Pixiq

You forgot the BIGGEST myth of copyright:

Copyright infringement = Stealing.

Wait, you did cover that in several of your items? I'm sure it was meant to be ironic...

Side from repeating yourself on two of the myths (with different answers to each the second time) you are incorrect with your reference to "orphan works". There is no "orphan works" category at this time. A work is either protected by copyright or not (public domain). The difficulty is knowing for certain that a work is no longer under copyright. The proposed orphan works legislation would create an orphan works category for any work that was not registered in a commercial registry (above and beyond copyright) and whose creator could not be found via such registry. The orphan works category would essentially shield infringers from punitive damages if the creator of a work had failed to submit the work in question to the commercial registry. Infringers could still be compelled to pay a "reasonable use" fee however some argue that the fee would generally be too small to justify taking the infringer to court and thus effectively removing any remedy to copyright infringement.

It’s OK to use someone else’s image if...

I change x% of the work.

Nope. See below about derivatives.

I couldn’t find any “below” about derivatives. I have heard a lot of stuff about being able to use a work if you change it and would really like to know the real scoop on that.

Thanks,
Tom Kostes
Ainsworth Images
www.ainsworthimages.com

It is unbelievable that people think anything they can grab off the internet is free. I was collaborating on a website with a designer. She took every opportunity to point out how experienced she was and the important position she had once held at XYZ company.

After a while I asked where she was getting all the photos she was sending me. "Oh, I'm getting them from Google Images." She thought this was a big, free image bank. I almost had a coronary as I envisioned the lawsuit. Fortunately, I found out before the site ever went live.

Copyright is a complex issue and you do a disservice to your readers by posting over simplified one sentence answers that skew toward copyright holders.

You lump educational use with non-profit use and don't even address educational use. Copyrighted material can be used for educational use if it meets the 4 point test under the fair use doctrine. Editorial use is another common fair use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

You use the term "in the public domain" and go on to give an example of an image on the internet that cannot be identified. That's not what "in the public domain" means.

An image is in the public domain if it is not subject to copyright. That can include images published before 1923, images with expired copyrights, and works of the U.S. government such as NASA or presidential portraits.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

This is the first time I've been on this site and so far I'm not impressed. This article is written like it was tweeted 140 characters at a time. I assume they are not charging you to use more words.

Thanks guys for all your useful and helpful information. I hope Pat gets the professional help he/she needs.

Can someone please tell me how I can stop getting these macho BS ego contest posts in my email? I post one comment, get told I don't know anything and then can't find a way to stop getting follow up comments. You may be brilliant experts on copyright (or not) but you are lousy website designers if you don't provide any unsubscribe links. IMHO

The real point is being lost here. Jack and Ed are using their knowledge, experience and education to help us all understand our rights under copyright law.

To me that’s a valuable and generous service. I have no problem with them being reimbersed for that when they write a book.

They also write a column in Photoshop User magazine, for which, I’m sure they get paid, but so does every other contributor. Seem fair to me, and once again I state I, for one, am thankful for the service and knowledge they provide.

For the purpose of disclosure, I would like to add that this excerpt was posted here by the editors of Pixiq, not by the authors. Any errors or deviations from the actual text of the book were inadvertently made by our staff, not the authors. We posted this article because we thought people would find it interesting and helpful and to increase exposure to this excellent book. (And, by the way, we do have permission from the authors to post this excerpt.)

"For the purpose of disclosure..."

Like when the surprise witness appears in a Perry Mason case, the game is up — not an outright confession Marti, but somebody's guilt is writ large between the lines. A lesson learned perhaps: don't dumb it down too much in the extracts, or a thoughtful critic like Pat is going to call you on it, and all the blustering aside somebody is going to have to eat humble pie, however small a slice. The writing was on the wall, even though the link demonstrated the wall was somewhere else, when a Pixiq editor had to intervene to point Tom Kostes to some missing information. Strangely there was no cry of outrage, in fact the complainant turned into an apologist!

Thanks to all concerned for their efforts, however. This isn't like those pissing competitions we had at my first school, so we don't have to declare a winner. Saying "beta" covers a multitude of sins.

PS:
--------------------------------
"Ed and I have our credentials out there for all to see."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

"I have a much longer answer for why credentials, especially on the Internet, is [sic] important, but I think I'll expand on it in a new article."

I look forward to a closely argued repudiation of the case against ipse dixit. In particular, it's about time somebody put that old fool Aristotle in his place, even if his 'Metaphysica' is an entertaining diversion for a short train journey. Please don't give me reason to flaunt my own credentials; the judge said the next time that happened there would be a prison sentence.
--------------------------------
"Can you be kind enough to be specific as to what you considered a 'personal attack' on yourself?"

Are you being disingenuous, or perhaps deliberately ignoring the immediately preceding post so that you may defend yourself against an accusation that was never made against you? There are fancy words for that, too, and some plainer words.

Tom Kostes: "I hope Pat gets the professional help he/she needs."

This reader saw Pat's statement as a response to Tom Kostes' use of a type of popular jibe (cf. "Have you taken your medication today?") often seen on less august websites than Pixiq, suggesting that Pat (despite the available evidence that he is calm and pursues a rational argument) is in some way mentally ill.
--------------------------------
"One of the reasons Ed and I run our credentials is to point out we don't get our info from reading what's online, especially since we find so much that's flat out wrong." Oh, the irony. Please tell me it's irony, or I am going to hurl myself from this Lashley Jumping Stand — now there was a man with impeccable credentials who predated the Internet. Perhaps Aristotle was onto something. Draw your own conclusions.

It's quite clear that the majority of the original post is correct - people often believe they can legally copy a work when they cannot. It's also not intended as comprehensive advice, otherwise point 5 would deal with the DMCA's safe harbor provision and point 10 would define the public domain. Calling copyright stealing, while not legally correct, is certainly a reasonable moral position to take.

This list is clearly designed to express the fact that all photographs are subject to copyright at the moment of creation and may not be used without permission from the copyright holder. The defense of fair use exists (17 USC 107) but it is a test with a multitude of factors applied by a court not a bright line immunity.

I am a little confused that the authors market their book as "authoratative legal advice" and fail to include standard disclaimers on their blog posts. As someone who took PR and passed the MPRE, isn't that problematic?

More "myths" from their book is here;
Photography Lessons, Tips and Insights: Photographer's Survival Manual by Jack Reznicki and Ed Greenberg, published by Pixiq Books | Digital Image Cafe

This is a great resource, whether you agree or not. Better safe that sued!

Top misunderstood Fact: Parody is exempt FROM Copyright law. Yes. Its true. I learned this as part of my journalism law class when I went for my degree. HOWEVER, this does not preclude someone suing you. You just have to prove (and win) the fact that you are making a parody. Its tought against a private citizen. However, public figures are open targets (ala Nat, enquirer and illegal - UFO - alien babies born to celebs.
and Sarah Palin is an open target and her threats will only drive up the curiousity and revenue of your parody. So have at it! -Spencer Nutting

Top misunderstood Fact: Parody is exempt FROM Copyright law. Yes. Its true. I learned this as part of my journalism law class when I went for my degree. HOWEVER, this does not preclude someone suing you. You just have to prove (and win) the fact that you are making a parody. Its tought against a private citizen. However, public figures are open targets (ala Nat, enquirer and illegal - UFO - alien babies born to celebs.
and Sarah Palin is an open target and her threats will only drive up the curiousity and revenue of your parody. So have at it! -Spencer Nutting