I'm not touching you!!! Fair Use Doctrine

What part of ...you didn't take the picture ...do they not understand?  I suppose this thinking would lead to....I copied most of your post but I didn't get paid for it.

YIKES>

Yikes is right!  Being newish to blogging, this is a matter of great concern to me...thanks for the post.  merry Christmas!

I always like to be overly cautious when it comes to copyright matters but I guess there are those that are either ignorant to the law or simply like to push the envelope.

Wow, those were some interesting past posts to read.  Blast from the past.

I agree with Erica, and read the posts that you referred to in this one. Personally, I am so scared of TLW's wrath that I would never, ever borrow anything without permission. Yes, I'm a product of the sixties and I live in fear of irritating or disappointing others--probably why my own blog posts are so boring.

Have a happy holiday and thanks so much for your honest and candid feedback on my posts throughout the year.

I fail to understand anyone who would take something of someone else's and then stubbornly defend their right to use it...

There is a disconnect somewhere in that logic...

Broker Bryant,

I fail to understand anyone who would take something of someone else's and then defend their right to do so as though they were entitled to take it due to the fact that the object exists and was easy to lift..  There is a disconnect in that logic...

Came by to say Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Wishing you a prosperous and healthy 2011.

Judi in Extreme Southeast Oklahoma

Hi Broker Bryant,

I have paid thousands of dollars in legal fees to get my logos, slogans and even a book trademarked, Registered, patent protected in some cases, and every challenge we have mounted has cost someone else.

You take the photo it's yours.  You write it with original content, it's yours.  You shot the video it's yours.  We allow other's by agreement to "repost" our blogs...without change.  Yet they can add personal comments that are not part of what is reposted for a reason.  The original is owned by the person that originally posted the material.  I had a company remove and stop use of a slogan I have used for over 10 years.  My attorney sent a nice letter.  The offender sent back a jump in the lake response.  We sent a greetings with a court document attached.  We recieved a sorry back with a confirmation of removal.

The fact is simple and no gray areas.  I read every response and shook my head.  You can be licensed to use a photo...i.e. Istock, more than one person can be licensed to use the same photo by paying a fee.  This is a non-exclusive license.  If you pay for an exclusive license, which no photo site will do...because photos are their revenue stream, you will be the only one allowed to use the photo until your license runs out or is renewed.  You can also be licensed to use photos by Microsoft by owning a licensed software. 

This is not a philosopical right or wrong.  By the way Blogging Bertha isn't that cute...I like TLW much better! :-) No offense Bertha!

Hope everyone understands...you write it, it's yours. 

Have a Great Holiday Season and 2011 everyone.

Never cross TLW or mess with one of Lenn's maps.  If you do both you will get shot and sued.

BB, While reading your post all kept I thinking was; "Lenn would have a field day with this" and viola you mentioned her and she commented.  I wouldn't even begin to mess with TLW!  Hope everyone your way had a great Christmas and here's wishing an outstanding 2011!!

Here's a question I'd like answered.

You put up the Blogging Bertha videos on YouTube.  As part of that, I'm pretty certain that you agree to allow anyone to embed those videos wherever they want.

Could Bob have just embedded that video in his post instead of the photo?

I read through all of the old posts going back to the original Twas the night before Christmas where the original photo was used that started the big stink.  I think Bob made good arguments for why he didn't have to.  I think Bob's bottom line is also very valid.  That sometimes this stuff isn't as certain as some experts might say it is.   I read through all of his comments and he sure seems to want to learn as much as possible about this. He doesn't seem argumentative.  His arguments don't seem baseless.   I don't think anyone was able to shed any light on his parody angle.  That was the main thing he was trying to justify.  Now I have a new research project for the new year.

Broker Bryant, thank you for ressurrecting this issue.  I wasn't around for the first discussions on this and I'm glad.  I wouldn't want to do anything to upset my dear friend, TLW.  However, now that time has passed, hopefully we can all look at Fair Use Doctrine objectively for what it is.

Fair Use Doctrine is often misunderstood.  For those who say there are no gray areas in copyright infringement, the Fair Use Doctrine can only be applied to copyrighted work, e.g. images, articles.  Fair Use Doctrine describes the conditions under which copyrighted material may be used without permission. If a work is not copyrighted, i.e. in the public domain, fair use does not come into play.  The mere creation of a work in the U.S. establishes a copyright.  There is no legal requirement to register or declare copyright. 

The use of a thumbnail size image instead of the original image to parody or in some other way transform the work, is considered fair use, if several other factors are taken into consideration.  From my reading of the Fair Use Doctrine Bob would probably have won if this went to court.  Could he have been sued?  Yes  Any of us can sue anyone else at any time. 

The rapid growth of the Internet is based upon extensive use of the Fair Use Doctrine.  Google makes a ton of money, but they are allowed under the Fair Use Doctrine to use thumb-sized photos that link to the originals.  The commercial use of images is the least important of the four factors that are taken into consideration in determining whether the use falls under the Fair Use Doctrine.

If someone uses Lenn's maps on their real estate website or your photos of your listings on their brochures, that's not transformative, e.g.artistic, parody, etc.  This is why Lenn wins her lawsuits.  Other agents are directly swiping the images and trying to apply them for the same purpose she does.  That's what copyright law is designed to protect against.

The use of others images on AR may also be controlled by the rules and regulations of AR, not just copyright law or Fair Doctrine Use.  Flickr allows each member to decide how much permission to give others to use their photos.  AR provides the ability to allow your post to be reblogged or not.  Members who don't adhere to the rules and regulations of the community can be expelled or suffer other sanctions.

Beyond rules and regulations, we can basically respect TLW's request to not use the photos or videos she creates without her permission.  That's just being a good member of the community. a good neighbor, but it has nothing to do with Fair Doctrine Use.

Remember, the Internet would not exist as we know it without Fair Use Doctrine Use.  There would be no Google or other search engines, there would be no RSS feeds, most of the YouTube parodies would not exist.  If we use the Internet, we should be aware that copyright has its limits.  Copyright ends where Fair Doctrine begins.  That line is drawn in the shifting sands of case law and is shaped in part by the growth of the Internet.

Hope I didn't stir anything up from the past, but you did ask, and I think it's important for all of us on AR to understand Fair Use Doctrine and to separate it from being good AR citizens, which means going beyond what's legal, and respecting each other's wishes.

Bryant,  Now that Blogging Bertha is public on YouTube, can people use those videos on their blogs?  I'm just curious to know what's what.

It's funny. As I was looking up Blogging Bertha on YouTube, I noticed another video of TLW walking into a lake.  I saw that Drama Queen #1 and #2 only had about 500 views where as TLW walking into the lake had almost 80,000 views. I wonder who's watching that so many times.   

Law aside...You Didn't take the photo, Its not yours to use and I dont care if you can steal it off a Google Image Search...You didnt take the Photo and It's not yours to Use. Period.

BB, Actually public or private doesn't make a difference with Fair Use Doctrine according to case law.  Fair Use Doctrine also doesn't care whether there is any warning not to use the image in a public forum.  There is nothing in case law that really helps you.  Your strongest argument is that it was a violation of AR rules and regulations, and the sanctions would lie with AR to enforce.  The community can also voluntarily shun those who violate the norms.  There are a lot of ways to deal with this, but legal channels are probably not one of them. 

As so many before me have said, you didn't take the photo (or draw the map in Lenn's case) so, LEAVE IT THE HELL ALONE!  Heck, if someone stole something of mine, TLW and Lenn would be the first ones I would call--they are far more fierce than any attorney!!

Oops I clicked Report a concern on #35 accidently.  Sorry... just got an Ugg Boot email and I was too quick on the trigger....reflex reporting spam.  

While #35 is interesting it is not say it is not "Report a Concern" worthy.  There is NOT a way to Unreport a concern.  Sorry.