Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
New acsearch die match/previous sale function
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Severus Alexander, post: 3638012, member: 84744"]Thesis: [USER=112]@GDJMSP[/USER], your firm convictions about the implications of copyright law for CT are based on rather shaky ground. (Meant entirely in the spirit of friendly cooperation and improving things for you and other CT members! i.e. making the situation suck a bit less, using your terms. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />)</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You write as though the legal implications of fair use exceptions are settled. Looking into research on this, it seems rather the opposite is true. It's often said that the law is "purposefully vague." The constant refrain is that case law is not remotely settled in this area, and the only way to know what counts as fair use is to allow a court to decide. Even the U.S. Copyright Office says this:</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p><font size="3">Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts.</font></p><p><font size="3">— U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 21</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Probably even linking to the image isn't clear. Suppose the linked image is one that violates copyright. Have the courts decided whether the original poster or CT is legally responsible? Not as far as I know. I appreciate your desire to have clear rules, but I think the fact is that the rules simply aren't clear in many cases. You can't manufacture clarity from mud.</p><p><br /></p><p>That said, what <i>is </i>true is that requests from alleged copyright holders to remove alleged copyrighted material are usually complied with, because nobody wants to bother to go to court. Of course even if the request isn't complied with, usually there's no court case. With the result that the legal definition remains murky.</p><p><br /></p><p>So what is this "equitable rule of reason" in U.S. law? Here it is:</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p><font size="3">17 U.S.C. § 107: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —</font></p><p><font size="3"><br /></font></p><p><font size="3">(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;</font></p><p><font size="3">(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;</font></p><p><font size="3">(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and</font></p><p><font size="3">(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.</font></p><p><font size="3">— 17 USC §107</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Many uses of coin photos on CT would fall into the categories of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." I'm just going to comment on (1) to (4) as it pertains to the acsearch screenshots.</p><p><br /></p><p>(1) This is partly about whether your use of the material is a straight copy without additions, or if it is a "transformative" use. Using a screenshot of acsearch results in the context of a review of the site's function clearly qualifies as transformative. It also seems to me that CT is arguably noncommercial and (largely) educational, even though it isn't a registered nonprofit or educational institution.</p><p><br /></p><p>(2) This is about whether the original work is fiction, non-fiction, advertising, or such things. Not relevant here, I don't think, except insofar as it's relevant to point (4).</p><p><br /></p><p>(3) You seem to put a lot of weight on this one:</p><p><br /></p><p>The idea being that a picture is "complete" in a way that a snippet of text isn't. I get it. On the other hand, a complete sentence is complete in a way that a phrase isn't, and a complete paragraph is complete in a way that a single sentence isn't. "Completeness" is relative. And most coin photos occur in the context of an entire auction or sale catalogue. The Copyright Office's guidance to educators on this is relevant:</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">A single copy may be made of any of the following by or for a teacher at his or her individual request for his or her scholarly research or use in teaching or preparation to teach a class:</font></p><p><font size="3">A chapter from a book</font></p><p><font size="3">An article from a periodical or newspaper</font></p><p><font size="3">A short story, short essay or short poem, whether or not from a collective work</font></p><p><font size="3"><b>A chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon or picture from a book, periodical, or newspaper</b></font></p><p><font size="3">— U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 21</font></p></blockquote><p>The courts haven't extended this to screenshots from a search engine that, like acsearch, draws its entries from catalogues (of course!) but the natural inference would be that an isolated photo from an auction catalogue can absolutely be fair use if the other criteria are met.</p><p><br /></p><p>(4) This is about whether you're poaching on the copyright holder's market. Clearly the acsearch screenshots aren't doing that. Quite the opposite, they're getting some free advertising for their product.</p><p><br /></p><p>The case law on thumbnails (from <a href="https://www.photosecrets.com/fair-use" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.photosecrets.com/fair-use" rel="nofollow">https://www.photosecrets.com/fair-use</a> which I found to be a very helpful discussion):</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p><font size="3">Entire photos may be copied as thumbnails in online search results “if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use.” Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, 2002.</font></p><p><font size="3"><br /></font></p><p><font size="3">Google can provide thumbnails in a search under fair use as the images are “highly transformative” and are “an entirely new use for the original work.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2007.</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>In other words, acsearch (a search engine) can clearly provide thumbnails without permission from the copyright holder (although they do actually have permission). Can I then use a screenshot of acsearch results here in a discussion of their product? All of the above suggests that I can, and that CT should be fine with it, especially when acsearch is fine with it.</p><p><br /></p><p>In sum, I don't think either of these claims is true:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I think the case for screenshots from acsearch results incorporating only thumbnail photos in a review on CT constituting fair use is pretty much ironclad, and there is even a good case for us being able to use isolated coin photos from an auction catalogue, as long as they are attributed. I agree that using a linked image is best.</p><p><br /></p><p>So... can we relax those rules a bit to be more in line with the current legal picture of fair use? <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> I understand your wanting a clear rule that's easy to apply, which is what you're doing now. That makes it easier on you (I think? though maybe not), but harder on us. Fair enough, but I don't think you can justify this by appeal to legal clarity.</p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps you can at least allow my use of acsearch result screenshots in this post? <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Severus Alexander, post: 3638012, member: 84744"]Thesis: [USER=112]@GDJMSP[/USER], your firm convictions about the implications of copyright law for CT are based on rather shaky ground. (Meant entirely in the spirit of friendly cooperation and improving things for you and other CT members! i.e. making the situation suck a bit less, using your terms. :)) You write as though the legal implications of fair use exceptions are settled. Looking into research on this, it seems rather the opposite is true. It's often said that the law is "purposefully vague." The constant refrain is that case law is not remotely settled in this area, and the only way to know what counts as fair use is to allow a court to decide. Even the U.S. Copyright Office says this: [INDENT][SIZE=3]Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts. — U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 21[/SIZE][/INDENT] Probably even linking to the image isn't clear. Suppose the linked image is one that violates copyright. Have the courts decided whether the original poster or CT is legally responsible? Not as far as I know. I appreciate your desire to have clear rules, but I think the fact is that the rules simply aren't clear in many cases. You can't manufacture clarity from mud. That said, what [I]is [/I]true is that requests from alleged copyright holders to remove alleged copyrighted material are usually complied with, because nobody wants to bother to go to court. Of course even if the request isn't complied with, usually there's no court case. With the result that the legal definition remains murky. So what is this "equitable rule of reason" in U.S. law? Here it is: [INDENT][SIZE=3]17 U.S.C. § 107: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. — 17 USC §107[/SIZE][/INDENT] Many uses of coin photos on CT would fall into the categories of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." I'm just going to comment on (1) to (4) as it pertains to the acsearch screenshots. (1) This is partly about whether your use of the material is a straight copy without additions, or if it is a "transformative" use. Using a screenshot of acsearch results in the context of a review of the site's function clearly qualifies as transformative. It also seems to me that CT is arguably noncommercial and (largely) educational, even though it isn't a registered nonprofit or educational institution. (2) This is about whether the original work is fiction, non-fiction, advertising, or such things. Not relevant here, I don't think, except insofar as it's relevant to point (4). (3) You seem to put a lot of weight on this one: The idea being that a picture is "complete" in a way that a snippet of text isn't. I get it. On the other hand, a complete sentence is complete in a way that a phrase isn't, and a complete paragraph is complete in a way that a single sentence isn't. "Completeness" is relative. And most coin photos occur in the context of an entire auction or sale catalogue. The Copyright Office's guidance to educators on this is relevant: [INDENT][SIZE=3]A single copy may be made of any of the following by or for a teacher at his or her individual request for his or her scholarly research or use in teaching or preparation to teach a class: A chapter from a book An article from a periodical or newspaper A short story, short essay or short poem, whether or not from a collective work [B]A chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon or picture from a book, periodical, or newspaper[/B] — U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 21[/SIZE][/INDENT] The courts haven't extended this to screenshots from a search engine that, like acsearch, draws its entries from catalogues (of course!) but the natural inference would be that an isolated photo from an auction catalogue can absolutely be fair use if the other criteria are met. (4) This is about whether you're poaching on the copyright holder's market. Clearly the acsearch screenshots aren't doing that. Quite the opposite, they're getting some free advertising for their product. The case law on thumbnails (from [URL]https://www.photosecrets.com/fair-use[/URL] which I found to be a very helpful discussion): [INDENT][SIZE=3]Entire photos may be copied as thumbnails in online search results “if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use.” Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, 2002. Google can provide thumbnails in a search under fair use as the images are “highly transformative” and are “an entirely new use for the original work.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2007.[/SIZE][/INDENT] In other words, acsearch (a search engine) can clearly provide thumbnails without permission from the copyright holder (although they do actually have permission). Can I then use a screenshot of acsearch results here in a discussion of their product? All of the above suggests that I can, and that CT should be fine with it, especially when acsearch is fine with it. In sum, I don't think either of these claims is true: I think the case for screenshots from acsearch results incorporating only thumbnail photos in a review on CT constituting fair use is pretty much ironclad, and there is even a good case for us being able to use isolated coin photos from an auction catalogue, as long as they are attributed. I agree that using a linked image is best. So... can we relax those rules a bit to be more in line with the current legal picture of fair use? ;) I understand your wanting a clear rule that's easy to apply, which is what you're doing now. That makes it easier on you (I think? though maybe not), but harder on us. Fair enough, but I don't think you can justify this by appeal to legal clarity. Perhaps you can at least allow my use of acsearch result screenshots in this post? ;)[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
New acsearch die match/previous sale function
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...