Mini-biographies

that's not true - you do not have permission to editorially alter the art of someone, what if I took one of your personal pictures and put something you didn't agree with on it? (as an example - I'm not going to)

Fair Use

Many photos include other copyrighted materials in them. For example, a street scene may include a billboard with an advertisement, a newspaper on a news stand and products in a store window. Less obvious copyrighted items could exist in the sculptural ornamentation of a lamppost, the patterned fabric of a woman's skirt and a toy held by a child. You could never track down each copyright owner for permission to use the photo. But you may not be out of luck if you want to use the image commercially.

While copyright law can be restrictive, it is not irrational. Copyright law includes the doctrine of "fair use," allowing unauthorized use of copyrights in certain circumstances. The courts recognize that free expression and avoiding law suits over minor issues are more important than protecting intellectual property rights.

The doctrine of fair use also means that copying will not infringe when the use is "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research."

Four factors are considered to determine whether the use qualifies under the doctrine: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted work.

So if the copyrighted material that appears in the photo is covered by these four categories, you do not need permission to use the photo. Still, it is always best to seek permission to use a copyrighted work.

How can I tell if my copying is allowed by fair use provisions of the Law?

There are no explicit, predefined, legal specifications of how much and when one can copy, but there are guidelines for fair use. Each case of copying must be evaluated according to four factors:

1. The purpose and nature of the use.
If the copy is used for teaching at a non-profit institution, distributed without charge, and made by a teacher or students acting individually, then the copy is more likely to be considered as fair use. In addition, an interpretation of fair use is more likely if the copy was made spontaneously, for temporary use, not as part of an "anthology" and not as an institutional requirement or suggestion.


2. The nature of the copyrighted work.
For example, an article from a newspaper would be considered differently than a workbook made for instruction. With multimedia material there are different standards and permissions for different media: a digitized photo from a National Geographic, a video clip from Jaws, and an audio selection from Peter Gabriel's CD would be treated differently--the selections are not treated as a equivalent chunks of digital data.


3. The nature and substantiality of the material used.
In general, when other criteria are met, the copying of extracts that are "not substantial in length" when compared to the whole of which they are part may be considered fair use.


4. The effect of use on the potential market for or value of the work.
In general, a work that supplants the normal market is considered an infringement, but a work does not have to have an effect on the market to be an infringement.

jespah wrote:

I know exactly how this feels.

FreeDuck wrote:

jespah wrote:

I know exactly how this feels.

Yep, that's my own sketch, I did it during the meeting on Wed. where we were told our company has been sold. No one in my group knows if they'll have a job in 2 months.