Re: Protecting Web Images...

9ball[_at_]hostsite.net wrote:
> Christopher Gwyn wrote:

>> Paul McDermott wrote:
>>> I want to stop people stealing images...
>>         If all that happens is a copy is made (which is already something that
>> happens as a result of viewing the site at all) then there may not
>> even be an infringement. It is only if they copy and do something with
>> the image that questions arise.

        And yet looking at a webpage is not deemed an infringement, even though copies of the words and images exist on the harddrive of the viewer of the webpage for at least the length of time he or she is viewing the page. If it was not for that 'fact of technology' I would agree that simple unauthorized possession was sufficient for a charge of infringement. (Although, of course, not necessarily a conviction.)

> If
> recollection serves, there were eight photocopies cited in the Texaco case. Of
> those eight, he never used five of them after the initial act of copying--they
> were simply in his drawer for archival purposes.

        I believe you recall correctly. However, would the Texaco case have arisen if all of those copies were archival? I don't know, but it does seem less likely. Archival copies that are never accessed certainly don't compete with authorized copies for sales.... Similarly someone copying an image who never does anything with it (doesn't look at it again, doesn't distribute it, etc.) isn't competing with authorized copies for sales or anything else.

>>> I just want to prevent "save picture as" image theft
>>         Why? If all someone is doing is making a copy where is the harm? If
>> someone is actually committing an infringement - such as using the
>> image without permission on their website, or creating a derivative
>> version - then you already have recourse.

        The 'right to copy' clearly does belong to the author (aside from 'Fair Use') - but is there any actual harm from the act of copying itself? Or does the harm arise from what is done with a copy?

        It can be quite reasonable to want to prevent a harm by preventing an action that can allow a harm to occur (or an inaction - wear your seat belts!) - but believing that such an action is reasonable doesn't demonstrate that the harm itself lies in the action. (After all wearing a seatbelt does not preclude wanting to avoid a collision.)

> Paul shouldn't have to
> justify his reasons for exercising those rights.

        He, like everyone else, certainly does not have to justify any exercising of his rights. In my opinion though, he - like everyone else, in all situations - needs to look at whether the solution he is considering will actually solve the problem he wishes to solve, or produce the results he wants to achieve.

        If copying is the problem then using technological means to impede copying may be a good idea. If how to make a living off of graphic or literary creativity is the problem then receiving money and other compensations is more important than who does or does not have a copy.

        I am pleased that we are beginning to see more and more authors and publishers who are realizing that free digital copies - like library and personal loaning - are more likely to lead to increased sales than they are to lead to ruin. http://www.baen.com/press.htm#Library

	Cheers,
	Christopher

-- 
Christopher Gwyn
cgwyn[_at_]wolfenet.com