|August 10, 2010, 11:09 PM||#1|
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Question about hotlink/int.prop policy for images...
This one is pretty infamous.
Obviously, HK owns the rights to this since they made the original cover art... but look more closely:
This is a cell phone picture of the back page ad in some gun mag, as the mag sits on someone's table.
I don't know who took the pic... it's been copied voraciously all over the interwebz, and I now host a copy of it on my photobucket site.
I'm sure HK would love for this pic to simply disappear down the pooper, but it has relevance to the firearms community due to the "because you suck, and we hate you" line of thought.
Technically, this is not a cut and paste. Nor is it a hotlinking to media owned by HK...
...or is it, according to the new TFL guidelines?
What about PrtScn captures of articles, hosted on one's own photobucket? Digital photographs of offensive (to our community) print articles from Time magazine?
Where is the "grey?"
Or, another direction:
What about editorially relevant derivative works, like this?
The original image was from a news article somewhere, but I ran it through a "demotivator" after being stricken by inspiration to come up with the composite work of art after the ATF's harassment of Cavalry Arms in my neck o' the woods.
Last edited by azredhawk44; August 10, 2010 at 11:31 PM.
|August 10, 2010, 11:24 PM||#2|
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Good question. I think that taking a photograph of a print article would be a pretty transparent attempt to avoid copyright issues and probably wouldn't fly, but what about "here's a photograph I took of a funny billboard"? Obviously, the content of the billboard is copyrighted, but does that automatically make any depiction of it infringement?
|August 10, 2010, 11:47 PM||#3|
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
The person who took the photograph of the HK magazine is the owner of the copyright on that particular image; to be perfectly frank, I have no clue if dual copyright issues would be present. It doesn't matter how much it's been passed around on the internet, the law as it is currently written is quite clear -- the person who created it has copyright ownership of it.
This statement is very clear:
"Photographs and other images are also copyrighted. "Hotlinking" of images (so that it appears in your message) from other sites is also prohibited unless you own rights to the image. If you wish to share an image, provide a clickable link to it."
Until the courts move to sort out some of the issues that have been raised by the flurry of lawsuits that have been filed, TFL will be taking a very strict line.
Yes, this is a pain in the ass. But, right now, there are a lot of individuals and companies facing very expensive legal fights, or equally expensive "we're going to knuckle under and pay thousands of dollars to get this off our backs" settlements.
Staff does not intend to be caught up in such lawsuits. We don't intend for TFL's owner or parent company to be caught up in such lawsuits. And we certainly don't intend for TFL members to be caught up in such lawsuits.
In essence, THERE IS NO GRAY.
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza
Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.