By your logic if I created the pop Coke, I and everyone else should be able to just take it out of the grocery stores because it is just sitting there doing no one any good. It would be better if we all took the pop, didn’t pay for it.

The mentality that what is good for the masses is more important than seeing the creator paid for their work is a communist ideology.

Join the fun and enter the “Piss Off Lane Hartwell” video contest:
http://willvide...-video-contest/

Let’s face facts. Even if it were possible, in an ideal world, that such use could be considered okay and would not hurt photographers, musicians or other creative artists; the way the law is interpreted by courts and lawyers have made it impossible to live in such place. They have made the laws, and interpreting those laws, so strict and pharisaical that to not protect ones rights is tatamount to saying they have no rights.

If photographers don’t act like Hartwell, then future egregious infringement of their rights will be ignored by the courts. Courts and lawyers don’t allow discretion. If you let one person slide, you have to let them all slide.

So photographers, artists, movie makers are all stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they be reasonable, they lose ever right to protect everything. If they are hard nosed, the the whiny “I want it all for free” crybabies call them bullies.

Sorry, babe, but this world ain’t a Star Trek utopia yet. Money still greases the wheels of this economy. And as long as it does, and laws are interpreted in absolute terms by courts that despise subtlety and an ability to determine ones own destiny as one would like to, photographers have to be hard-nosed about protecting their livelihoods.

So stop blaming artists for protecting themselves. Blame the real culprits here. Courts, lawyers and the lawmakers who write shoddy legislation, and interpret laws in ways that do not serve all people.

This was a highly imitative, read unoriginal, attempt to gain attention for the purpose of self promotion. It stole the original work of many people. The “creator” of this “art” contributed next to nothing other than imitation of the truly creative video that preceded it.

Yeah, for this group, that’s the essence of art: dumb imitation. You folks need to get out of your cubicles every month or so. You have no notion of how illiterate you are.

Who but a bunch of illiterates could find this art or creative?

I hope the thief gets hammered in the courts. unimaginative little self promoters need to be restrained. They make very stupid decisions that harm others.

From Above:

Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

It was a commercial use for promotion.

2: the nature of the copyrighted work;

A Photograph was used

3: amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

The complete photo was used

4: the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The photo was seen by many. It most likely lowered the value of the photo

Look at the fair use page on the copyright website mentioned above. How was the use fair?

It does not matter how small the use was in relation to the video. That only matters in the amount of damages. The amount of use is asked in relation to the photo not the video.

Before I would initiate a DMCA claim, I would want to contact the infringer and attempt to resolve the problem. That might include billing for the use, asking that the content be removed, credit for continued use, or some other methiod. Copyright does not require credit or a specific payment. It does require permission of the owner unless the use meets the fair use exceptions.

BUT

You guys saying that fair use requires attribution/giving credit are just spreading some wrongness.

If it is fair use it doesn’t matter whether you give credit.
Conversely, it is polite to credit but that does not make it fair use.

From the copyright notice at the bottom of this page, it is also copyright infringment. Each post to the blog is a creative work and protectted by copyright law. The website copyright has a few aspects. It is a Collective Work which means that it contains contributions from many authors. The website copyright also covers the layout and design of the site.

As a photographer, I watermark images on my site. This does not stop theft and does make the images less appealing. I do this to have control of where my images are used and to earn a living from their use. If you are using a photo, words, song, etc created after 1989 it is protected by copyright:

http://www.copy.../public_domain/

Now if someone releases the work to the public domain through a creative commons or other tool, you can use it.

Lets look at fair use and the DMCA. Many have mentioned the threat of a lawsuit and why it was not filed. DMCA is the tool that resolves disputes about copyright theft with out lawsuits in almost all cases and protects website owners from claims.

A DMCA notice does not automaticly become a lawsuit. If the person who receives the notice files a counter notice, the content is replaced and a lawsuit can result. Only when you state under penalties of purgery that the content does not infringe is there a posiblity of a lawsuit.

The use was not in my estimation a fair use. Only if the issue went to trial would an abolute decision be possible. The other issue is damages. The damages would most likely be low. The potential value of damages has no bearing on the DMCA takedown.

I’m glad the DMCA exists to protect my work and the work of other creative people in the viral world we live in.

I don’t support all current copyright laws. The “Micky Mouse” provisions enacted that increased the term of copyright to corporations to 95 years is a mistake. The goal of copyright is to compensate creators for thier works has been part of English and Anerican since 1518. The first Copyrights were only to specific individuals for very short terms. I would support changes to copyright law to a much shorter term. I could live with an Author’s Life + 20 Years and 40 years for Corporate (work for Hire) works. The current law has terms too long. Watch out, sometime before November 18th 2023, there will be atempts to increase the Corporate Copyright term. Hopefully it fails and Mickey Mouse becomes Public Domain.