Re: Protecting Web Images...

Christopher Gwyn wrote:

> 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.
> > I don't think your statement is correct. The copyright law does not stipulate
> > that one has to "do something" with a copied work to constitute infringement.
> 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.)

Perhaps I misunderstood Paul's initial post (although I don't believe I did). As I read it, his concern appears to be the instances where someone *actively* copying his images (as in reproducing with intent to copy), which in my estimation differs from the passive, involuntary copy that occurs as a function of the technology (over which the average, non-computer-wizard user has no control). Please, please, p.l.e.a.s.e. .. . . . . . . don't take this statement as an invitation to debate the differences or lack thereof between the two or to revive the debate that raged on the list at length about what constitutes a copy in a "fixed" medium---it's been done, it's a separate debate, and it doesn't appropriately address the essence of what I believe Paul's concern is.

>
>
> > 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.

I don't know either, and because it never transpired that way, we can speculate but there is no definitive right or wrong answer to this.

> 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.

Again, if recollection serves, whether or not a copy "competes" with for sale copies is only *one* of the four factors of fair use. The fact that a copy doesn't compete with an authorized copy doesn't itself disqualify it from being considered an infringement.

Also, I wonder. . .how do you know whether the active, intentful copying of an image competes or doesn't with an authorized, for-sale copy? I don't see that such an assumption can be made. We don't know enough about Paul's images or his business to make such a statement. What if his sole source of income is derived from the sale of his pictures? If your "non-compete" assertion is based on platform that follows the "well, I wouldn't purchase it if I couldn't have it free" line of thinking, I don't view that as a qualifier for non-competing use.

Also, I have to confess, I am most decidedly *not* a computer wizard and as such, I still prefer the paper-and-ink thrill of reading. Nearly every publication I subscribe to has very definitely language that says some variation of the following:

        Authorization required for internal or external use
        Authorization required for personal use
        Copying in any form is forbidden without express permission

In fact, many go on to say that a more explicit written permission is required to "do something" further with them, as you put it.

>
> >>> 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.

In theory? Yes. In the law? Yes. In practice? Perhaps not. Such recourse doesn't come free, and it doesn't come cheap. While the premise and outlet may exist, financing that "recourse" is a horse of whole other breed. And, why even be saddled with that (pun) intended if you could query on possible prevention solutions instead (which is what I believed the nature of the initial post to address.)

>
> > The harm is that the right to copy is an exclusive right of the copyright owner
> > unless the person copying can prevail arguing fair use.
> 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?
>

Again,. . .why does there have to be "harm" in order for Paul to object to some usurping rights that he is supposed to have *exclusively*? Perhaps the "harm" lies in nothing more than feeling violated or cheated out of his supposedly-exclusive rights. Perhaps he is not harmed at all but speaks up based on his beliefs and principles. Perhaps he just doesn't think it's right.

Or, perhaps it's none of those things.

Regards,
Marty Received on Sat Nov 04 2000 - 21:13:21 GMT