In a message dated 3/3/2008 9:19:05 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
Album or book covers are likely categories where we would have large numbers of images. Does it not seem strange that given the number of album coves illustrated on the net there is a complete absence of cases about album covers from an industry that is so famously litigious about copying its music? Maybe there's an unspoken industry standard.>>
--------------------------------------------
Exactly thank you. With all the hand-wringing over book covers and album covers and distributed pictures of living people, you'd think we'd hear about all these supposed lawsuits and costs and C&D's. And what we actually hear is complete silence.
Will Johnson
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
On 04/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
With all the hand-wringing over book covers and album covers and distributed pictures of living people, you'd think we'd hear about all these supposed lawsuits and costs and C&D's. And what we actually hear is complete silence.
What you actually have is silence as a result of people breaking their backs to intercept and deal with a fairly regular stream of legal demands (of varying levels of frivolousness) on a case-by-case basis. This quite often involves deleting stuff and going "sorry!"
This is the normal background churn, and you don't see it because it's discreet. So far, it has never got *worse* than that, which is what people are worried about.
On 04/03/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
What you actually have is silence as a result of people breaking their backs to intercept and deal with a fairly regular stream of legal demands (of varying levels of frivolousness) on a case-by-case basis. This quite often involves deleting stuff and going "sorry!"
Do you have any statistics for copyright queries to OTRS?
- d.
On 04/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
What you actually have is silence as a result of people breaking their backs to intercept and deal with a fairly regular stream of legal demands (of varying levels of frivolousness) on a case-by-case basis. This quite often involves deleting stuff and going "sorry!"
Do you have any statistics for copyright queries to OTRS?
Beyond "you see no shortage", not really. (Usual disclaimer: I haven't done much OTRS work in the past six months, but I don't see it changing!).
It's hard to be very clear - copyright is often entangled with another kind of complaint, occasionally an attempt at being a lever for something else. It's often invoked when it really shouldn't be ("this picture is of something associated with me..."), and it can vary massively in degree from "you're using my photo and I'm okay with that but please get my name right" to "you have ripped off the content of my entire website". There's the odd privacy one, too, which tends to get caught up with it - "you have photographed me and I'm upset".
It's usually *not* objecting to routine fair-use claims (eg album covers) - it's more often things like debatable claims of public domain status (photographs of artwork are perennial) which could go either way.
A large chunk of it is easily fob-offable, but there's a nontrivial amount of things that have to be quietly removed. I don't know what proportion of those have been mistakenly claimed as "fair use" at some point in their lifespan.