Copyright Infringement
Someone commenting on my blog mentioned that one of the reasons they like to read it is that I post many photographs. Well, today I realized the toll of posting so many photos, when another person informed me that, by using one of his photos that I found in a Google image search, I've been stealing not only his copyrighted material, but his bandwidth.
I'm seriously technically challenged, so I wasn't really aware of the stealing of bandwidth, but I must admit, I did realize I was on shaky ground by using images not my won. I decided to look into the subject further.
A helpful artocle on Blogging and image use is Bloggers' FAQ - Intellectual Property, which says, in part ...
When can I borrow someone's images for my blog post?
Images are subject to the same copyright and fair use laws as written materials, so here too you'll want to think about the fair use factors that might apply. Is the image used in a transformative way? Are you taking only what's necessary to convey your point? A thumbnail (reduced-size) image, or a portion of a larger image is more likely to be fair use than taking an entire full-size image. If you want to go beyond fair use, look for Creative Commons licensed images.
A good article on Fair Use can be found at Wikipedia, which says, in part ...
An important exception to this rule (Copyright) exists, recognized in a clause in the copyright act that describes a limited right to use copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder — what is known as fair use (or "fair dealing" in other countries, where standards may differ) ... Images - There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. These include:
* Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).
* Team and corporate logos. For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.
* Stamps and currency. For identification.
* Other promotional material. Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
* Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
* Screen shots from software products. For critical commentary.
* Paintings and other works of visual art. For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
* Publicity photos. For identification and critical commentary. See Wikipedia:Publicity photos.
If, through Fair Use, it's ok to post an image on your blog, what isn't ok is to link to the image. This means that the person who is hosting the image is having their bandwidth used everytime your blog loads (if I understand correctly).
I think that this is also true of music files ... linking to the html page that lists the link to the music is ok ... linking to the song itsself is not.
The person who brought this to my attention also told me that I'm not being very "Christian" in what I've been doing. I'd have to agree with him. My blog is often religious in content and I should have realized that I might be, to some people, an example of what a Christian is like ... Yikes!
I may never be a good enough Christian, but I'll try to be a better me, especially in the area of copyright infringement.
I'm seriously technically challenged, so I wasn't really aware of the stealing of bandwidth, but I must admit, I did realize I was on shaky ground by using images not my won. I decided to look into the subject further.
A helpful artocle on Blogging and image use is Bloggers' FAQ - Intellectual Property, which says, in part ...
When can I borrow someone's images for my blog post?
Images are subject to the same copyright and fair use laws as written materials, so here too you'll want to think about the fair use factors that might apply. Is the image used in a transformative way? Are you taking only what's necessary to convey your point? A thumbnail (reduced-size) image, or a portion of a larger image is more likely to be fair use than taking an entire full-size image. If you want to go beyond fair use, look for Creative Commons licensed images.
A good article on Fair Use can be found at Wikipedia, which says, in part ...
An important exception to this rule (Copyright) exists, recognized in a clause in the copyright act that describes a limited right to use copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder — what is known as fair use (or "fair dealing" in other countries, where standards may differ) ... Images - There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. These include:
* Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).
* Team and corporate logos. For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.
* Stamps and currency. For identification.
* Other promotional material. Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
* Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
* Screen shots from software products. For critical commentary.
* Paintings and other works of visual art. For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
* Publicity photos. For identification and critical commentary. See Wikipedia:Publicity photos.
If, through Fair Use, it's ok to post an image on your blog, what isn't ok is to link to the image. This means that the person who is hosting the image is having their bandwidth used everytime your blog loads (if I understand correctly).
I think that this is also true of music files ... linking to the html page that lists the link to the music is ok ... linking to the song itsself is not.
The person who brought this to my attention also told me that I'm not being very "Christian" in what I've been doing. I'd have to agree with him. My blog is often religious in content and I should have realized that I might be, to some people, an example of what a Christian is like ... Yikes!
I may never be a good enough Christian, but I'll try to be a better me, especially in the area of copyright infringement.
posted by crystal | 7:27 PM
8 Comments:
Crystal,
I find the post about the whole incident very Christian.:-).
Thanks for it.
Hi Paula :-). Thanks.
Dear Crystal:
You’re much too willing to accept criticism. Really. Stop it. The problem with this whole world wide web thing is that it makes simple mistakes like yours so easy. I mean bandwidth – what the hell is that? Even I had to look it up. I declare you guilty of an honest mistake. No biggie, especially compared to some of the shit I see going on down there, if you get my drift.
While I’m here, I might as well mention I get so friggin’ sick of listening to Christians telling other Christians they aren’t very good Christians. It smacks of passing judgement, you know? And that’s my job. And I would never make such a judgement based on such flimsy evidence. I mean please – what does this yahoo even know about you?
You’re a good person, which for me holds a lot more weight than being a good Christian, or a good Jew, or a good Muslim, Witness, Buddhist, Hari Krishna… whatever. Our buddy could give it a shot. You know, I blame Moses for all this. Or was it Noah? Anyway, I came down once a few years ago, said “Could you people please keep it down?” Moses, (definitely Moses – I can’t believe I mixed them up like that. Honestly, I’d forget my head if it weren’t screwed on.) Anyway, Moses started in with the “Guide us, O Lord”, stuff, and wanted a set of rules and whatnot. So I said, “Be nicer to each other.” That’s all, and if you ask me, it pretty much summed up all I had to say on the matter. But he’s such a fiddler, and he had to go and fancy it up until it was all confusing. But all I ask, is Try to be nicer to each other. A good start would be if people would stop calling each other names, like Not a good Christian, on their blogs.
Okay, gotta run – my coffee is ready and I like to start the day with a quiet moment and a bit of caffeine. You’re doing fine, but to whatshisname, the one who calls people names, you and I have a date later today in the woodshed. Bend over and grab your ankles, buddy, because I’m royally ticked, and I promise this is going to hurt you more than it hurts me.
Cheers,
God.
It's a good thing to know the boundaries. I use a lot of images on my blog and for the most part I don't worry about reproducing an image on my humble blog that has no commercial use. The bandwidth is another thing, since it would really affect someone else's operation. Still, if they were posting on the internet and you linked to them, wouldn't that be advertising for their site? It is better just to copy the image and upload it onto one's own blog.
I too think the "not very Christian" comment sounds excessive and not very... what's the word?... Christian?
I agree with "God" and Liam about the Christian comment. Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you can't make mistakes. Plus there is a difference between doing something intentionally and making a mistake/using bad judgement/not thinking things through. We're all human and making mistakes is what we do best (no offense "God"). We do the best we can and keep moving on. (I'm off my soapbox now) Hope you all have a wonderful day!
Wow - God, commenting on my blog!!! This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "friends in high places" ... thanks :-)
Hi Liam - yes, from now on, I'll not link to the photod's host. I really like your choice of photos, btw.
Sherri, thanks :-)
A co-worker made this comment this morning and I thought it very appropriate:
There's only ever been one perfect person, and you see what they did to Him.
Enough said. :-)
Sherri, :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home