• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Where do we stand on Internet Copyright Law?Do you see the image above the text? I chose it without the artist'sapproval fromthis websitebut traced the origin of the image back tothis website. Should I feel guilty about it? I've done it hundreds of times before. If I stand guilty of this crime, I stand guilty of manyothers too.I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume I'm not alone. TheInternet is a vast cauldron of video-sharing, link-sharing, knowledge-sharing, and yes, image-sharing. The spirit of the Internet seems to bethat of a free culture. We are less concerned with property rights incyberspace, and more concerned with community and conversation.I'm writing this essay because I want to know what are the claims toownership on the Internet. Nobody seems to know the answer to this
 
question. There is no absolute law we can refer to. And if there is anabsolute law, then the spirit of the Net seems to challenge that rule,provoke the law, even mock its upholders. But there are also some of us who place a high value on the individual and therefore demand theindividual know her work is being shared; we must ask her approval.If getting an artist's approval to post her image on my site is necessaryand universal, then I should probably go back and obtain a plethora of approvals. Surely some will not be granted and then I must findanother approval and another. Does it seem to you that this is the waythings work on the Net? Or do people merely take what they like (likemyself) and showcase it. Keep in mind in no way am I trying to pass off these images as my own. In fact, I credit the artists here. But I do notgo so far as to ask each and every one of them if I can post theirpictures. Many are in fact dead. The Internet poses this contradiction. We recognize that file-sharing isrampant and that the wheels and cogs of the Web involve adissemination of information; and yet we also feel the twinge of our oldsystem of rights, copy rights, property rights, etc. To what extent iscyberspace a common space? And to what extent is it privatized? Atwhat point should one say, "No, that's not yours; that's mine. I know Iput it out there for all of you to see, but I only wanted it to appear onmy site and not anyone else's."Luckily nobody has ever said this to me. And if they wanted theirimage taken down, I would immediately do so. But I do not feel theneed--in this wave of free-culture dissemination--to ask each artist forthe approval to use their image.I was provoked into writing this essay because of a post on a favoriteblog of mine. The article, entitled "How to use Hyperlinks in BlogFiction" didn't specifically address copyright, but the nebulous area of Internet copyright turned up in the comments.Bekah, a blog fiction writer, wrote:"Yes, linking to things should be fine, although not if you pretend it'syour own work. But otherwise, of course that works. But putting non-stock images in blogs-- definitely a copyright infringement, even if yougive credit. It is true that a lot of illegal activity occurs on the web, butit's also true that many lawsuits have followed. This isn't likely in anycase, but I don't want to get near that."I don't know much about the "many lawsuits" of Internet copyright law.What I'm more familiar with is the excess of abuses of copyright law.
 
Especially surrounding file sharing. In the music industry in particular,copyright law is bending toward the file-sharers' favor. Apple hasremoved the copyright protection on its mp3s and the music industryhas publicly declared that it will no longer sue individual file-sharers.Bekah continues:"That being said, I don't think it'll ever be okay to post someone else'spicture on your blog without permission, but I don't think that anyoneis suggesting that you can or should do that."Now, artists who do not want their images shared take precautions.Some photos on Flickr for example will not copy to your hard drivebecause the artist has formerly set restrictions on them. In this case, itis impossible for me to copy them and the issue is moot. But whatabout in the cases where I can copy people's pictures. Is it wrong?Another blogger, who runs an art blog called Vince's Ear, writes:"Well, Chris that's an interesting question because copyrights andcopyright law can be interpreted in a number of different ways,including in the courts. The main thing for me to know is somethingcalled "Fair Use." I won't be able to sell a copyrighted image in anycertain form, but I can perfectly legally display the image on my sitefor educational purposes."He goes on to say:"Sorry for such a long response but I'd mainly say if a blogger is justputting images on a site, there is no need to worry at all, it's Fair Use. If you were to print and sell the Novel of Life, make sure any illustrationsare in the Public Domain, or you have permission if they're not."I consider my writing educational and therefore the "Fair Use" clausemay apply to me. The educational purpose behind this essay (and itsadjoining image) is to make people think. But I must be honest here. Ipick the images for aesthetic reasons mainly. This reflects a deeperattitude I have about the Internet, art, and information.I suggest we are entering a new model of human relations, one basedon the macro level of exchange, not the micro level. The individual willbenefit from this system just as she benefited from the old system; shemay even benefit more. When information/art/work is shared by themedia, libraries, universities, publications, and organizations morefluidly and freely, there is less emphasis on individual compensationand more on communal benefit. Pictures, photographs, and images are
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...