it a violation of copyright if the image was scanned by one person and used by another without a right to that scan? Yes. Has it harmed the owner of the copyright? I fail to see how. If a person uses that scan for nefarious purposes, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; but as a reference in a discussion on a philatelic discussion board? Cut me some slack here. Being in the right doesn't always mean you are doing the right thing.
Regardless, I am through arguing.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
"I respect your right to protect your intellectual property 100%. I opposed peer sharing of music from its inception as it took money from the pockets of hardworking musicians and writers."
Agreed.
"I support lawsuits such as the one against the USPS as they profited from the work of another without even credit being given."
I agree that the lawsuit should have been allowed, but it's an interesting case in that the photographer of the work was paid. It was the sculptor that was left out. Apparently this was an unintentional infringement, especially since most similar works of sculpture typically grant rights to the government. I don't know HOW it should be settled, but WHERE is in the courts.
"But does that compare with someone posting an image of a $2.60 Zep to demonstrate centering or an unusual cancel? "
Absolutely not! In that case it would simply be a matter of bad form to not attribute the source. That's why I said we are conflating copyright infringement with bad manners.
"Is it a violation of copyright if the image was scanned by one person and used by another without a right to that scan? Yes. Has it harmed the owner of the copyright? I fail to see how. If a person uses that scan for nefarious purposes, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; but as a reference in a discussion on a philatelic discussion board?"
I totally agree. When the use is for "reference" purposes, to not provide attribution is simply poor manners. If the image is used for financial gain, then there may be an issue.
"Cut me some slack here. Being in the right doesn't always mean you are doing the right thing. "
I agree with that statement. My complaint is your coloring of the debate as a symptom of a "sue happy" culture.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
15 Feb 2015
07:10:32am
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
Lars,
If this decision were to stand and while riding on the Staten Island ferry I took a photo of the Manhattan skyline that I would need the permission of every design architect whose building was identifiable in the photo before it could be printed in the NY Post ?
Let's say it was entered in a contest and I won the top prize, a free weekend copy of the Post.
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
15 Feb 2015
12:10:08pm
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
That was supposed to be a joke.
Login to Like
this post
re: Copyright judgment against the USPS
I don't have an opinion as to whether the sculptor should have a claim, but apparently the trial court thought he did, as did the appellate court. It's interesting that the USPS was arguing to the appeals court that a 10% royalty was too much, not that there should be no royalty at all.
Charlie,
I know you were kidding, but this is certainly a complicated issue. In general, it's typically just a matter of bad manners that can be prevented with a simple watermark in the image. In your example the prize was minimal and if you did photograph something that was copyright protected, you would likely just get a cease and desist notice because any judgment would be minimal. The Post, on the other hand, might have a problem if they published the photo.
Bobby said:
"Being in the right doesn't always mean you are doing the right thing."
and that's good advice. There have been cases where we settled for a simple cease and desist even though that meant we had to eat some of our costs because it was obvious that the infringement was innocent.
But I would add this:
Just because it's easy to copy something doesn't mean it's legal.
Lars
Login to Like
this post