 Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
| Bottom line----
It is not illegal to circumvent the protection devices that Auctiva or other sites employ............if being used for "educational purposes" in strict accordance with the Fair Use laws. Is it immoral or unethical? I don't believe so and don't believe that most do either. Not in the strictest definitions of these words. However, there have been individuals who have expressly asked that their images not be used. I, for one, have complied with their requests...........just because it seems the *right* thing to do. If I unknowingly post someone's image on the forums (belonging to someone that has asked that they not be used), would I fear legal repercussions? No. If asked though....I would simply remove them............as the polite thing to do. Many of these cases have already been before the courts and unless you are using the images for nefarious or for-profit reasons............you have nothing to worry about. IMHO P.S. I'm moving this post to the "Pros & Cons" section now.  |
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
| I believe this has already all been ironed out years ago. (read Lizzys post or follow Chris' links) Or one may Google {Fair use of digital images}. And in no way, at any time, any where, was I suggesting David go after Roger. Where on earth did I post that? Sorry if you got that idea somehow from my post. I do agree that maybe another forum would be a better place to discuss this. | |
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
| I'm not convinced. If anything I fear that some of you have become as unravelled as this thread. Geeze, Galen, you hardly are doing Roger any favors by suggesting that I go after him. If I was actually mean-spirited I'd bring the matter to the attention of Auctiva/eBay. One would imagine they might have an interest in intellectual property rights.
I might suggest though that a more intense forum be established to iron this out with some level-headedness. Heck, Roger could propose his scheme to a class on Cyber Law and have the students argue the case on the subject of intellectual property rights. But the Case should specifically address the rightness or wrongness of allowing the stealing of intellectual property rights on a site that has specifically initiated a system to protect those items. Now on a more personal note as you may know I have written a couple doz. articles pertaining to marbles many re. the old marble companies. I have always been generous regarding their use including the photographs accompanying the articles. I've felt that getting the information and halfway decent marble photographs out there was more important. Granted I had a slight bump with the wvmcc newsletter but that was because I was encouraging others to contribute articles and they balked due to a proprietary clause within ea. issue. Thankfully they saw fit to change that. I do not believe I have once indicated that I begrudge the fair use of materials that exist on the Internet. It's outright stealing that I can't imagine condoning especially when a person has taken measures to protect what he considers his property. To spin legal webs to circumvent this avoids confronting what is at its core a matter of right or wrong. .....David Chamberlain P.S. Lest there be any confusion that ".....affairs in order" bit was strictly in reference to my reference in the same thread about eBay/Auctiva going after you! |
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
| I only have one thing to say you can jack em ....its easy enuff
Dustin.  |
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
| Great info Gang. Look at it as it is no different than copying a page out of a book for a class project (totally legal and ethical) Or saving a TV show for later viewing (DVRs)(friends are allowed to watch(LOL)(also legal and ethical) Or making backup copies of DVDs(also legal and ethical) And the way some folks get around the pic saving if they really don't want the image copied(because they know it is done legally and ethically) is the big watermark(Digital) sometimes placed on images(usually for the free advertisement). And the college even supplies the legal information if you dig deep enough. I think David just needs some more time to catch up to the Cyber-world. It appears he may be a little behind the times when it comes to the Internet. And if he goes at it with the gumption he has gone at marble collecting he will catch up sooner than later. | |
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
| any image that appears on YOUR computer screen becomes YOUR property--i.e., it is digital information that, even though it has been (technically) downloaded, it is now a part of YOUR computer's memory (you are now "in possession"). like tank was saying, if you can see it (it's already in your mind's memory), you can snap a picture of it...if a picture is displayed on your screen (it's already in your computer's memory), your computer can snap a picture of it for you!
to get that picture (this is done by the operating system, not a browser), press the Print Scrn/SysRq key on your keyboard (for Windows users) and then open a program that displays pictures and Paste. (for Mac users, the keys are command-shift-3 or 4, i think). then just crop out what you don't want and save the image. you can buy (cringe!) screen-print or screen-capture programs, but why do that when the operating system on your computer already captures whats on your screen? (also certain suites of MS Office 7 have a cool ap called One Note where you can use cross-hairs to select and save any part of a screen image; and some Windows Vista editions come with a Snipping Tool where you can select what you want to save.) it is not breaking the law to use a copy of something for personal use, but there are limits on educational/fair use. because of the whole fair use issue, there are now variable licenses available under the Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/. |
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
| oops....it was gomer who went all "citizens arrest" on barney...
|
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
| oh for pete's sake david, you sound more hysterical than barney fife with his "CITIZEN'S ARREST! CITIZEN'S ARREST!!"
here's a link to the dept of justice's cybercrime website: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/reporting.htm nowhere is "saving a picture" listed here. in fact, there's a checklist to see if something meets the definition of stealing intellectual property. two factors that seem to be critical are "distribution" and "monetary value". http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/reportingchecklist-co-tm.pdf did you read the bit that lizzy posted? using pictures for educational purposes is expressly allowed. marble collectors who save pictures for personal reference, and who post them for shared education are not crossing any line - neither ethical nor legal. |
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
| JFC | |
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
| I'm just checking in now and I mean no disrespect but you are incredibly deluded people. You cannot understand what you are saying.
First let me get this out of the way - My Gawd Roger, I'm not threatening you I am warning you of the ethical consequences of what you have proposed for people to do. Can you imagine the heft of eBay and Auctive' response to your Post. They will go after you! I can't believe you are defending your Post. It is an indictment. But it's great that you are because this would make an excellent test case for internet property rights. Unfortunately for you the Crown gives considerable leeway to ethical considerations within established law. In Canada they have more respect for the law than to allow it to get in the way of ethics. It seems as though you are seeking refuge within the law from ethical consequences. This is not just about one person who innocently broadcast a photograph. You have not said one word about whether your scheme for circumventing protected property rights was right or wrong. Are we to deduce that there are no rights when we employ an established internet device to protect our property? You are explicetly encouraging the circumvention of a persons rights. I'm not drawing parallels but during the Third Reich everything was legal! You seem to have missed the heart of my thoughts - You do not have a moral right to do this! This hardly conforms to accepted professional standards of conduct! Let me point this out once more. I do not threaten but the potential implications of what you propose are threatening to you personally. Ethics has great avoir du pois in this issue. Everyone seems to have avoided this in the thread. I can understand why. David Chamberlain (I hate to say this but if you persist in going down this road you need to get your affairs in order) |
|