Dan Heller on the latest orphan works 'disinformation'
I don't know whether he's right or not, but the whole OW debate is pretty frightening.
Just how bad are things?
@ British Journal of Photography
The BJP are surveying UK photographers to find out just how bad things are for professional photographers.
Copyright fight: Stephen Colbert takes on Lawrence Lessig
@ Photo Business News & Forum
Summaries of 32 'fair use' copyright cases in the US
@ Stanford's Copyright & Fair Use Overview
Photo Attorney: The fuss about fair use
What photographers need to know about 'fair use'... most notably that 'fair use' is a legal defence, not a legal right.
Thoughts on photo use and licensing when pictures are used with & without permission
@ Photo Business News & Forum
Follows up on yesterday's link to a Guardian
Is a picture really worth £1,000?
Or, more to the point, if you steal a picture and get caught, should the owner of the picture be able to charge you what they want, or should you only have to pay whatever you think is reasonable? The Guardian obviously believes the latter, though they probably have a wee bit of a vested interest in not paying whatever a photo's owner wants.
Dan Heller on what impact the Orphan Works Act will have on photographers
In a nutshell: very little.
Flickr, Myxer, Copyright Infringement, and the Lack of Respect
em>If the Copyright holders WANT to give their stuff away for free, that’s up to THEM, not some third party.
How every photo on Flickr was on sale this weekend
Jim Goldstein on how Flickr's API is allowing unscrupulous programmers to steal, sell or otherwise misuse images posted on Flickr. Does Flickr care? No. Deal with it.
Is a photograph of something a derivative work?
Photographs of other objects are not derivative works of those objects... a photograph of an object is not "based on" that object: it is a mere depiction of it. If your photograph of something is a derivative work, then your photo infringes on the rights of the copyright holder of whatever you photographed. So if a photo is not by definition a derivative work, then the copyright of the photographed object is not affected by your taking a photo of it. So the argument that you can't take a picture of something 'for copyright reasons' is not true, at least in the US of A.
