Reusable Imagery: Half Empty or Half Full?
Alan Levine,
CogDogBlog,
Oct 23, 2012
Alan Levine writes, "We have to do better at (a) being vigilant on using media that is clearly licensed to do so; (b) being equally vigilant on stating clearly and linking to the source of our media; and (c) being sharing enough to add what we can to the open licensed space." And he has a point. But. There are the essential principles of fair use (fair dealing in Canada, which has similar provisions) that judges consider:
- the purpose and character of your use
- the nature of the copyrighted work
- the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market.
So, consider the implications for an image found on some website and reposted, say, here. The purpose is educational, non-profit, and typically taken from the post it illustrates. It's a single image that already appears on the open web. It's shown thumbnail size, never more than 500px wide, and is itself a part of the site it illustrates. The effect on the market is either nil, or of net benefit to the image owner. Every one of my posts names and links back to the image used. So, on balance (and given precedent in such sites as Google and the BBC, I would state that I am well with the bounds of fair use.
See, that's the problem with making everybody license, and state licenses, and look for licenses, and be all persnickety - we risk lose the existing rights we have under common law and statute. (Image from Wikipedia).
Today: 9 Total: 1117 [Direct link] [Share]
