Ray Saintonge wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Correct me if am I wrong somebody but I do believe that an image copyright holder has the right to keep a restrictive copyright on a full resolution image AND also spin off lower resolution versions under other less restrictive licenses.
You're correct, the full resolution graphic and the lower resolution graphics have seperate copyrights.
However in our case it would be better if we had the full resolution graphics available as if a graphic ever needs to be resized to fit the article better it is far better to change the size and then reduce the resolution of a graphic than doing it the other way round.
Having the full resolution graphics for material (other than original material from our contributors) would involve grater risks of copyright violation than reduced resolution images. Even assuming that there is unlimited storage space for these images, we have no practical use for most of the full resolution images anyway. Why not store them at the maximum resolution that we may reasonably require?
Storing reduced resolution images means that we have already addressed the substantiality factor for fair use. Anyone that copies from us cannot make his images any more substantial than us.
It seems very silly to store 1000 pixel images just because somebody MIGHT want to print them out or resize them one day... Before I upload my pics I reduce them to a useful screen display size - 200 or 300 pixels across depending on how much detail is in the image. If there is some kind of detail that I want people to be able to see in 'closeup' I'll also upload a fullsized version, but most of the time that's just not necessary. It's just inviting somebody to steal my work and make it their own!