There's a fine line between referencing for the purposes of explanation (comment) and simply reproducing. J, as proprietor, is on the line for this kind of stuff. You can't be me, I'm taken
however, cartoons have been reproduced here before and not drawn criticism. I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but what are the rules on this ? I'm obviously not alone in not knowing. keep to the Fen Causeway
Most record companies, for instance, are wary of samples from other works and seek permission from the original mechanical copyright owner. In literary reviews, quotations from the original work are expected - but since these quotations only represent a tiny tiny fraction of the whole work, I can't think of any case where reviews have been subjected to court tests. Incorporating literary passages into other works (without citation) though, has been the basis of many court cases.
We are in a shifting paradigm. Viral marketing often depends upon the easy reproduction and dissemination of copyrighted works where the copyright holder foregoes their rights for other benefits. Where ubiquitous visibility is a marketing tool, copyright is often forgotten.
Within 10 years or less, the copyright landscape will have totally changed - however the EU tries to legislate it. The genie is out of the bottle.
We may reach a point where it is understood that nothing is truly original - every creative work depends on the audience understanding the references. Because you have to know the language before you can understand it, and all the works that have gone before have built that language.
There may be faster steps that appear to be more original by their disjunctiveness, but over time all steps can be traced back to the start of the walk.
As I said, it is a fine line, and can only be tested in court. I think we owe it to Jérôme to avoid that testing if possible. You can't be me, I'm taken
sorry if i put J at risk, i thought bart did the same thing! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
ET is not a commercial site - membership is free, there is no income. And it would be fairly easy to prove that the context is one of 'social commentary' in the broadest sense. As a non-lawyer, I think your posting of copyrighted material with acknowledgement, or with link to the copyright owner's original publication, is acceptable, though lazy ;-).
I have occasionally posted copyrighted photos from Finnish papers myself, where I could find no alternative - assuming, as you do, that it is unlikely that the copyright owner would ever find such a use. And if they did, would they bother to pursue such use?
But the fact remains - are you adding anything to the copyright by simply reproducing them i.e. within the context of political, social and business commentary in which they are presented)? It is a tough one.
more info You can't be me, I'm taken
