 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
816 online
Server Time:
2024-05-15 09:05:47
|
|
|
 seicer
     
Location: New York
Gender: Male
 |  |  | Re: "Photoshop this abandoned factory"...
<Reply # 20 on 10/17/2005 5:09 AM >
|  | | | Posted by Boffo
Nightbird already posted the link to where the image came from http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/archives/photos_brickworks/051004_1323.shtml
And further more, the page does have a copyright on the page: all images copyright ©2005 sam javanrouh | contact me for any usage info or print order
But these are obviously not being sold or called art. They are parodies. They are just photoshoping someone elses photo for fun. It's not like they're claiming the photo as there own and mass producing it for print sales.
"A parody exists when one imitates a serious piece of work, such as literature, music or artwork, for a humorous or satirical effect."
For more information on "Fair Use" you can visit Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
|
Wiki is a horrible abuser of copyright laws. I have had numerous articles stolen from my web-site that were claimed under the "fair use" copyright act. I promptly deleted the said articles which were promptly reposted. I threatened legal action and they finally took them down a whole month later. These articles I had spent months researching and for someone to claim it was "fair use" is beyond me. It's common material, yes, but I had restated what I had researched and added my own commentary, with my own images, which were also lifted. It's like having someone just steal your work and paste it somewhere else without credit or even a link.
Abandoned |
|
Muskoka
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
| | Re: "Photoshop this abandoned factory"...
<Reply # 21 on 10/17/2005 5:23 AM >
| | | | Posted by seicer
It's like having someone just steal your work and paste it somewhere else without credit or even a link.
|
Sort of like the image that's being used in the derivative works in the 'Photoshop this abandoned factory' thread.......
If I need to learn anything about US Copyright law, including fair use, Wiki is the last place I'm going to look.
For more information on Fair Use, Boffo, you can visit the US Copyright Office web site:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
|
|
kc
Noble Donor
Location: Pueblo, Colorado
Gender: Male
"yah, im hangin the drywall at the new Mc. Donalds"
| | | Re: "Photoshop this abandoned factory"...
<Reply # 22 on 10/17/2005 5:30 AM >
| | | | a famous UER argument over something so simple...I love it. If someone takes one of my pics and plays with it, who cares. If they end up selling it, or profiting then it may matter...but please...
Doing a job RIGHT the first time gets the job done. Doing the job
WRONG fourteen times gives you job security. |
|
Boffo
 
Moderator
Location: Smithers, BC
Gender: Male
HONK! HONK!
| | Re: "Photoshop this abandoned factory"...
<Reply # 23 on 10/17/2005 6:00 AM >
| | | | I don't get it? How aren't these imitating the artwork? There photoshops specific towards the artwork in question. And most of them are stupid low brow humour.
| they are using the original work as the background for their own |
None of these are there own original work they're just throwing images together. Why haven't you commented on how http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a54/Tygre/factory.jpg has used Kevin Bacon from footloose.
Its on a site like Fark, that provides comedic news and stupid contests for nothing more than fun. And I had only linked to wiki as that was the current site I was viewing, the site I was on before had pretty much the same information. Even the link you provided has pretty much the same information as the prior sites I have visited - your link actually had no new information for me.
All of the court cases regarding Fair Use usually go either way anyways, something as stupid as these photoshops would never hold up in court. They do not effect the original artwork enough and are being used for non-profit.
Edit:
| Wiki is a horrible abuser of copyright laws. I have had numerous articles stolen from my web-site that were claimed under the "fair use" copyright act. I promptly deleted the said articles which were promptly reposted. I threatened legal action and they finally took them down a whole month later. These articles I had spent months researching and for someone to claim it was "fair use" is beyond me. It's common material, yes, but I had restated what I had researched and added my own commentary, with my own images, which were also lifted. It's like having someone just steal your work and paste it somewhere else without credit or even a link. |
That would be plagiarism. If they rewrote it into there own words then it'd be pretty much the same thing that you did. The only difference, through 10 minutes of researching - they found what took you 10 hours.
[last edit 10/17/2005 6:05 AM by Boffo - edited 1 times]
Here's a lockpick. It might be handy if you, the master of unlocking, take it with you. |
|
seicer
Location: New York
Gender: Male
| | | Re: "Photoshop this abandoned factory"...
<Reply # 24 on 10/17/2005 6:30 AM >
| | | | Posted by Boffo
That would be plagiarism. If they rewrote it into there own words then it'd be pretty much the same thing that you did. The only difference, through 10 minutes of researching - they found what took you 10 hours.
|
I now agree with your image copyright points on the specific topic in the original post. If it is a parody, there would be no chance of it to be held up. But if the image had been reproduced or manipulated and then resold or labeled as theirs, that is where the problems would begin. e.g. Taking a copyrighted image, applying inverted colors effect in PS and calling it yours. That's illegal.
But as for your latter comment, they had creatively snipped portions out of my document and used it verbatim without modifying. For example, they used the middle of an important sentence and deleted my transitions from the other sentences to disguise the fact they copied it. They also put a lot of "quotes" around the material but failed to cite it. Another case was when they used specific wordings and phrases. On top of that, my images were marked as "fair use" when I had gone out and done the photography.
If they had taken basic ENG 101, they would have failed on the spot. Threatened legal action and all the problems went away like magic. Their mods over there are assholes as well; make a request to delete a page because its copyrighted elsewhere and your requests will be denied or ignored. I even once got a rude message in return.
Abandoned |
|
Boffo
Moderator
Location: Smithers, BC
Gender: Male
HONK! HONK!
| | Re: "Photoshop this abandoned factory"...
<Reply # 25 on 10/17/2005 7:05 AM >
| | | | Oh no, I agreed with you. I understood that they had blatantly made no attempt to show credit and just CTRL V'd your information. But wikipedia is a online encyclopedia that is a non-profit educational source, they could and from the sounds of it were probably going to argue 'Fair Use' if they had too in court. But as I said before, it could really go either way - and is just cheaper overall to just remove the information rather then going to the courts.
Here's a lockpick. It might be handy if you, the master of unlocking, take it with you. |
|
Muskoka
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
| | Re: "Photoshop this abandoned factory"...
<Reply # 26 on 10/17/2005 1:44 PM >
| | | | Posted by Boffo
I don't get it? How aren't these imitating the artwork? There photoshops specific towards the artwork in question. |
It's very simple; They aren't imitating the original work because they are using the original work, hence they are a derivative, not a parody.
A very simple example of a parody vs a derivative: Wierd Al singing a Madonna song with his own words is a parody because he's taken the basic song, played by his own musicians and made up his own words to go along with it. That's a parody. If he had taken the original song and done a voice-over, that would be a derivative work, and Ms. Ciccone (or Esther apparently since she found Kaballah) would have grounds to be a little wealthier than she is already.
Posted by Boffo
All of the court cases regarding Fair Use usually go either way anyways, something as stupid as these photoshops would never hold up in court. They do not effect the original artwork enough and are being used for non-profit. |
Something as stupid as these would most certainly hold up in court; They are derivative works of the original, used without the consent of the copyright owner. It's that simple. This is not an educational or commentary use (two of the largest proportion of acceptable Fair Use defences). Simply being 'non-profit' or 'just for fun' isn't enough. Now, granted, there would be no fiscal gain for the copyright owner to pursue legal action, but at minimum he could have the images pulled from the web.
Look, I fully understand that there are people out there who could care less, or even think it's kind of cool that someone (or in this case a whole lot of someones) would want to use one of their images for something like this. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who would take immediate action against the unauthorized (read - illegal) use of one of their images in this manner.
To each his own. It is simply my intention to pass on a little bit of education regarding copyright. Nothing more. Take what you like, leave the rest.
'Nuff said
|
|
Boffo
Moderator
Location: Smithers, BC
Gender: Male
HONK! HONK!
| | Re: "Photoshop this abandoned factory"...
<Reply # 27 on 10/17/2005 3:29 PM >
| | | | If you can't use the original work why does fair use have this: "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" in it.
And furthermore, did you email the owner of the image asking if Fark stole the image? For all you know they did ask for his permission and there is no issue.
Here's a lockpick. It might be handy if you, the master of unlocking, take it with you. |
|
Muskoka
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
| | Re: "Photoshop this abandoned factory"...
<Reply # 28 on 10/17/2005 4:01 PM >
| | | | Posted by Boffo
If you can't use the original work why does fair use have this: "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" in it.
|
I didn't say you can't use the original work in a Fair Use situation. I said that the use of this image in this situation doesn't satisfy the requirements of Fair Use. It's not educational, it's not commentary, it's not satire. It's not fair use. It's infringement.
|
|
yokes
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
I aim to misbehave
| |  | | Re: "Photoshop this abandoned factory"...
<Reply # 29 on 10/17/2005 6:20 PM >
| | | | Photoshopping images in this manner is similar to sampling music; You have to have permission from the original artist to use it for your creation (if you care about the legality of it).
But then again, we're supposed to have permission from land/building owners before we visit their sites, too.
I'm more concerned about Sam's (a very very prominent Toronto photoblogger) bandwidth bill. Fark traffic can crush a server even when it is only serving up text.
Personally, if someone decided they wanted to photoshop an image of mine, and host it on their own server, I'd have no problem with it.. however, it is my decision to make.. not anyone else's.
[last edit 10/17/2005 6:21 PM by yokes - edited 1 times]
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water and stupid men." - Richard Nickel |
|
statik
Location: colorado
There has got to be more to life than just being really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking.
| | | Re: "Photoshop this abandoned factory"...
<Reply # 31 on 10/17/2005 10:39 PM >
| | | | Posted by Boffo
If you can't use the original work why does fair use have this: "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" in it.
|
That's the second of two criteria; both have to be proven for it to apply. Whenever you attempt to claim Fair Use, you have to prove first that you used the work for critical or satirical use, and then that you used just enough of a work to make your point; no more. Since all but one of these don't even pass the first criteria - the George bush image could possibly (and just barely) pass the Fair Use standard as satire - the second wouldn't come up for discussion.
None more black.. |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 109 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741801853 pages have been generated.
|
|
