Re: Google and blogspot.com copyright infrigement
- From: Paul Furman <paul-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:41:29 -0700
Mxsmanic wrote:
BlackShadow writes:
Copyright has nothing directly to do with money, although in many cases the copyright does protect something that is intended to have commercial value. It is to protect the copyright holder's right to control the distribution of the material.
It is very rare for a copyright holder to care about how his works are
distributed except in connection with potential financial gain or loss.
Yes it comes down to money. The penalties are based on financial loss potential, right?
In the case of the bikini wife photo, if you don't want the public looking, don't post it. If porn sites posted a link to the original blog there might be no difference in the number of horny strangers viewing the page and the owner remains in control. If the owner took down the page for privacy and people continued to distribute the jpeg without attribution they could be sued for either the money they made distributing or a totally non-copyright related matter of privacy and personal suffering or something like that but not specifically for lack of controlling distribution.
I'm a big fan of freedom to share information but not a fan of the freedom to make money from other people's art without compensating them.
There are "moral rights" in some countries, attached to copyright, that
artists with delusions of grandeur occasionally try to enforce, but in most
cases the only rights available are those with monetary implications.
I have pictures of my wife in a bikini that I have taken at on a sailing weekend recently. My wife is very attractive and has a good figure. Are you suggesting that if I posted them on a family blog, that as there is no possible way that I would ever consider selling these pictures of her, that I should not have the right to copyright protection?
If you created the photo, it's protected by copyright, and you are the
copyright holder.
That I should find it ok to have someone take those images and put them on other sites, perhaps less family oriented, and have people with no interest other than carnal poring over them?
How you decide whether or not to license your image is up to you.
I could make my blog harder to access, but then older members of the extended family who have interest but little in the way of IT skills tend to have problems. Why should I need to even try doing that? My copyright on those images offers some degree of protection.
Yes, although in practical terms it can be very expensive to enforce that
copyright.
There are many scenarios where copyright protection is necessary but not in any way related to financial considerations.
They are way outnumbered by those with financial considerations.
I have no idea as to the statistics, but I am absolutely sure that copyright on non commercial material outnumbers copyright on commercial material by a factor or many millions to one.
Copyright makes no distinction between the two, but I'm sure you're right
about the numbers. Most copyright holders never enforce their copyrights, and
many don't even know that they hold copyrights.
How can you be so sure that we don't already?
There are fundamental problems in the concept.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
.
- Prev by Date: Re: |GG| Re: Google and blogspot.com copyright infrigement
- Next by Date: Re: |GG| Re: Google and blogspot.com copyright infrigement
- Previous by thread: Re: |GG| Re: Google and blogspot.com copyright infrigement
- Next by thread: Re: Good semi-pro camera?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
