Slashdot Mirror
Copying Graphics - What is Fair Use?
it0 asks: "I'm writing a web application and since I can't create good graphics, I'll be ripping them from other places on the web. The decent thing to do would be to ask permission, and at least specify where you got the graphic, however I don't see this happening much on other websites. Here's an example: I copied a trashcan icon that seems to be used by everyone and nobody seems to specify its original source. What about wallpapers? I've see a lot of models without references? I've also seen a lot of images that imitate the Windows GUI, and I've yet to notice anyone getting sued! For those interested, here is more information on the subject."
I think he was alluding to the fact that it's not always easy to finger out who exactly the copyright holder is on some of these images. Like the trashcan image that he mentions.... how does one go about finding out who actually created and owns the rights to that image?
Place sig here.
If you rip off my graphics.... then can I rip off your code? after all, it's the same thing, they're both just bits...
Why not hook up with an art student who would design the graphics in exchange for a screen credit? or contact schools, as a teacher could use your app as a class project.
The only problem with antihotlink stuff is generally it goes too far, and stops things like bookmarks, wget, or reload from working (because then there is no Referer). Instead of requiring that Referer matches the proper site, antihotlink stuff should just ensure that Referer does not match any site besides the proper one (because it may not match a site at all!)
(On a side note, things like frames and shockwave are evil for similar reasons... navigation and bookmarking difficulties. what ever happened to a consistent interface? isn't that what we strive for?)
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
I think that's harsh.
A lot of replies have immediately cited US law on the subject, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the world does not subscribe to such laws, or indeed have anything like the same "fair use" provisions within their intellectual property laws. In the UK, for example, there is very little provision for so-called "fair use", notably including the absence of any automatic legal right to make copies of things for personal use. In other words, for many people reading this, several of the replies to this post were the things that were totally wrong, and yet convinced they are totally right.
Morally speaking, fair use is a dicey proposition. You want to leave freedom for genuine study and criticism of works, but where do you draw the line? As the post everyone's objecting to noted, just because people would like something to be free doesn't mean it actually is, or even should be.
To use a more common example, is letting half a dozen friends all copy a CD I bought fair use (in the English language sense, not the legal one)? If so, then if they each allow half a dozen of their own friends the same privilege, and so on, then after not very many generations at all, everyone in the country has a copy of that CD. You've used a dubious loophole to mass-copy, just as P2P networks infamously do, and deprived the copyright holder of their exclusivity.
Even if you don't like the music industry and its pricing policies, it's hard to argue the same way against a self-employed electronic artist who earns their living designing custom graphics for web sites. And yet, if you decide that fair use should include the principle above, what's to stop someone depriving that artist of his or her livelihood?
So, while obviously US law provides for more fair use than the super-parent post gave credit for, I think that post still made some very valid points. The fact that it's been slammed and modded down so much is symptomatic of how few people around here actually think about why we have intellectual property laws. They aren't the problem with the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc, and they never have been. The problem there is really just plain old monopoly abuse. The principle of intellectual property is sound, and it's in so many legal systems for a good reason that hasn't changed with the advent of the Internet.
The person asking this question clearly knows very well what the answer is already: you should get permission before you copy original graphics on someone else's site, and if you can't get that permission, you shouldn't use them. It's really that simple, and I fail to see how even under US law any fair use provision is remotely applicable.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I notice that no sites are getting shut down who use GUI from an os. Or sites that have wallpapers from models or artwork. Both are common on the web.
In the same spirit you cannot have a fan site with pictures? I know fan sites have been sued in the past, on the other hand many other fan sites still exist.
Since so many sites seem to get away with it, I thought that perhaps there was a special excemption.
Ok, so you're obviously able to search google images for "trash" -- now search the web for "free clip art" instead.
This is a pain, and involves a lot of weeding-out of the popup ads and not-really-free clipart services.
It is WAY more work than searching google images, then right-click-save-image-as.
And it's legal, ethical, and all that boring stuff too.
--
I aslo have gotten hate mail back from the people who really did steal other people's work, and have seen cases where they simply forgot to cite the source once they had permission- easily fixed, that last one. The hate mail generally consists of, "who made it your business?" or extremely juvenile insults etc. Someone once threatened to sue me for harassment- that would be the one who stole the MIT paper. It's discouraged me from putting my own work on the web, to be honest, both my artwork AND my own research. I suppose i'll get over that. But in the meantime, i think that the appropriate thing for me to do is to always point out where i feel that there's serious copyright issues, as when what's obviously someone's signed artwork has been cropped to delete the sig and posted as a website element on another site.
Incidentally, i started doing this because an artist friend had exactly that happen to her artwork- the images of oil and acrylic paintings up for SALE on her site were copied and used. Cease and desist letters work, especially if you have evidence of copyright and cc the ISP, etc.
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
Please, for your own sake, if you cannot create the art yourself, find somebody. Taking art from other site is not only against the law (in most cases), but it's just plain lazy. What happens when someone recognizes the images? Will you be proud of the fact that someone else's stuff is on your site? Will you give the original artist credit?
This isn't like having an illegally obtained MP3 on your hard drive. Your web site will be out there for everyone to see! Take it from somebody who knows what it's like to be ridiculed for being lazy with his web site. Make your own stuff. You will be happier in the long run that your site is 100% yours. You can show it off with pride.
Wish I could, all I got is my stupid golf blog. I just used a standard template. You think I'm proud of it? No. I am not. But once I get my art made and my site totally re-done, then it'll be something I can use to pick up chicks!
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
Instead of using images.google.com, why do you not go to websites specialized on this topic?
Go to dmoz.org and browse through the categories a little bit, you will come up with following categories:
All you have to do now is to browse through the sites and have a peek at the license. Mostly you will have to give them some credit somewhere. If it is not clear from the license if you can use the images in a free software then contact the archive owner directly.
You do not get automatically right to use some image on your site/app only because everybody else is doing it.