*deviant-ARCADE
your source to discover ART.
Weekly Report n.57
Notices
More Photography News
48
Why we [still] use film...
=vaporiss
reports, 12h 51m ago
reports, 12h 51m agoVisual explanation of why artists still use film.
32
T for TEEN!
=nerdynotdirty
reports, 15h 47m ago
reports, 15h 47m agoSome of the best photographers here on deviantART are a part of the younger crowd, here are some of my favorites!
20
The Four Seasons - Thumb Galore!
=mrhenrik
reports, 23h 50m ago
reports, 23h 50m agoA collection of dA's finest season shots!
20
The year is 2525.
=SLPdomain
reports, 1d 8h ago
reports, 1d 8h agoThe 21th century’s photographic documentation presents…?
39
Animals!Wild as you can get!
*Misantropia
reports, 1d 1h ago
reports, 1d 1h agoWonderful animal photography.Give your support to these artists.
30
BEAUTIFUL Children In BEAUTIFUL Photos!
*Lironada
reports, May 9
reports, May 9Some Beautiful Photos of Many Beautiful Children!
Photography News This Week
65
Separated At Birth? Dead Ringers!!
=intao
reports, May 7
reports, May 7We have all heard of of separated at birth celebrities, stars etc.
but I have found if one looks carefully here on DA
there are some twins here as well!
but I have found if one looks carefully here on DA
there are some twins here as well!
61
Inspirational - perfection in women
=Emeranie
reports, 1d 20h ago
reports, 1d 20h agoFeature full of beauty & perfection.
60
The Best of Nature & Water Drops [Square Crops]
=dandelgrosso
reports, May 7
reports, May 7A small collection of some of the best square cropped Nature & Water Drop deviations.
Who loved it?
~Quetzy ~Pazas ~ARomanov $dionyziz ~prestisiouz ~fentonsgal =Schattenkristall ~Cabrio ~kz3jo =Black42x =ladytwiglet ~bittdude `superkev =eagle79 ~QuikFox ~13131 =osyris ¢elusive =VampyreKei *Tasharene ~Extreme-Reality ~Farewell-Spring ~SeverinaSnape *malaskor ~nureen ~b0n1t0 ~dyssynergia *Oreobytes ~ctrlfreak13 *Awi ~moneda !LucidityPrevails `rapidograph ~acelceva `lazybutt ^guruubii ~Soul-Daemon ~DoNotAttempt ^Ghouldaddy ~zanenkim ~sweetfuzzyteddy ~anncska =RC-DeSigNs *skm-industries ~AprilEchidna `ryano292 =quicsilver ~LordofOrangesGuraham ~DraconiumManga `krash =thequantumwarrior *ErnestHildred =bewarecalamity `sbaraci =linepau1 =The-Raven-Hunter *eelmikashigaru $spinegrinder *VeronicaIsabel ~mollygrue ~vermin1000 ~MikkelT
x 2 devious rejectionsPhotography
62
Jury Finds Unauthorized Use of Photo=Fair Use
`krash
reports, Oct 6, 2006
reports, Oct 6, 2006This can affect everyone but people like 
could really be impacted by something like this travisty.
From the PhotoAttorney website - [link]
This all starts back in January of this year....
Editorial Use May Not Always Be Fair Use
Copyright law includes the doctrine of "fair use" that allows unauthorized use of copyrights in certain circumstances. The courts recognize that free expression and avoiding law suits over minor issues are more important than protecting intellectual property rights. The doctrine of fair use means that copying will not infringe a copyright when it is "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research."
Newspapers generally use copyrighted materials freely, depending on fair use. But they may have gone too far this time.
Chris Harris is a photographer who has shot for The New York Times and Time and Newsweek magazines. He now teaches mass communications at a university in Tennessee and leases photos from his collection shot over a 25-year career. The San Jose Mercury News took one of Harris's photos, removed the copyright notice from his photo (which may violate Section 1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), and used it with a book review without Harris's permission.
The Mercury News claimed it was a "fair use" and is common practice for metropolitan newspapers to use copyighted photos with book reviews without permission. The newspaper's motion for summary judgment, asking that the case be dismissed, was denied on January 2, 2006. Judge Stephen Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held:
Defendant argues that use of the photo was the equivalent of a pictorial quotation from the book and similarly falls under the fair use exception. Yet the photograph was obviously marked as a copyrighted photograph in the book . . . . As a result, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that use of a copyrighted photograph in a book review, in which the book clearly states that the photograph is copyrighted, constitutes fair use. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
Robert A. Spanner, lead attorney for Harris, explained that,
A photographer's right to limit distribution and reproduction of his or her copyrighted photographs is a fundamental tenet of copyright law, and the notion that a newspaper can override that right and freely reproduce and distribute – without a license and for free – photographs which the photographer had licensed to a book publisher for a fee, would obviously be a matter of grave concern to the photographers’ profession. Mr. Harris stood up for the rights of his fellow photographers because he believed it was the right thing to do, and we are gratified that his efforts have been vindicated.
The trial is scheduled to begin January 20, 2006.
Cheers to Mr. Harris for standing up for his rights and doing what he can to protect his work. We all may benefit from the trail he is blazing.
You can find this on the website on this page [link]
Yesterday they finished the trial....
In a tragic decision for photographers, The San Jose Mercury News defeated Christopher Harris' copyright infringement lawsuit in August. The jury in the federal court in San Francisco took one hour to decide that the newspaper's use of Harris' photograph constituted fair use, despite the newspaper's removal of Harris' copyright notice before publishing the photo with a book review.
Background of the case can be found on my January 10th blog.
After the verdict, The Mercury News' lawyer explained:
This is a classic example of how newspapers use material that is sent to them every day. If a photographer or photo agency had veto over the use of these kinds of images, then newspapers would just stop using them and readers wouldn't get the visual information. . . . This is the kind of information that newspapers are supposed to provide to the public.
This is not the kind of protection that copyright law is supposed to provide to photographers. This is an erosion of rights that photographers should be afraid of . . . very afraid.
Now how is that for SCREWED UP!
I can only hope this will be overturned by a higher court, this is just fucking outrageous. Keep in mind this can end up hurting all artists, not just photographers, your work could be distributed in magazines, newspapers and so on with no credit to you at all.
could really be impacted by something like this travisty.From the PhotoAttorney website - [link]
This all starts back in January of this year....
Editorial Use May Not Always Be Fair Use
Copyright law includes the doctrine of "fair use" that allows unauthorized use of copyrights in certain circumstances. The courts recognize that free expression and avoiding law suits over minor issues are more important than protecting intellectual property rights. The doctrine of fair use means that copying will not infringe a copyright when it is "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research."
Newspapers generally use copyrighted materials freely, depending on fair use. But they may have gone too far this time.
Chris Harris is a photographer who has shot for The New York Times and Time and Newsweek magazines. He now teaches mass communications at a university in Tennessee and leases photos from his collection shot over a 25-year career. The San Jose Mercury News took one of Harris's photos, removed the copyright notice from his photo (which may violate Section 1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), and used it with a book review without Harris's permission.
The Mercury News claimed it was a "fair use" and is common practice for metropolitan newspapers to use copyighted photos with book reviews without permission. The newspaper's motion for summary judgment, asking that the case be dismissed, was denied on January 2, 2006. Judge Stephen Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held:
Defendant argues that use of the photo was the equivalent of a pictorial quotation from the book and similarly falls under the fair use exception. Yet the photograph was obviously marked as a copyrighted photograph in the book . . . . As a result, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that use of a copyrighted photograph in a book review, in which the book clearly states that the photograph is copyrighted, constitutes fair use. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
Robert A. Spanner, lead attorney for Harris, explained that,
A photographer's right to limit distribution and reproduction of his or her copyrighted photographs is a fundamental tenet of copyright law, and the notion that a newspaper can override that right and freely reproduce and distribute – without a license and for free – photographs which the photographer had licensed to a book publisher for a fee, would obviously be a matter of grave concern to the photographers’ profession. Mr. Harris stood up for the rights of his fellow photographers because he believed it was the right thing to do, and we are gratified that his efforts have been vindicated.
The trial is scheduled to begin January 20, 2006.
Cheers to Mr. Harris for standing up for his rights and doing what he can to protect his work. We all may benefit from the trail he is blazing.
You can find this on the website on this page [link]
Yesterday they finished the trial....
In a tragic decision for photographers, The San Jose Mercury News defeated Christopher Harris' copyright infringement lawsuit in August. The jury in the federal court in San Francisco took one hour to decide that the newspaper's use of Harris' photograph constituted fair use, despite the newspaper's removal of Harris' copyright notice before publishing the photo with a book review.
Background of the case can be found on my January 10th blog.
After the verdict, The Mercury News' lawyer explained:
This is a classic example of how newspapers use material that is sent to them every day. If a photographer or photo agency had veto over the use of these kinds of images, then newspapers would just stop using them and readers wouldn't get the visual information. . . . This is the kind of information that newspapers are supposed to provide to the public.
This is not the kind of protection that copyright law is supposed to provide to photographers. This is an erosion of rights that photographers should be afraid of . . . very afraid.
Now how is that for SCREWED UP!
I can only hope this will be overturned by a higher court, this is just fucking outrageous. Keep in mind this can end up hurting all artists, not just photographers, your work could be distributed in magazines, newspapers and so on with no credit to you at all.
Random Deviation
| Random Deviant
| Our Partners
© 2008 deviantART Inc. | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Etiquette | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Copyright Policy | Services | Help & FAQ
© 2008 deviantART Inc. | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Etiquette | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Copyright Policy | Services | Help & FAQ
Devious Comments
--
Hi, I'm Mikkel!
--
I "HEART!" =Captain-Planet
"Oh Timface the brownie bleeder, I miss you like a fat kid misses cake."-Kali
I think the obvious difference here is that this photograph was not simply distributed to this newspaper. They had to seek it and then remove a legal notice before reprinting it. I don't understand how this could possibly be justified...
If it's that important that your audience receive pertinent visual information, then you sure as hell better have some dialogue with the person who shot the damn picture. At the very least!
This is just sleezy.
Why can't they even just say you have to notify the artist before use of the image? Such a simple act.
--
Pauline French
--
Only fools are enslaved by time and space.
--
*rossyboy8
#Sharegallery - Come join!! and socialise with rgbot!
Visit my page and comment my art! Comments and improvements always welcome!
"Ars
For example, can a newspaper search dA for pictures of old people, and print them alongside a story about alzheimers?
--
Flagging Threads for Forum Mods
Spread the holiday cheer, dammit. [link]
--
While illiteracy is an important problem but what about innumeracy, do the Math!
Previous Page12345... Next Page