|
|
Post by Please Delete on Jun 11, 2009 5:08:34 GMT -5
The further I drift from college days, the more this comes to mind.
I'm curious about how people feel about scanning and posting images online. I've been thinking about it more and more: books that are in copyright (especially those in print and being sold in stores) were a labour to create. Buying them helps keep people researching (and publishing about) the topics we love. Thus, I'm rather wary of scanning images from books and posting them online, and I've often wondered what the ethical thing is. Note, I'm not talking about the legal thing, as I really don't know where it crosses the line.
It strikes me that, if you are using a book to support a position or give examples, then posting a scan of some part might be appropriate. On the other hand, that is distributing (at least in part) that author's work for free; in most cases, can't it be found elsewhere online?
I know that it is common practice to scan things in for personal use. I've done a bit of that, so that I don't have to go back to the library every time I want to reference something. Still, I don't send those images flying across the Internet. I might, in some cases, e-mail an image to someone to help describe what I'm talking about.
Then again, there are times when the images are extremely helpful, but you can't find it online. So how far do you go?
I know I might sound like a bit of a stick in the mud for asking this, but I'm curious what people feel is right in their own practice, and how you determine if posting an image from a book is ethically "fair use" vice "copyright infringement"--or does it matter?
-Ii
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsongriffin28 on Jun 11, 2009 5:35:52 GMT -5
Well, I have no problems scanning images for personal use. I don't post them and definitely don't claim them as my own. If they help exemplify something for and A and S project, in they go, but as I don't publish, I don't see it as harmful. When it comes to rare but extremely useful images other are not aware of, I have scanned in things from museum books.
I HAVE scanned posted, with accreditation, pics from publically available brochures, particularly things from Japanese temples. Since I can't take pictures inside, and often can't afford books they have on sale, it was best next thing.
I'm going to some publisher's hell aren't I?
|
|
Saionji Shonagon
New Member
One dreamed of becoming somebody. Another remained awake and became. (Found in a fortune cookie.)
Posts: 7,240
|
Post by Saionji Shonagon on Jun 11, 2009 8:39:05 GMT -5
Interestingly, this came up earlier this year: gurdymonkey.livejournal.com/303777.htmlShortly after my post, the individual in question took down the site and disappeared from my "friend" list without comment. Of possible interest: englishhistory.net/tudor/art.htmlWhat is missing from the BYU Scanorama post that prompted this thread is decent attribution. The book title was mentioned, but not the author - and none of the artwork posted was identified by title, period, artist(if known), or what institution holds it. While I'm sure the poster does not intend to claim any of what he found as his own, proper attribution of the artwork gives credit where it is due, demonstrates good faith in the exercise of fair use and most importantly, helps provide context for the artwork. |
|
|
|
Post by solveig on Jun 11, 2009 8:46:48 GMT -5
Noble Cousins! Greetings from Solveig! When it was last litigated, faithful photographic reproductions of 2-dimensional art which is itself out of copyright are also in the public domain. So, it's not even an issue of fair use. Although photography students are routinely taught that all of their photographs are copyrighted automatically under the Berne Convention and U.S. Law, there are exceptions to this. Well, I have no problems scanning images for personal use. U.S. Copyright Law generally allows making one copy for "study and research". Canada has a somewhat different solution. In Canada, you should generally use the photocopier in the research library. You are ethically obligated to disclose the provenance of your images. So, for example, I include a section of image credits after the bibliography at the end of my A&S handouts. Finally, publicly available web pages are generally considered to be a form of publication. You can use the web system to privately communicate things for collaborative purposes. But, once you link your stuff to a public main page, then it is published as you have made it generally available. |
|
|
|
Post by Date Saburou Yukiie on Jun 11, 2009 10:45:33 GMT -5
Having dealt with mundane issues of copyright in the past, I must say that Solveig-sensei's take seems quite correct to me....We are obliged to disclose the provenance of materials we will publish. I, for instance, had a French web site that supposedly was all in favor of the martial arts, the warrior ethos, etc, et al blatentely rip off some of my artwork I know they stole from my web site and publish it without links - without provenance...
It was a web site supposedly devoted to naginata fighting...but when I asked them for a simple link to my site from theirs, they plead lack of funds, no contact with their web minister...bla bla bla
sad indeed...
|
|
|
|
Post by roninpenguin on Jun 12, 2009 0:13:38 GMT -5
Also think of it this way, when you put a picture or part of the writing from any publication, or artist, as long as you are giving credit to those whose works your referencing, you are exposing more people to those works. Most artists would be very grateful if you expose a new group of people to their work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Date Saburou Yukiie on Jun 12, 2009 9:25:15 GMT -5
An artist is always thankfull for exposure - and good (proper) exposure is better than none......
Never let it be said that it is "Normal" for an artist to "Want" their works to be reproduced without their consent.
No artist wants their work reproduced beyond their legal, supposed, and obvious scope. While many seem to think that it is "Normal" for the unsavory to be allowed to exploit an artist..the opposite is quite the case..
This does not mean that the unsavory deserve to do such...
We (artists, writers, designers...etc...) expect to be treated as law-worthy individuals. We also expext others treat us the same...
Not as exploiters...for we should not strive to be exploiters...but as creaters...
Taking an image gleaned (ripped off) from a web site does not allow one to alter it and claim it as one's own...
OK - I will not hijack this thread or this forum more than is needed...
Respect Art - and the artist.
|
|
