Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!arch_ems@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
From: arch_ems@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Nagel freak needs *.gifs!!!!!! Please e-mail...
Message-ID: <4780@tank.uchicago.edu>
Date: 1 Aug 89 22:09:31 GMT
Sender: news@tank.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Graduate School of Business
Lines: 103

>In article <2685@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>, cab@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (CAB) writes:
>> 
>> The only place you err in your statement is where you redefine the fair use
>> clause of copyright law.  It is generally not permissible to take someone's
>> work without compensation, even if it is for private use.
> 
>Respectfully, I believe that private use is legitimate use.  For example,
>taping movies from HBO on your VCR for private viewing is is acceptable.  
>These are almost certainly are copyrighted materials and are used in whole.
>(This was a big court case several years ago and was ruled OK.)
>Taping a CD for my car is legititate use.  Copying a poem for school at the 
>copier in the *library* provided for just such use, is a legitimate use.
YES these things are covered by what is known as "Fair use"

FAIR USE A rule permitting the use of a copyrighted work, without
permission of the copyright owner, when done for private and
non-commercial reasons.

Fair use rulings are decided on a case by case basis and depend
upon a number of factors:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit, educational
purposes
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation
to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value
of, the copyrighted work
> 
>For works of art, typically, the artist *sells* the piece and relinquishes
>rights to the work.  That is, the buyer may display the work publically or
>whatever they wish to do with the work.  A Picasso book will credit the
>owner of the work (private or museum, not Picasso or his heirs) when they
>publish a reproduction of the work.  Permission of the owner is required
>not the artist, per se.
WRONG -- copyright law quite clearly states that mere ownership of
a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy does not give the
possessor the copyright.  The law provides that transfer of 
ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work
does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright.

> 
>Although I myself live by intellectual property and have the greatest 
>respect for others who live similarly, the photocopy of Bloom County
>I have in my office for my private use and the scanned and enhanced image
>of Bill the Cat (accckk!) that I have on a Mac disk for my private use
>are my business.
YES -- these are clearly covered by "fair use" as it is private,
non-commercial, and does not affect the market value of those
works or potential derivatives of those works.
> 
>Is there anyone here with a definitive "correct" legal viewpoint rather than
>the rank amateurs, myself included, pontificating on this subject?
>Which types of work have "private use/fair use" protection?  Which types
>of work transfer implicit copyrights to the owner, even if not protected?
>(Ie, most "art" is not copyrighted.  How does one copyright a sculpture or
>and oil painting?)
COPYRIGHT Protection exists for "original works of authorship" (and
this is very broadly defined) when they become fixed in a tangible
form of expression.  The fixation does not need to be directly 
perceptible (computer code), so long as it may be communicated
with the aid of a machine or device.  Copyrightable works include
the following categories (and define these very broadly)

(1) literary works;
(2) musical works; including any accompanying words
(3) dramatic works, including music
(4) pantomimes and choreographic
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings

This means that when the sculptor steps back from his work
and says "ah, finished" at that moment his work is copyrighted.
Copyrights generally last for 50 years.

> 
>I am curious, opininated and but not a lawyer.

I am also not a lawyer, just an interested lay person.  It
does seem to me that sending scanned images of artwork still
covered by copyrights around the net is a clear violation
of copyright law because (a) it is not for private use and
(b) it could impact the market value of such works.

> 
>-- 
>David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc.
>micropen!dave@ee.rochester.edu
> 
>"The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll

People who want more info on Copyright law or a bibliography
email me directly

arch_ems@gsbacd.uchicago.edu

--Edward Shelton, Project Manager
ARCH Development Corp.
The University of Chicago
1101 E. 58th Street
Walker 213
Chicago, IL  60637