In message <06a001c67d24$f193d590$6400a8c0@Tiny>, Peter Mackay
Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay
In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a
photograph to which you do not hold the copyright into the public
domain is morally indefensible, even if it is a very small
sin and you
will get away with it.
This whole conversation is getting a bit silly.
If so, why keep on participating. Personally, I'm grateful for the
discussion steering me towards a possible solution.
But I don't
agree with your statement that releasing a copyrighted image
into PD (insofar as that's actually possible) is necessarily
morally wrong. Would my mother care if I published her photo
of flowers all over the web with PD marked on it? It is not
necessarily the case that any copyright holder actually
values that copyright. Therefore it is not necessarily the
case that violating it is actually wrong.
It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent is the same crime
as stealing a million.
Whether you are going to be prosecuted for it is an entirely different
Claiming copyright over something you don't own is morally wrong, even if
nobody gives a rat's bum.
Agreed, which is why we ought to have a licensing option which states
something like "Technically copyrighted, but copyright holder not
reasonably traceable or is indeterminable", and make it clear that this
is intended only to be used in the case of private images which have not
been published (in an effort to prevent it becoming a sinkhole for all
the copyrighted photos everyone wants to crib from elsewhere).