Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Interweb copyright knowledge is poor... even for developers


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Drew

Drew

    The Controller

  • Video Expert
  • 10635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:GPS is not reliable in South East Asian seas

Posted 13 December 2011 - 07:57 PM

So a friend asks me to check out his photography website. I do and I normally turn off sound because I find it annoying but his site has D Guetta and Avicii etc. So I asked if he licensed the music. His web developer said because he was streaming from the Youtube Channel of the artists in question, it was legal. Sure if you weren't using it a website! Or that the website sells images... which breaks the fair use clause! Sigh!

Drew
Moderator
"Journalism is what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations."

"I was born not knowing, and have only had a little time to change that here and there.


#2 decosnapper

decosnapper

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 01:10 AM

Whilst on the face of it, the US idea of fair use seems like a good idea, my gut feeling is that it adds more than a little uncertainty into what could be something very straightforward - both for creators and users alike. As far as I know, the only way to determine what is 'fair' is to go thought the courts...

Would any of the US members care to comment?

As for web developers...well, yes indeed. There is much anecdotal evidence on this side of the pond to suggest not all web designers understand copyright...even when their creative outputs are protected by said law. Come to think of it, that statement could apply to photographers too...
Simon Brown

www.simonbrownimages.com

#3 scorpio_fish

scorpio_fish

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, TX

Posted 14 December 2011 - 03:22 AM

Interweb developers consists of ....... everyone.

Anyone can create a website. There is no formal process of certification. They are not significantly more savvy than the general public about copyright laws.


Professional web design firms and creative agencies do understand copyright law and adhere to it. This accounts for only a small minority of all sites.

Fair use is not as fuzzy as one would believe. Specific cases can be fuzzy as can most such issues with regard to interpretation of existing law.

Without fair use, half the material on the web would be deleted. News shows would be text only. Aggregators of information would no longer be able to snip anything, e.g. the breaking news section of Wetpixel.
"Me, fail English?.........Unpossible!"

#4 Drew

Drew

    The Controller

  • Video Expert
  • 10635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:GPS is not reliable in South East Asian seas

Posted 14 December 2011 - 06:36 AM

NGC and others have been known to use images etc without permission. So I think the problem is more pervasive than thought. I think it's just that not everyone bothers to protect their rights.
Fair use is great. There are benefits to many artists via Youtube etc. Most of my performing arts friends don't mind and even encourage some form of free usage of their material including songs. The problem is when the cunning take advantage to make money off their work. Napster, torrents etc cater to a market that by and large wouldn't pay for the material anyways.
I actually enjoy looking for stuff that's not available anywhere for purchase (like an old tennis match or concert). I tried to purchase an old tennis match once from CBS... they quoted $300 for private license. :)

Drew
Moderator
"Journalism is what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations."

"I was born not knowing, and have only had a little time to change that here and there.