Author Topic: Stock photos of scientists reveal that science is mostly about staring (Read 8912 times)

Pauws99 · « **Reply #25 on:** May 09, 2018, 07:11 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 09, 2018, 07:04

Quote from: Pauws99 on May 09, 2018, 03:32
Quote from: ShadySue on May 08, 2018, 11:45
Quote from: niktol on May 08, 2018, 10:20
Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on May 08, 2018, 00:06
Yeah... Stock photos of scientists shared by scientists reveal that scientists don't like to pay to use stock photos of scientists.

haha

would be funny to report a copyright breach to her department and see how they deal with that. And to her funding agencies.
It comes under 'satire', which - whether everyone likes it or not - is a 'fair use' legally.
Well thats something new I've learn't so day not a complete waste

For anyone else:
UK: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

In the US, the exceptions 'seem' to be more limited, but closer examination could suggest the fair uses are broader, but more liable to subjective interpretation:
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use

Thanks for that plenty to keep the lawyers in work

niktol · « **Reply #26 on:** May 09, 2018, 07:20 »

from the cited Stanford link

1) Parody
A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original.

Just as I thought, "by imitating" is the keyword here. Not by copying it and writing comments. Else I could provide access to any movie for free. All I have to do is write a funny comment about it.

2) A commentary allows reproducing only a portion

That's my understanding, not pretending to be a lawyer

Still not sure a University would love to get involved, their reputation is their number one asset.

I know someone personally who got fire for self-plagiarism, writing something that was written by him before, but not quoting himself. The uni lost overheads of a fat NIH grant, but thought it was worth it.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #27 on:** May 09, 2018, 07:25 »

Quote from: niktol on May 09, 2018, 07:20

from the cited Stanford link

1) Parody
A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original.

Just as thought, "by imitating" is the keyword here. Not by copying it and writing comments. Else I could provide access to any movie for free. All I have to do is write a funny comment about it.

2) A commentary allows reproducing only a portion

That's my understanding, not pretending to be a lawyer

It all boils down to "Fair Use" I think which being totally subjective is a lawyers paradise. I think theres a good argument that just downloading a straight copy and saying "this is rubbish" isn't really....but who is going to spend thousands dragging that through the courts.

niktol · « **Reply #28 on:** May 09, 2018, 07:27 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on May 09, 2018, 07:25

It all boils down to "Fair Use" I think which being totally subjective is a lawyers paradise. I think theres a good argument that just downloading a straight copy and saying "this is rubbish" isn't really....but who is going to spend thousands dragging that through the courts.

I wrote above (d*mn me, love to change my own posts), the guy was fired just on a tip, no action was necessary.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Stock photos of scientists reveal that science is mostly about staring (Read 8912 times)

Pauws99

niktol

Pauws99

niktol

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors