Forum unknown
· Forum Business
#TV Images
21 messages in this thread
What is the policy on uploading pictures digitized from network TV? Do the
networks allow us to distribute their copyright images for "personal use",
i.e., as examples of digitizing, or do they stick to the letter of the law?
They don't seem to mind when a newspaper or magazine uses an image from a
program as part of a review. Could you find out how they feel about us? –
don't want to get Compuserve (or me!) in trouble.
Thanks, Vince
Vince,
Straight up front — I don't know (but will find out).
Off the top of my head, however, the latest rulings about TV and
VCRs say that it legit to tape broadcast programs for personal,
non-commercial use — I don't see much difference in this case. If you
were using a personality's image or a program's logo (without permission)
to promote a commercial endeavor there would be infringement.
Steve, Vince asked an interesting question concerning copyright. I think
the next time I run into our Broadcast Standards Manager at work I'll
bounce the question off him. He might also know the network's position on
this. (We're a CBS affiliate). If I find out anything I'll let you know.
This also raises the question in my mind about such things as sound samples
like the "open the pod bay doors, Hal" that are floating around in demos.
Also digitized pictures out of books & magazines, music scores covered by
BMI, ASCAP etc. It seems to me we should investigate this issue so we don't
find ourselves as guilty as the software pirates. The more I think about
the original question, I seem to remember an entry on our station's rate
card concerning a fee for giving the right to use our video, I'll see if I
can find a rate card lying around to check.
Mike,
Yes — it is a very interesting question, and one that I do not pretend
to know the answer to (but am trying to find out).
My current understanding of the situation is this …
The most current Supreme Court decision regarding TV/VCR is that an
individual is allowed to tape a broadcast for personal, non-profit use. If
an entire broadcast may be taped for personal, non-profit use then the
capturing of a single frame of that same broadcast must be considered a
subset of the larger concept (again, for non-commercial use).
The 1976 Amendment to the US Copyright Act allows for 'fair use' of
copyrighted images for personal, non-profit purposes. This covers such
things as the artwork in DL 6 — many of those images are of copyrighted
cartoon characters — Bugs, Opus, Yogi, etc. As long as someone is not
trying to use those images for commercial gain, it is permitted. The same
'fair use' clause also covers the taping of record albums for PNP use.
So, until and unless I get a definitive answer that my conclusions
are all wet, we will allow the subjects in question to be made public. As
an aside, and speaking about digitized pics, anyone can take a picture, but
not all people are photographic artists. We do not make all digitized pics
public simply because someone can manipulate a piece of machinery.
Unfortunately, it seems that with the coming to market of digitizers for
the Amiga, we are getting many more digitized uploads than original
artwork. Obviously, I'd like to see that trend reversed.
I too would like to see more original work uploaded. I do grab frames
myself to cut pieces out of for use in personal projects, seldom do I use
the entire frame "as-is". I do not pretend to know a definitive answer, and
the broadcast law class I had to take has long since faded from memory. It
just seems to me that as soon as the pic is uploaded it has been changed
from personal use to public use and CompuServe is making a profit by
distributing it. I would think that would obligate CompuServe to pay
royalties to the copyright holders. I long for the days before copyright
when it was considered flattery to include portions of someone else's work
in your own. (ex. Classical Music Composers of old.) Again, this is just my
own speculation to copyright interpretation. I do know though, that our
local high school radio station has to pay BMI & ASCAP fees for the music
it broadcasts even though they can't make a profit since they are a
non-commercial station. Perhaps it would make a good online conference to
find a knowledgeable copyright attorney as the guest?
Yes — a CO on the subject would be a good idea. Unfortunately, I've
talked to several attorneys on this subject and they all disagree in one
area or another.
On the CompuServe side of distribution — they aren't making a profit
specifically from these files. They charge for connect time — whether you
are downloading a file or sitting at the Function: prompt. If there were
a surcharge for downloading, then it would be different.
Don't get me wrong, I favor as free a disribution of ideas and information
as possible, but I occassionally play "devil's advocate" as a
brainstorming technique to explore the implications of often overlooked
viewpoints. Looking at it from a copyright holder's point of view — if the
picture was not there to download, the connect time might not have
occurred. Therefore a profit was made. CompuServe must feel that downloads
are profitable or else they wouldn't have there policies of free upload
time or of the restrictions on passing along downloads to non-subscribers.
(or did that change? I haven't kept close track of those things in the
past.) I know what you mean about the lawyers — getting two to agree on a
lot of things would be a miracle. Perhaps we could get one of the Supreme
Court Justices in a CO….. (mind wandering off into the clouds!)
Don't get me wrong, I favor as free a disribution of ideas and information
as possible, but I occassionally play "devil's advocate" as a
brainstorming technique to explore the implications of often overlooked
viewpoints. Looking at it from a copyright holder's point of view — if the
picture was not there to download, the connect time might not have
occurred. Therefore a profit was made. CompuServe must feel that downloads
are profitable or else they wouldn't have there policies of free upload
time or of the restrictions on passing along downloads to non-subscribers.
(or did that change? I haven't kept close track of those things in the
past.) I know what you mean about the lawyers — getting two to agree on a
lot of things would be a miracle. Perhaps we could get one of the Supreme
Court Justices in a CO….. (mind wandering off into the clouds!)
I think that second paragraph is clouding the issue (if I may stick my two
cents in). The fact is that very few people would be in the forums in the
first place except that there are files to download. It would be like a
user's group that "rents" comercial software claiming that people join just
because it's a good way to waste a Saturday afternoon. The truth is that
CIS IS making a profit from those files, regardless of whether it makes a
profit from other things too. Also, I don't see how anything that belongs
to a corporation that makes money distributing products can be construed as
"personal, non-comercial" use.
As to your statement 'very few people would be in the
forums…….' The MAIN reason that I (among others) am member of this
forum is that this is about the best source of technical information about
the AMI and the NEWS is the most current. Most (certainly not all) of the
software can be obtained from users groups for less than downloading would
cost. If price is the only consideration then this is not the place to be
spending your time and money. However, if being able to talk with program
authors, hardware manufactures as well as many experianced users and
quickly obtain software, appeal to you then you have found the right
place. CIS rents computer and network time. These users groups are
essentially created by the users themselves. The AMI forum only exists
because it is active and supported by the users. The data base would not
exist if it were not for the contributions by persons that are not
employees of CIS. Your argument is similar to the idea that Amateur Radio
is a not 'non-comercial' service because most of the equipment is
purchased. Reading the CIS copywright statement would be useful and
possibly educational (no cheap shot intended as you may have already read
it but then again you may not be aware of its existance). 73s, bill
As to your statement 'very few people would be in the
forums…….' The MAIN reason that I (among others) am member of this
forum is that this is about the best source of technical information about
the AMI and the NEWS is the most current. Most (certainly not all) of the
software can be obtained from users groups for less than downloading would
cost. If price is the only consideration then this is not the place to be
spending your time and money. However, if being able to talk with program
authors, hardware manufactures as well as many experianced users and
quickly obtain software, appeal to you then you have found the right
place. CIS rents computer and network time. These users groups are
essentially created by the users themselves. The AMI forum only exists
because it is active and supported by the users. The data base would not
exist if it were not for the contributions by persons that are not
employees of CIS. Your argument is similar to the idea that Amateur Radio
is a not 'non-comercial' service because most of the equipment is
purchased. Reading the CIS copywright statement would be useful and
possibly educational (no cheap shot intended as you may have already read
it but then again you may not be aware of its existance). 73s, bill
I think that second paragraph is clouding the issue (if I may stick my two
cents in). The fact is that very few people would be in the forums in the
first place except that there are files to download. It would be like a
user's group that "rents" comercial software claiming that people join just
because it's a good way to waste a Saturday afternoon. The truth is that
CIS IS making a profit from those files, regardless of whether it makes a
profit from other things too. Also, I don't see how anything that belongs
to a corporation that makes money distributing products can be construed as
"personal, non-comercial" use.
Steve,
The reason I asked the question that opened this whole can of worms is
that, after several false starts, I'm now getting good results by
digitizing from 35mm. Kodacolor negatives. The DigiView manual doesn't
give much help with this, so I thought some of you might be interested in a
short summary of my method. I used the TV as a convenient source of
images, but could just as easily have used some of my own pictures (of
which I DO own the copyright).
Mike has raised some really interesting points – a lot of the stuff in the
DLs is protected by copyright and CIS might have to eliminate it to avoid
lawsuits. BMI and ASCAP can be really nasty.
Incidentally, new copyright legislation is being considered here in Canada,
and it proposes a fine of up to $25000 or a prison term of up to six months
(or BOTH) for anyone who "sells, distributes, exhibits or imports for sale
any illegal copy of a work". If "illegal" means any copy made without the
copyright owner's permission, I think we'll find that "distributes"
includes what CIS does (even if there's no surcharge for downloading).
Vince
As I said before, you do raise some valid points — and none that I care
(or feel capable of) answering. If there is indeed an answer, it is up to
the videotext industry to answer as this is not strictly only a CIS
(potential) problem — but effects all of the commercial nets and any bbs
system that charges a fee. For a view on this issue from CompuServe, you
might leave a msg to FEEDBACK and see how they handle it.
As I said before, you do raise some valid points — and none that I care
(or feel capable of) answering. If there is indeed an answer, it is up to
the videotext industry to answer as this is not strictly only a CIS
(potential) problem — but effects all of the commercial nets and any bbs
system that charges a fee. For a view on this issue from CompuServe, you
might leave a msg to FEEDBACK and see how they handle it.
Steve,
The reason I asked the question that opened this whole can of worms is
that, after several false starts, I'm now getting good results by
digitizing from 35mm. Kodacolor negatives. The DigiView manual doesn't
give much help with this, so I thought some of you might be interested in a
short summary of my method. I used the TV as a convenient source of
images, but could just as easily have used some of my own pictures (of
which I DO own the copyright).
Mike has raised some really interesting points – a lot of the stuff in the
DLs is protected by copyright and CIS might have to eliminate it to avoid
lawsuits. BMI and ASCAP can be really nasty.
Incidentally, new copyright legislation is being considered here in Canada,
and it proposes a fine of up to $25000 or a prison term of up to six months
(or BOTH) for anyone who "sells, distributes, exhibits or imports for sale
any illegal copy of a work". If "illegal" means any copy made without the
copyright owner's permission, I think we'll find that "distributes"
includes what CIS does (even if there's no surcharge for downloading).
Vince
Yes — a CO on the subject would be a good idea. Unfortunately, I've
talked to several attorneys on this subject and they all disagree in one
area or another.
On the CompuServe side of distribution — they aren't making a profit
specifically from these files. They charge for connect time — whether you
are downloading a file or sitting at the Function: prompt. If there were
a surcharge for downloading, then it would be different.
I too would like to see more original work uploaded. I do grab frames
myself to cut pieces out of for use in personal projects, seldom do I use
the entire frame "as-is". I do not pretend to know a definitive answer, and
the broadcast law class I had to take has long since faded from memory. It
just seems to me that as soon as the pic is uploaded it has been changed
from personal use to public use and CompuServe is making a profit by
distributing it. I would think that would obligate CompuServe to pay
royalties to the copyright holders. I long for the days before copyright
when it was considered flattery to include portions of someone else's work
in your own. (ex. Classical Music Composers of old.) Again, this is just my
own speculation to copyright interpretation. I do know though, that our
local high school radio station has to pay BMI & ASCAP fees for the music
it broadcasts even though they can't make a profit since they are a
non-commercial station. Perhaps it would make a good online conference to
find a knowledgeable copyright attorney as the guest?
Mike,
Yes — it is a very interesting question, and one that I do not pretend
to know the answer to (but am trying to find out).
My current understanding of the situation is this …
The most current Supreme Court decision regarding TV/VCR is that an
individual is allowed to tape a broadcast for personal, non-profit use. If
an entire broadcast may be taped for personal, non-profit use then the
capturing of a single frame of that same broadcast must be considered a
subset of the larger concept (again, for non-commercial use).
The 1976 Amendment to the US Copyright Act allows for 'fair use' of
copyrighted images for personal, non-profit purposes. This covers such
things as the artwork in DL 6 — many of those images are of copyrighted
cartoon characters — Bugs, Opus, Yogi, etc. As long as someone is not
trying to use those images for commercial gain, it is permitted. The same
'fair use' clause also covers the taping of record albums for PNP use.
So, until and unless I get a definitive answer that my conclusions
are all wet, we will allow the subjects in question to be made public. As
an aside, and speaking about digitized pics, anyone can take a picture, but
not all people are photographic artists. We do not make all digitized pics
public simply because someone can manipulate a piece of machinery.
Unfortunately, it seems that with the coming to market of digitizers for
the Amiga, we are getting many more digitized uploads than original
artwork. Obviously, I'd like to see that trend reversed.
Steve, Vince asked an interesting question concerning copyright. I think
the next time I run into our Broadcast Standards Manager at work I'll
bounce the question off him. He might also know the network's position on
this. (We're a CBS affiliate). If I find out anything I'll let you know.
This also raises the question in my mind about such things as sound samples
like the "open the pod bay doors, Hal" that are floating around in demos.
Also digitized pictures out of books & magazines, music scores covered by
BMI, ASCAP etc. It seems to me we should investigate this issue so we don't
find ourselves as guilty as the software pirates. The more I think about
the original question, I seem to remember an entry on our station's rate
card concerning a fee for giving the right to use our video, I'll see if I
can find a rate card lying around to check.
Vince,
Straight up front — I don't know (but will find out).
Off the top of my head, however, the latest rulings about TV and
VCRs say that it legit to tape broadcast programs for personal,
non-commercial use — I don't see much difference in this case. If you
were using a personality's image or a program's logo (without permission)
to promote a commercial endeavor there would be infringement.