Brangelina baby photo, Fair Use and the DMCA or What TimeWarnerAOL is willing to do for total control of the internet

I was once, and it hasn't changed much. My separate front-pager qualifies as fair use because it's commentary-criticism-education on social issues connected to how we sell our children to satisfy community clamoring, as does Liza's criticism-commentary connected to media issues. So it's more than CK's "news reporting" that is squarely fair use.

The fair use doctrine permits anyone to use copyrighted works, without the owners' permission, in ways that are fundamentally equitable and fair. Common examples of fair use are criticism, commentary, news reporting, research, scholarship, and multiple copies for classroom use.

News reporting = blogging.

The rule goes like this... you don't tug on Superman's cape... unless you like pain.

Why wouldn't these people try to protect a multi-million $$$ investment? She thinks she can get it for free just because she interprets the law in a way that suits here?

I think Liza skipped school the day they covered Capitalism 101.

. . . at all. She was ineligible because she never took the required prerequisite for modern capitalism credit, Exploitation of Innocents 101.

Don't even bother... Resistance is futile. Corporations have our government in their back pocket. Just take down the pictures, say "yes sir", and dont make eye contact. Piss them off and they might tatoo your arm and throw you in a gas chamber ("its only a shower")... Or worse, ship your ass off to Cuba for a little torture.

I wouldnt be surprised in this fucked up country.

cheers

Fair Use does not cover culturekitchen's use of the images.

Even if a blog were to be considered "news-gathering", Journalism is NOT covered by fair use.

"Commentary" is fair use if you postthe image, then proceed to do a critical analysis of the image itself (the actual work of art, not the subject of the art) or the creator of the artist.

To put it in clearer context: If you posted a copy of Warhol's Marilyn Monroe screen-prints, and used it to illustrate a story about Warhol, his artistic process, etc. it would count as fair-use. If you were writing an article about Marilyn, the use of the same image would not be fair use.

Journalism does not count as fair use. If it did, every publication would instantly have rights to every news-worthy image ever created.

Bloggers and other surfers would like to have all content for free. Of course they do, everyone wants everything for free - and are increasingly cheap, but this does little to pay the people who create this content for a living. It's also not how the law works.

Copyright is the means by which artists and copyright holders control the use of their work, and the value of that work (which includes future sales - which in turn allows content creators the ability to afford to live, and create more content).

It's really hypocritical for you to complain about a content owner wanting to keep fair control of their content. Culturekitchen takes money for ads, so any use of imagery on your site is commmercial. The very thing that makes companies want to advertise with you is your membership numbers - which are directly affected by your content. The content which you want for free.

So it's okay for you to make money from someone elses work, but not okay for them (the owners) to regulate how their property is being used???

That's just asinine.

I've been a commercial photographer for over 15 yrs, and I'm constantly amazed by people who call themselves publishing "professionals", yet have no clue regarding the rights and ethics regulating the industry in which they wish to participate.

It's this simple: As an artist/content creator, I can't afford to continue to make a living creating art if the uneducated continue to steal it without compensating me for my time, equipment and experience. If I (and all the other professional artists/writers/photographers/content-creators) cannot afford to make a living in our craft, we won't continue to create content professionally (or even close to full-time).

Then everyone loses - the content creators cannot continue to create content, content-based media ceases to exist (or at very best is only created by amateurs) and the vast majority of national and international news-sources dry up.

I'm not sure why you believe that you have a right to use something you didn't create or own just because you want to use it... That's amazingly arrogant.

An essential tool for every publisher should be a clear knowledge of the copyright laws.

Creative Content "licenses" are cute; but they scream "I am an amateur / hobbist".

As soon as I (and other media professionals) no longer have to worry about insurance, taxes, house payments, studio mortgage, advertising, food, etc., etc. I'll be happy to give my work away; but as long as I have responsible to pay my own way (as it is in any consumer-driven economy), then we would all appreciate it if you act in a manner that respects OUR rights and wishes as well.

Please read the actual law on Fair use:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/

... doesn't qualify as Fair Use.

My facts are straight; and my "bullshit" comes from over 15 years of experience in a field that you obviously know very little about.

Academics and self-proclaimed "journalists" (read: bloggers) often run afoul of the issue.

Copyright is not the problem.

The problem is rooted firmly in people who want access to artists and companies' work and property without wanting to compensate the creator of that work for their time, effort and market-value.

When an artist or company creates images/photos/artwork, they own it - and have a right to assign a value to it. You are not permitted to benefit from their hard work unless you compensate them for it. If you don't like the value they have assigned to it, that's fine - then you shouldn't buy or use it.

If a company or publication pays for the right to use a piece of art EXCLUSIVELY, they have paid for that right - compensating the creators of that work (and they pay much higher rates for an exclusive, as the creator of the work will not be able to recieve mutliple sales through other rights transfers.

I love how you sling insults at actual publications and publishers who are obeying the law, and paying for media rights that keep the creators of content in business.

It seems that your primary argument centers around the idea that You, and bloggers like you should have access to materials just because it exists...

Just because a car is sitting parked on the curb, should you be given a bypass key to drive it for "fair use"?

Do you walk into a resturaunt, eat, and leave without paying because food is everywhere and therefore should fall under "fair use"?

Of course not. Nor should you have access to media that other people created because you have access to a scanner or an internet connection.

You want the benefit of content for your blog, but are unhappy when the legal owner of that content tells you that you cannot have it.

That's the problem with most blogs - they primarily consist of whining presented in the guise of "journalism".

I're read your comments in several articles regarding Trademark and Copyright in various contexts - You clearly have little real knowledge of how copyright actually works. Which is embarrasing when you call yourself a "journalist".

Journalists fact-check, and know their subject before they comment on them.

Having someone set up "Movable Type" on a server for you does not make you a journalist.

Last note:
We aren't living in a democracy, The US is actually a Republic {w/ a capitalist economy}.

who (as her biographer reported) beat the hell out of her as a small child because he was an expert in your kind of fair use - no use! She and the neighborhood boys put on a play in her parlor on a rainy afternoon, a play she wrote based on an acclaimed book of the time. His intended paternal lesson by pummeling was that she was a thief plain and simple, stealing from that published author what was rightfully his. (He was a patent attorney, clearly biased toward the side of the issue that paid him the bucks to provide their parlor in the first place.)

His memorable lecture and extreme actions that afternoon (otherwise he ignored her emotionally) sounded about as loony to me as yours does. But we're all grown up here, and you won't be able to enforce your personal profit-biased "expertise" (LOL!) by beating into submission those of us more interested in the creative collective than collection from creatives.

Instead of bitching about your take on the state of our country, just go down to your local store and look at the pictures as you stand in line to buy your pork rinds! If you post pictures that aren't yours, your going to get your hands slapped.

I happened upon this blog as I was gathering information for a high school journalism class. They will have a field day with this one! Your inane arguments (JJ) are about as valid as a those of a freshmen explaining why they want the hall pass for the 40th time in a term. A first semester debate student would anihilate you in a second. You and Liza have absolutely no solid footing other than "I told you so!" And the example of Margaret Mitchell's father is an extreme (and also typical of a bygone era that is, thank God, no longer.) But, I do appreciate Liza's original piece. I was in need of example's of how blogs are not responsible journalism or even "journalism." Perhaps she should concentrate on her grammar and writing skills a bit more, then we may be able to understand her thesis and she wouldn't have to depend on copyright infringement to entice readers.

Your issue is with yourself, not with AOL/Getty.

You're right about "fair use", and that's coming from me, a pro-business guy, small-government guy.

Yeah, anyone can send a C&D under the DMCA, but it's up to you to defend yourself. In this case, you opted to put a neutral company (Simpli.biz) between yourself and AOL, and perhaps expected them to fight for you. My guess is that you're not paying them extra to act as your legal defense.

I suggest buying your own server, setting it up in your home/office, so that only you can take down images.

don't you think?

"How did we as a culture get us into this civil liberties mess? How did we as a country made it OK to make money out of taking away our freedoms?"