Saturday, August 26, 2006

Message to people who 'own' online works

Before you start accusing people and threatening them with copyright infringement, you need to learn a little bit about copyright law - and the culture of blogging. There's a thing called fair use (fair dealing in Canada) and it provides exceptions to people who use copyrighted works. This helps to protect libraries, educational institutions, reviewers and news agencies. There is no mention of bloggers in the law, because blogging didn't exist in 1997, but when I 'report' on something I have found elsewhere on the internet, I am either reporting or reviewing it. This is covered under the law.

In Canada, the actual text of the Copyright Act on the Infringement of Copyright states (and I quote):

29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performerÂ’s performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.
1997, c. 24, s. 18.

(the next section, 29.2 is an exact copy of 29.1, but substitutes reporting for criticism or review)

Now, when I mention the existence of works on another site, I don't always mention an author. But this law was written before bloggers started 'linking' to works on other web sites. I believe the courts will see that hyper-linking to the source of a work is the same as mentioning the source, because clicking the link will immediately take you to the owner's / author's site and make available everything you would want to know about the author of the work. Which also makes it very clear that the work is not mine, nor am I trying to take credit for it.

So get off your high horses people and read the law before you harass, threaten and bully people who are in effect, just trying to do you a favour and paying you the biggest compliment by reporting on your activities. That's right - you are in essence kicking a gift horse in the mouth. So be careful what you wish for. You might get it. When bloggers become paranoid and stop reporting works owned by popular sites........... those sites don't stay popular anymore. And unlike us poor schmucks, you all are more likely in it for the money. Therefore - you have the most to lose.

Damn! We should be suing you and demanding a cut of all the money we've helped you make....

4 comments:

Karl Plesz said...

No. As we discussed earlier - we have to choose our battles carefully. Bell is just a little big for my liking to start a war with. But I am still in discussions with them over exactly what I supposedly did wrong.

This was more of a soap-box rant.

Karl Plesz said...

Oh - and I'm taking Worth1000 to task over their little disclaimer too.

Anonymous said...

Maxflex says,

Why suing, why not start a boycott. I am sure the word would spread quickly throughout the community.

Ernest Pedersen said...

Those professional photos of JonBenet Ramsey that you've been seeing for years, apparently have been broadcast (and continue to be broadcast) in direct violation of U.S. Copyright laws...and the photographers who took the pictures now want the networks and the papers to pay the piper.

NBC has paid up, as have several newspapers. AP and Reuters have issued mandatory KILL orders (bad choice of phrase), and yet the photos keep appearing.

Al Tompkins discusses fair use in the following article: http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=106490