Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[Skip_intro]

Just to play Devil's Advocaat - what if I "digitise" it into my fave 3d modelling program?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by elcreative

OK, I'll put in to simple terms... take Rodin's The Kiss - it is a sculpture - if you digitise it then it is not a sculpture (and for the nitpickers, ignore the upcoming joys of 3D printing for the sake of this discussion), it is a picture and is no longer the item intended, a picture doesn't give the same experience as a sculpture... and after reading through so much irritating misinterpretation of my original hypothetical item, I will leave you to discuss your own interpretations until the cows come home...

Same principle really. If the creator of the sculpture doesn't want to release it in a digital form someone will do it for them and give it away for free. There's nothing you can do to stop that from happening.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may be right, Greg, although I find it exceedingly odd that the law can prevent someone from using a photograph of their own property for a non-commercial purpose, but until the BBC request me to stop using the picture I shall assume that I am right and continue to use it.

The law can prevent me from taking photographs of pages of a book I own and using those photographs for non-commercial purposes. Legally, there is no difference between "a book" and "a sculpture" as far as IP law is concerned--the original creator has the right to decide what kinds of copies are allowed.

Is it reasonable for everyone who scans & distributes ebooks to wait for the copyright owners to contact them and request that they stop?

I have no wish for you to stop using the Dalek icon. I think it's a fine icon, and that your use is well within the US concept of free speech (I don't know how UK laws deal with that) and it causes no harm whatsoever to the original rightsholders. But the idea that some copies are obviously legal and reasonable, and others are not, because people "should just know" what the rightsholders want, and what kinds of restrictions are just ridiculous, has nothing to do with the legalities.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by elcreative

OK, I'll put in to simple terms... take Rodin's The Kiss - it is a sculpture - if you digitise it then it is not a sculpture (and for the nitpickers, ignore the upcoming joys of 3D printing for the sake of this discussion), it is a picture and is no longer the item intended, a picture doesn't give the same experience as a sculpture... and after reading through so much irritating misinterpretation of my original hypothetical item, I will leave you to discuss your own interpretations until the cows come home...

And if you digitize a book that was meant by the author to be printed on special paper, it is no longer the item intended, and it doesn't give the same experience.

[anamardoll]

I'm interested in this idea that the author's "intended experience" is somehow sacred.

You see / saw this with the Harry Potter eBook discussions, how Rowling was supposedly (according to the PR) fixated on ensuring that each reader have "the same experience".

Experiences are subjective. No reader has ever had "the same experience" as every other reader. If there was ONE copy of a book printed, and people could only come to that book from that one copy, they still would not have the same experience. Some readers would experience the book a certain way based on their eyesight, or their allergies, or their previous exposure to each written word's definitive and connotative meanings.

I personally think the very idea that the author can and should mandate the reader's experience or how the reader can approach the text is laughable. I see it on the same level as saying that authors should control when the tide comes in because it hurts their feelings if they don't. Good luck with warping reality to fit your narcissism, Hypothetical Author.

But, ah, that's my two cents.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The law can prevent me from taking photographs of pages of a book I own and using those photographs for non-commercial purposes. Legally, there is no difference between "a book" and "a sculpture" as far as IP law is concerned--the original creator has the right to decide what kinds of copies are allowed.

Is it reasonable for everyone who scans & distributes ebooks to wait for the copyright owners to contact them and request that they stop?

I have no wish for you to stop using the Dalek icon. I think it's a fine icon, and that your use is well within the US concept of free speech (I don't know how UK laws deal with that) and it causes no harm whatsoever to the original rightsholders. But the idea that some copies are obviously legal and reasonable, and others are not, because people "should just know" what the rightsholders want, and what kinds of restrictions are just ridiculous, has nothing to do with the legalities.

The copright notice should give you guidance here. If its not forbidden by the notice, you should be OK.
Of course, there are badly written copyright notices, but then there are badly written legal documents of all types.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The copright notice should give you guidance here. If its not forbidden by the notice, you should be OK.
Of course, there are badly written copyright notices, but then there are badly written legal documents of all types.

The copyright notice is not legally binding, other than declaring that the book (or whatever) is covered by copyright law. The text about what you can & can't do with the book is irrelevant. Books that say "No part of this book may be copied without publisher permission" are wrong.

[John F]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The copright notice should give you guidance here. If its not forbidden by the notice, you should be OK.
Of course, there are badly written copyright notices, but then there are badly written legal documents of all types.

Are you missing a smiley in your post.

I just finished an ebook. Here is the copyright notice:

Copyright @ 2010 by John Doe

So what guidance did that give?

I changed the name to John Doe, because I'm not sure about the copyright on the copyright notice.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by John F

Are you missing a smiley in your post.

I just finished an ebook. Here is the copyright notice:


So what guidance did that give?

I changed the name to John Doe, because I'm not sure about the copyright on the copyright notice.

Does prove my point that there are badly written copyright notices. Thanks for your support.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The copyright notice is not legally binding, other than declaring that the book (or whatever) is covered by copyright law. The text about what you can & can't do with the book is irrelevant. Books that say "No part of this book may be copied without publisher permission" are wrong.

Is that true or is it that publishers have given a general permission for a certain proportion of the books they publish to be copied for specific purposes?

[BaenSidhe]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Does prove my point that there are badly written copyright notices. Thanks for your support.

What are you talking about? The copyright notice, as specified by the US copyright office, is supposed to be "Copyright <year> <name>" or "© <year> <name>". And you're not even required to have that notice anymore.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by TGS

Is that true or is it that publishers have given a general permission for a certain proportion of the books they publish to be copied for specific purposes?

I meant that fair use allows a certain amount of copying without permission. Exactly how much, you get to find out by getting sued and going to court; there's no hard guidelines.

Some publishers say, "no part of this may be copied [blah blah] except for short excerpts in reviews," as a nod to fair use. But that's not accurate either--the amount that can be copied, and for what purposes, are not fixed, and the publisher doesn't get to decide the exact details.

For example, a parody could use extensive character & place details from the original. A critical analysis could grab whole paragraphs, possibly a whole chapter, if it were reviewed in detail and the whole chapter was necessary to allow that. According to the "NO COPIES AT ALL" statements, a parent can't even read the book aloud to their kids.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Skip_intro

Just to play Devil's Advocaat - what if I "digitise" it into my fave 3d modelling program?

It is still not a sculpture... it is a picture of a sculpture as it is very difficult to touch a 3D model on screen... tends to feel very flat...

[Ntsimp]

Originally Posted by John F

I changed the name to John Doe, because I'm not sure about the copyright on the copyright notice.

Then you created (and distributed) a derivative work!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by elcreative

It is still not a sculpture... it is a picture of a sculpture as it is very difficult to touch a 3D model on screen... tends to feel very flat...

A 3D printer make an actual copy of an object from a digital template...