During class this week we discussed intellectual property, copyright, fair use, and plagiarism, leading up to citations.
I mentioned this article in class on Monday, but I would like for you all to read it and respond with your thoughts/opinions.
Wake Forest University
![[cupola]](/zsr/img/cupola.jpg)
Z. SMITH REYNOLDS LIBRARY
Information Literacy
Related Links & Other Resources
Search this blog
User Tools
Pages
- About This Course/Section
- Assignment: 1
- Assignment: 2
- Assignment: 3
- Assignment: Blog Posts
- Assignment: Group Report
- Assignment: Presentations
- Contact Information
- Grading
- Groups
- Helpful Links
- Presentation Ideas
- Schedule
Archives
Categories
- Announcements (1)
- Blog Response Topic (5)
- General (1)
14 Responses to “Blog Discussion Post #3 - Copyright and Intellectual Property”
This article discusses copyright issues as well as big corporations using others’ creative works without attributing the source.
I think if a firm is profiting off of an individual’s photo, artwork, etc, they should have to compensate the originator as well as cite the work’s source. If the work is for scholarly endeavors or for non-profit use, then I think it would be ok for another individual to use the item without compensating the originator. However, the article makes it sound like corporations are taking advantage of individuals who are unfamiliar with copyright laws or are unable to afford lawyers’ fees if they should file action against the company.
At first, as I was reading the article, I thought the woman with the pug and the girl at the car wash were being a little ridiculous. Granted, advertisers were using their personal pictures without obtaining consent, but using a photo sharing website entitles anyone to view your personal property. If something is private, don’t put it on the internet. That seems obvious. However, the Allison Stokke scenario sheds a different light on the situation. The attention she received is creepy — and hardly her fault. So, I suppose that if people can be exploited through this process, then preventative measures should be in place to protect images of individuals and their personal property.
If these people hadnt known the rules of copyright, they wouldve never known that they were being taken advantage of. I dont fault any of those who sued because of the pictures, because no matter how seemingly small the issue was, they felt that what was theirs shouldnt have been used without their permission. I also think that its a pretty lame excuse to say that the reason the companies took the photos was becasue they needed more authentic and realistic photos. Im sure that there was someone on staff who couldve provided pictures of the same type.
I find these accounts very interesting, as I consider the many times that I used clip arts and images found on the internet during high school without second thought. Though, the article clearly establishes the most problematic part of these cases is that they were used with the intent for financial gain. I firmly believe that teachers need to make a more concerted effort to ensure that students understand intellectual property. In conclusion, as an academic in training, this article and our class discussion reminds me of the importance of copyrights as I look forward to writing many publications during my academic career.
When I read this article I had mixed reactions towards it. On one hand, it is common sense to know that nothing you put on the internet is private. However, if industries make such a big deal about copyright issues for music and videos then it is only fair to respect the property of the “amateurs.” If a company is going to use a photograph taken from the internet for public use, the photographer needs to give consent and be credited and/or compensated for use of the picture. Copyright laws need to be respected by everyone, including those higher up. It is clear that these companies took the easy way out by using pictures from the internet thinking they won’t get caught and then blaming it on the interns. There should be a joint effort in solving this problem; the “amateurs” should be more educated about intellectual property and major corporations need to be more respectful regarding copyright laws.
This article keys in on an important issue of rights and what is protected on the internet as intellectual property. The realm of what is protected and what is considered fair use should have a clearer definition in my opinion because there are so many opportunities for the cases to get out of hand. I think that the internet opens up a different sense of security among people and in a way there is no ultimate privacy on the world wide web. A line from the article reads, “Clearly, the only way to really make sure your photos on the Internet don’t get splashed around is not to put them up there to begin with.” In a way, I agree with this quote but there should be protection over the creative, intellectual documents, photographs and ideas of all internet users.
I feel like regardless of whether or not these people made “too big” of deal out of their pictures, if they had been a big company, they never would have been exploited like that. A major company would , hopefully, never dream of stealing a picture from another big company’s website. Yet, somehow it is just fine for them to do the exact same thing to an individual? Hardly fair. Especially when you consider the kind of money they would have to turn over in order to have the right to distribute the image. Bottom line, these people are owed compensation not simply for the use of their image or based on its apparent value but based on what would have been paid to have the right to use it from the biggest company in the world. These people deserve money on PRINCIPLE. I do not even want to go into the fact that NO ONE felt the need to respect the rightful owners enough to even get permission to distribute the images….
I think that this article brings up a very complicated issue. I believe that there are a couple of different sides to this argument. One, since it is clearly not unheard of for people to take pictures from individuals’ albums posted on picture sharing websites, it should be obvious that if you don’t want your pictures spread all over the internet, then don’t make them accessible to others. Second, I can think of several times (when doing Powerpoint presentations and the like) that I would search Google images and copy and paste an image into my presentations without further thought. Also, this went on without further thought from my teachers or other classmates, who were doing the same thing. So, I am wondering if this technically would violate some laws. However, if an image is not copyrighted, then I guess it technically can’t violate copyright laws…maybe just intellectual property. Anyway, in the specific cases mentioned in this article, I would have to agree with the author that it is wrong for cooperations to profit off of others creative work without compensation and proper release/citation of the owner’s work. I think that the amateur should be treated just as fairly as big time cooperations and held just as accountable.
I understand the causality with which people associate use of material on the internet. It doesn’t seem like you are really taking anything if you download a song or a movie because you are not taking anything concrete. As long as this is considered illegal, so should the use of photos from the internet without proper permission and credit. I especially think this is true for large companies, who should be held accountable for copyright infringement the same way certain individuals are charged for illegal file sharing. I know I would not be happy if a picture of me on the internet from facebook or something ended up being reproduced and distributed in some way, I would definitely feel like my privacy had been violated, even though the pictures on facebook can hardly be considered private.
I understand the victims frustration. Plagiarism and copy right infringement should go two ways. It hardly seems fair that “regular” people must site and give due credit for every “big whig” source that we use, while it’s a question when the roles are reversed. Intellectual property goes for all people. It should not matter through what medium people are using intellectual property rights would always be protected. This will become particularly important as everything becomes more electronic and even more regular people get a bigger voice.
I understand why these people are getting upset but I don’t understand why they think it’s necessary to take to a national or legal level. It’s really not a big deal but on the other hand, these companies have so much money so why didn’t they get professional pictures of a pug in a Santa suit or a girl at a car wash? I think if Fox, Virgin, etc, personally asked the owners of these photos if they could use them in their ads they would give them permission. I know if I had a picture that struck the fancy of Fox I would happily let them use it. I’m surprised they didn’t think that this would turn into a legal issue because of the copyrighted notices on all of their TV shows.
There are clearly two distinct sides to this issue, which involves a variety of dynamics in understanding the cooperation of the big corporations and the Average Joe’s. These large names feel like they can use these pictures for different reasons. First, they find them on the internet, which is a location which blurred lines of copyright issues. This is where anyone can find full length movies and pirated music, but what comes of that? Therefore, these companies feel justified in using this public property. On the other hand, however, just as the article discusses, this is an age during which the public has become the producer of the art, so their rights should be just as upheld as those of the large corporations. The concept of “fair use” may be one possibility in reconciling some of the issues here. Perhaps if these corporations gave full credit to these sources, after contacting them about the intended use of such, then some of the problems could be reduced or even eliminated. And also, these Average Joe’s might want to look to further opportunities here. I know they want to uproot the clear hypocrisy inherent in the copyright issue, but maybe if they sought a deal from this or used their position to gain greater opportunities, then their discontent may also lessen. I’m not saying they should try to exploit these companies, just as the companies shouldn’t exploit the public, but if there were a greater degree of cooperation, then wouldn’t both sides win here?
After reading this article, I believe it is ludicrous that big companies like FOX and Virgin Mobile would not follow copyright laws while they constantly post notices and signs that they reserve all rights to their programs and services and any reproduction can be followed by appropriate punishment. Although I believe it is important for both large companies and individuals to follow copyright infringement laws, I believe it is more important for large companies to follow this law. FOX, for example, has the means to reproduce a picture to a large audience of millions of people. Virgin Mobile posted a billboard in which thousands of people would see the picture of the girl. Therefore, not only are they violating copyright infringement laws but they are allowing a large population to view private things. If a person was to reshow a game, it would only be shown to a small audience and not really be an invasion of privacy.
I personally believe that if you place pictures on the web, they are technically available for anyone to see and to copy on their computer. One should feel comfortable enough with the picture, knowing that they face the risk of having their picture taken. However, people that take the pictures off the web (including large companies and organizations), should make sure they are familiar with all the rules and laws regarding copyright issues. I thought the article was excellent in highlighting the mis confusions of this topic and describing the precautions that should be taken when dealing with pictures and personal property issues.