they could assert copyright on a 300x300 image if they wanted
2007-07-17 19859, 2007
aCiD2
I partly agree, that's fair use policy, But it doesn't stop anyone from saying "I don't want that image up, take it off your site"
2007-07-17 19800, 2007
aCiD2
Exactly
2007-07-17 19812, 2007
Madness_
aCiD2: Don't get me wrong, I'm not mad or something at you for voting no on the images.
2007-07-17 19827, 2007
yllona
Madness_: well then you should no that there is a "fair use" of images as thumbnails, bit read the fien print carefully. and that useage still rests with the photographer. end of story.
2007-07-17 19837, 2007
yllona
*should know
2007-07-17 19839, 2007
aCiD2
Madness_: Then I'm glad you understand :)
2007-07-17 19846, 2007
Madness_
ojnkpjg: Yes, but there is a limit, I mean, if we keep up, people will start copyrighting colors. :P
2007-07-17 19802, 2007
aCiD2
Well hardly, because you don't invent colours
2007-07-17 19811, 2007
Madness_
aCiD2: Heh, it's not like I can't do 2+2, it's just that I hate how it adds up.
2007-07-17 19814, 2007
ojnkpjg
what's legal and what ought to be legal are completely different matters
2007-07-17 19840, 2007
yllona
they already have -- disputes over the use of color has been around for at least 100 years
2007-07-17 19843, 2007
yllona
or more
2007-07-17 19844, 2007
Madness_
ojnkpjg: What do you think about wikipedia's fair use policy for non-authorized images?
2007-07-17 19850, 2007
ojnkpjg
i don't know anything about it
2007-07-17 19856, 2007
ojnkpjg
i don't pay any attention to wikipedia
2007-07-17 19804, 2007
Madness_
I linked it before.
2007-07-17 19804, 2007
yllona points madness to the history of textile dye
2007-07-17 19810, 2007
aCiD2
Here's an idea that you may wish to raise on the list, Madness_ :
2007-07-17 19810, 2007
ojnkpjg
or pantone
2007-07-17 19829, 2007
Madness_
I'm quite allergic to mailing lists.
2007-07-17 19832, 2007
yllona
ojnkpjg: exactly
2007-07-17 19843, 2007
Madness_
I start to grow multiple arms or something like that.
2007-07-17 19847, 2007
aCiD2
Why not propose allowing editors to link to very low resolution cover art (we're talking thumbnail size), as long as they prove that they have informed the copyright holder?
2007-07-17 19829, 2007
aCiD2
That way, you don't have to wait for permission, but you've informed the holder, and made clear that you're willing to take it down if they wish. On the other hand, you might get permission to use high resolution artwork
2007-07-17 19857, 2007
Madness_
What about we slaps copyright holders silly for not taking an explicit stance on use on their copyrighted material on the web?
2007-07-17 19823, 2007
aCiD2
People *are* starting to take explicit stances
2007-07-17 19823, 2007
ojnkpjg
because musicbrainz isn't the forum for that?
2007-07-17 19823, 2007
Madness_
I mean, it's not like this is a NEW media.
2007-07-17 19852, 2007
Madness_
Yup, and websites are starting to become wai and 508 valid.
2007-07-17 19803, 2007
Madness_
;P
2007-07-17 19842, 2007
yllona
Madness_: get agrip section 508 compliance has been necessary since 1998.
2007-07-17 19800, 2007
Madness_
And it's being respected since?
2007-07-17 19813, 2007
yllona
as was stated above MB is the wrong forum for this sort of thing.
2007-07-17 19847, 2007
Madness_
I'm not trying to convince you or something, I'm merely chatting about that.
2007-07-17 19815, 2007
yllona
as for section section 508, as i was on the the dev'l satff -- if you were company with a US gov't contract -- damn well better respect it -- or lose your contract.
2007-07-17 19817, 2007
Madness_
I'm intrested in your opinions, but I'm not starting an all out war on the matter. :D
2007-07-17 19823, 2007
yllona
'nuff saud.
2007-07-17 19833, 2007
yllona
*said
2007-07-17 19837, 2007
Madness_
You were what?
2007-07-17 19818, 2007
yllona
on the original team that drafted section 508.
2007-07-17 19841, 2007
Madness_
Huh, funny, I'm surrounded by celebs. :P
2007-07-17 19854, 2007
Madness_
People who drafted stuff for w3c, wasp, and now 508.
2007-07-17 19804, 2007
Madness_
I got my bases covered apparently. :)
2007-07-17 19831, 2007
aCiD2
Heh
2007-07-17 19839, 2007
drsaunde notes he has "draughted" beer from a keg
2007-07-17 19848, 2007
yllona
nothing "celebrity" about it. accessibility is something i care about deeply. so i got involved. i didn't botch or whine about "right or wrong. i particoapted in the proces. that's my whole point.
2007-07-17 19813, 2007
yllona
i worked w3c too :P
2007-07-17 19828, 2007
yllona
and OMG. where are you going with this?
2007-07-17 19835, 2007
BrianFreud
w3c and mp3 standards here :D
2007-07-17 19855, 2007
Madness_
I already stated that I'm not going anywhere, just polling the audience.
2007-07-17 19847, 2007
BrianFreud
madness: On art/photos/pictures/etc, there are very tough laws - if you use art without permission, unless it's from a very special type of source - aka archive.org, cdbaby, other allowed art sites - the after-the-fact use fines can be hefty
2007-07-17 19821, 2007
aCiD2
Oh hi Brian :P
2007-07-17 19824, 2007
yllona
like $3000 USD per usage
2007-07-17 19826, 2007
BrianFreud
just depends which particular slice of the law we're trying to avoid
2007-07-17 19804, 2007
srotta
And depends on where the possible copyright holder decides to raise the issue.
2007-07-17 19809, 2007
BrianFreud
yllona: can be even more - my step dad had to sure his former publishers when they started trying to license his photos for various uses without actually having any ownership over the licensing rights
2007-07-17 19819, 2007
BrianFreud
*s/sure/sue
2007-07-17 19822, 2007
Madness_
The funny thing, is that 90% of the times this is a service for people who "stole" copyrighted material.
2007-07-17 19828, 2007
BrianFreud
not so
2007-07-17 19830, 2007
Madness_
meh, without the "" even.
2007-07-17 19858, 2007
ojnkpjg
how do you figure that
2007-07-17 19807, 2007
yllona
yeah, $3k is a starting point, gawd forbid the photo should feature a "human image"
2007-07-17 19809, 2007
BrianFreud
that's the most public face - tagging - but there are a number of licensees and free-groups also using the data
2007-07-17 19819, 2007
srotta
From the point of view of Finnish copyright (and other similar copyright laws, meaning at least Nordic countries, probably Germany and some others as well), Archive.org is clearly infringing copyright. There's no question about it.
2007-07-17 19839, 2007
yllona
or should i say "human representation"
2007-07-17 19842, 2007
BrianFreud
yllona: human is one thing... try architectural photography when entire blocks try to claim the rights over the image of their houses
2007-07-17 19815, 2007
BrianFreud
the (number? seven?) sisters houses in San Fran is a famous example...
2007-07-17 19823, 2007
yllona
BrianFreud: yikes. i don't want to even go there. i did my time with the national historic register ;)
2007-07-17 19824, 2007
BrianFreud
any time you publish a pic of that block, the house owners get a cut of the $$
2007-07-17 19849, 2007
BrianFreud
and hi aCiD2 :)
2007-07-17 19855, 2007
BrianFreud is just happy we now have the permission from ru to use the wayback machine :)
2007-07-17 19823, 2007
aCiD2
Oh, we do have permission to use that?
2007-07-17 19826, 2007
BrianFreud
yes
2007-07-17 19834, 2007
Madness_
Do we?
2007-07-17 19841, 2007
BrianFreud
6 or 7 weeks now, at least
2007-07-17 19857, 2007
aCiD2
That seems a little...odd
2007-07-17 19800, 2007
Madness_
On any site?
2007-07-17 19816, 2007
BrianFreud
you have to go via the wayback machine
2007-07-17 19822, 2007
BrianFreud
you can't directly address the image
2007-07-17 19834, 2007
srotta
Which magically cleanses the images from copyright ;)
2007-07-17 19836, 2007
aCiD2
Example?
2007-07-17 19839, 2007
Madness_
So my latest links are correct?
2007-07-17 19842, 2007
Madness_
srotta: hehe.
2007-07-17 19851, 2007
BrianFreud
aCiD2: Look up the Google image law decision, the decision from ru came down the next day
If you believe that MusicBrainz violates your copyright by linking to a Wayback machine image, please see CopyrightViolationNotice for details on how to report a copyright violation to MusicBrainz.
oh, and just a common courtesy, something we don't have in the wiki
2007-07-17 19853, 2007
BrianFreud
there is one commonly accepted exception to the above allowance
2007-07-17 19828, 2007
BrianFreud
DO NOT use it to link directly to Amazon images - even "customer supplied" ones. Find it somewhere else - too easy for us to piss off AZN and lose that $$ stream otherwise
2007-07-17 19801, 2007
aCiD2
Doesn't the ASIN give us the cover art though?
2007-07-17 19819, 2007
BrianFreud
not for customer supplied art
2007-07-17 19835, 2007
aCiD2
Ah
2007-07-17 19836, 2007
yllona
AMZN clears cover art usage for their web services.
2007-07-17 19841, 2007
BrianFreud
you ever seen a release with an ASIN, but only an empty grey box for artwork?
2007-07-17 19847, 2007
aCiD2 nods
2007-07-17 19852, 2007
Madness_
Yes.
2007-07-17 19853, 2007
yllona
but yes, not for customer supplied art.
2007-07-17 19805, 2007
BrianFreud
yllona: right: but if you bypass their webservice via archive, you're technically breaking that clause
2007-07-17 19834, 2007
yllona
absolutely. read the amzn developer license
2007-07-17 19843, 2007
BrianFreud
yup
2007-07-17 19856, 2007
BrianFreud
hence why archive->amazon (even customer images) = BIG nono
2007-07-17 19817, 2007
aCiD2
I still find it strange that we're allowed to use the way back machine
2007-07-17 19822, 2007
Madness_
I'll keep that in mind.
2007-07-17 19824, 2007
BrianFreud
thank Google :)
2007-07-17 19830, 2007
aCiD2
:)
2007-07-17 19813, 2007
BrianFreud
the US lawsuit they refused to settle cleared up a lot of legal greyness, so the MB lawyer then was actually able to give a legal opinion on it
2007-07-17 19840, 2007
gerald_ has quit
2007-07-17 19802, 2007
BrianFreud
<*speculation*> and just *maybe* the Google Print Reader lawsuits will eventually clear up the listing of lyrics...
