[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Image legality



Original poster: "Jim Lux" <jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net> 

Heh..
I have to say that this sort of thing occurs all the time (not that it's ok,
it's just remarkably prevalent).
Why just last week some kind soul sent me some links pointing out that
someone's web site had artwork that remarkably resembled that on my web page
and Jochen Kronjaeger's. (as in bit for bit copies of .gif files)...
That one's easy.. a nice letter to the ISP hosting it, and it's history.
Maybe the DMCA does have a bright side.

More insidious is PhD candidates including wholesale copies of your text in
their thesis. Yes, in fact, I've had this happen... I was searching for
something using google, and up popped a site that had a real, real familiar
ring to it.. it was a .pdf of the gentleman's (using the term loosely here)
thesis).  A first letter elicted a response along the lines of "I didn't
know" "it was on the web" "why are you busting my chops about this".  A
second letter to his committee along with a copy of the honor code from his
university that specifically referred to "plagiarism from internet
resources" seemed to get a more substantive response. Although, I confess, I
would have preferred to see the shameless b*** expelled and forever
cursed... I ask you.. a grad student, trying to create new intellectual
property in a profitable field.. no excuse whatsoever.. this wasn't some
hobbiest who didn't know better and was trying to accumulate useful
information for the world...he was writing his PhD dissertation, supposed to
contain "original research work".

I've also hammered a high school newspaper, essentially for the same reason.
Using a photograph of mine, uncredited, and the journalism advisor saying
something along the lines of "so what's the big deal".  Oops... your job, as
advisor, is to inculcate in those students an appreciation for copyright.
So, it IS a big deal, and unless you print a suitable statement about the
events and contrite apology, you've just left the school open for massive
damages.  I'd venture to say that future journalism classes will be a bit
more careful about photo credits and attribution.

The web's a curse and a blessing.. Easy to find stuff, small barriers to
publication.  Unfortunately, modern word processing makes it awfully easy to
cut and past the web site words into your document.  When you'd have to
explicitly retype or rewrite in longhand, you'd tend to summarize and
abstract. Granted, it might still be plagiarism, in that the ideas were
copied, but at least the "work" involved was comparable to doing it for
themself.

I don't make any realistic amount of money from web publishing or
photography, so it's more of a philosophical problem for me.  Back when I
did make money from software, I fought the bootleg copy issue constantly.
Not the "make a copy to see if it will serve my needs, because I'm poverty
stricken, and if I ever did make any money using it I'd pay" scenario (the
classic Autocad thing, pre version 2.6.2.... None of those users are really
"lost sales".. they'd never buy it in the first place) , but the "business
with 30 users who only licenses 3 copies" kind of thing.


 > Original poster: "Chris Boden" <cboden-at-thegeekgroup-dot-org>
 >
 >
 > Hi All,
 >      As many of you know, the Geek Group avidly supports the dissemination
of
 > scientific and technical knowledge by all legitimate means. All pictures,
 > texts, and diagrams on our web site are published with the permission of
the
 > author(s) and credits are posted to the extent possible.

<snip >