Respecting Copyright while sharing images and information

[blienemann]

A recent thread discussed an early German rifle illustrated in Moravian Gunmaking II, used one image of the rifle, and as the thread grew, the OP asked for additional views of the rifle to be posted. Ed Wenger’s prior post of a fine version of this rifle was linked, providing many good images. In this case the Kentucky Rifle Foundation (KRF) and I hold the copyright for the book, and we quickly discussed this request. I traded private emails with the OP, sharing info and answering some of his questions. The OP realized what he was asking and removed the post, for which we thank him.
 
The KRF is the not-for-profit educational and research arm of the Kentucky Rifle Association. It publishes high quality books and photo CDs, puts on fine exhibits, and sponsors a gunbuilding scholarship for promising young builders. This work is possible only through the efforts of many volunteers contributing their time, arms and knowledge, and funding raised through donations and the sale of publications.
 
We owe it to those who study, assemble, write, photograph, publish and display to support sales of their few products, to garner a little income and respect the copyrights. The same is true for magazines such as Muzzleloader, Muzzle Blasts or the Kentucky Rifle Association Bulletin. And for publishers such as Shumway and Eastwind Publishing and Crazy Crow. Posting images or text without permission is considered bad form, and is also illegal. In many cases the publisher will offer an image or information when permission is requested, and encourage those interested to consider purchasing a relevant book or photo CD to learn more of the topic. Many of us contribute our energies to this interest we share – not for monetary gain, but for learning, then sharing what we have learned.
 
These are my views as a long time student who has benefitted from the knowledge of so many, as a recent author who has learned the publishing and copyright business, and as a partner with the KRF and several magazine editors. I welcome other thoughts and opinions on this topic. But a good general approach is to ask permission to use text or images from a copyrighted published source before posting online. Thanks, Bob

[Carl Young]

With respect, I suggest that the original source is the best source:

Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

Bob I respect and admire all of the contributions you have made to ALR over the years. Like many others I wish I could get a complete set of all your pubs.

Best to all,
Carl (40 years before the Bar, and still just another darned lawyer!)

[Bob McBride]

 ‘Fair use’ solidly covers this. I can legally run a few copyrighted pics or parts of a copyrighted video/movie/documentary in the context of a relevant conversation on my channel without infringing the copyright or needing permission. To my knowledge I never have, but I could without concern. To give you an idea of the power of the ‘fair use’ doctrine being used at its limits, as described by Carl in his post, watch a song reaction video on YouTube. Just type in say, “Johnny Cash Ring of Fire reaction” in the search bar. Folks LEGALLY play (and make ad revenue on) the entire copyrighted song along with the copyrighted music video. Using a face camera that catches their real time reaction and a few pauses along the way to say what they think about a particular lyric or part of the melody, they are covered by ‘fair use’. (3 copyright strikes on a YouTube channel and your channel will be permanently deleted and you, the creator, will be lifetime banned. They are very strict on copyright laws.) Professional vocal coaches use this method as a tool to teach their students online and so can those random folks whose whole channel is made up of monetized song reaction videos. I can also make and post a video called “My favorite movie moments” with clips from my favorite movies and my thoughts on each of them without calling a movie studio for permission. Fair use. Legal. Posting these clips with no commentary or context. Not fair use. Illegal.

Posting a few pictures from a book in a thread that discusses the substance of the contents of the pics is solidly covered by fair use. To the OP, I’m certain posting anything like all the pics in the book, which would certainly show more copyrighted info than is discussed in the breadth of the conversation, would be a violation of copyright.

An interesting side note, churches have full copyright exemption regarding music and lyric use during their services but have no exemption during the time folks are walking into the church or afterwards in the vestibule or community room.

[rich pierce]

“Educational use” to me suggests classroom situations. For example a teacher of English literature sharing something from a copyrighted book, or a molecular biology professor holding a seminar on recent publications in a field, where the journal articles are copyrighted. Joe sharing something with Bill for free because though Bill has access (a book is in print) he doesn’t like spending money? What is not educational if that is the height of the bar?

[Dphariss]

A recent thread discussed an early German rifle illustrated in Moravian Gunmaking II, used one image of the rifle, and as the thread grew, the OP asked for additional views of the rifle to be posted. Ed Wenger’s prior post of a fine version of this rifle was linked, providing many good images. In this case the Kentucky Rifle Foundation (KRF) and I hold the copyright for the book, and we quickly discussed this request. I traded private emails with the OP, sharing info and answering some of his questions. The OP realized what he was asking and removed the post, for which we thank him.
 
The KRF is the not-for-profit educational and research arm of the Kentucky Rifle Association. It publishes high quality books and photo CDs, puts on fine exhibits, and sponsors a gunbuilding scholarship for promising young builders. This work is possible only through the efforts of many volunteers contributing their time, arms and knowledge, and funding raised through donations and the sale of publications.
 
We owe it to those who study, assemble, write, photograph, publish and display to support sales of their few products, to garner a little income and respect the copyrights. The same is true for magazines such as Muzzleloader, Muzzle Blasts or the Kentucky Rifle Association Bulletin. And for publishers such as Shumway and Eastwind Publishing and Crazy Crow. Posting images or text without permission is considered bad form, and is also illegal. In many cases the publisher will offer an image or information when permission is requested, and encourage those interested to consider purchasing a relevant book or photo CD to learn more of the topic. Many of us contribute our energies to this interest we share – not for monetary gain, but for learning, then sharing what we have learned.
 
These are my views as a long time student who has benefitted from the knowledge of so many, as a recent author who has learned the publishing and copyright business, and as a partner with the KRF and several magazine editors. I welcome other thoughts and opinions on this topic. But a good general approach is to ask permission to use text or images from a copyrighted published source before posting online. Thanks, Bob

If the book is no longer in print then the copyright cannot be enforced since there is no financial loss to the holder since he is not selling the photo any longer. And there are other grey areas as well involving education etc. What about photos from www auction sites? Is this not the same as public display? If I have someone I am teaching gunbuilding does this count as educational use? Does the copyright holder include his phone or address? How do we contact them to get permission?
Devils advocate stuff I know. But valid I think.

[Dphariss]

“Educational use” to me suggests classroom situations. For example a teacher of English literature sharing something from a copyrighted book, or a molecular biology professor holding a seminar on recent publications in a field, where the journal articles are copyrighted. Joe sharing something with Bill for free because though Bill has access (a book is in print) he doesn’t like spending money? What is not educational if that is the height of the bar?

Do classes at our guild meetings/fairs count as classroom? Does someone who has spent decades studying the construction and use of ML rifles rise to the level of a prof who learned it in a classroom in far,  far less time?  What about the almost full day I spent with a guild member this week, was my shop then a class room? Was this classroom work. It paid me nothing (there was no use of anything copyrighted anyway). The college prof is getting paid to use copyrighted material.
Copyrights are not absolute. As a I posted before how high are the hoops to jump through just to reach someone who can say yay or nay? Its a can of worms. Finally and this is important. What was the intent of the law when written? Is education defined?
Our Guild or individual members do not condone the distribution of copyrighted material except in a very limited way, like a few photos showing carving variations from one school/region of gunmaking to another, for example.

[rich pierce]

The churches I have belonged to respect copyright laws and purchase rights to share or show lyrics of songs they use.

[Bob McBride]

The churches I have belonged to respect copyright laws and purchase rights to share or show lyrics of songs they use.

Of course they purchase rights. They have for centuries. Most all modern churches today purchase a digital package that gives them the right to use included contemporary popular songs and print lyrics and sheet music for their musicians, but as I said above, this is needed for all uses that are NOT DURING THE CHURCH SERVICE. The service itself is exempt but churches often need more protection for music rehearsals, etc. This was traditionally all covered by the church’s hymnals which had copyright payments built into the cost of each hymnal. If a church uses only traditional, non-copyrighted songs, or only use copyrighted songs during the actual church service, as a small rural traditional church might, they don’t need to buy anything to do that, their exemption covers them. If those churches grow or change their tune, so to speak, and want to learn new copyrighted songs they traditionally were covered by the purchase of new hymnals that included the songs they wanted the choir to practice and then sing with the congregation. This has been done for hundreds of years and doesn’t change the fact that a small church that only sings copyrighted songs during their service needs no copyright protection, needs to pay no one, and aren’t disrespecting anything.

[Dwshotwell]

This is not a legal opinion… I think the main thing for a forum like this and a group of like - minded individuals is that we really do not want to hurt the publishers and authors who support muzzleloading while still promoting a free and fair exchange of ideas and knowledge. We want them to have an incentive to keep researching and publishing. There are a lot of grey areas here, but posting a picture in response to a question like “Can someone show me an example of XYZ” with a reference to where the picture came from and where more info can be found seems acceptable and fair use for educational purposes whereas posting whole pages etc. in a way that disincentivizes others from purchasing the book would be unacceptable (and probably a legal issue as well). Be respectful and use common sense / civility.

[Dennis Glazener]

The churches I have belonged to respect copyright laws and purchase rights to share or show lyrics of songs they use.

Our church does this as well.
Dennis

[Jakob]

The churches I have belonged to respect copyright laws and purchase rights to share or show lyrics of songs they use.

This is needed for any performance of copyrighted music in a public place and is a completely different issue. It's one of the ways musicians/composers make money and same system doesn't exist for printed publications.

Being an artist myself (in the film industry), I loathe the expression of doing things for 'exposure', but I think in cases like Ed's creation, I think a reference picture from the book, would be just that.
I went to the KRF website after reading the thread, but a front page picture of the book really isn't enough for me to drop $80 + shipping to Canada on it.

[blienemann]

Thanks to all for your thoughtful responses. Fair use is an important part of this discussion, and our alr.com community generally follows this approach. Sharing a photo or two here, or in a guild session or seminar fits the educational intent, and we are happy to support these efforts, though I cannot speak for other publishers.

Be careful with assumptions that a book is out of print. There are currently projects underway to update or reprint some of our favorites and offer them for sale. These projects will be announced when ready, but in the meantime it is always good to ask the author or publisher.

In our case the KRF’s mail address is given on the copyright page, and is available online – phone numbers and email addresses change frequently. That same info is provided in any magazine or other publication.

I ask for permission from auction houses before using their photos. Some are happy and even provide their original, higher resolution images, some want to know what the use is, while others say no thanks.

In the case of our MGM II book, we sought permission and then contracted with museums and historical societies here and across the pond to print a certain number of hardcover books only, so we have to respect the limits they placed on use of images. This applies to the Edward Marshall rifle, the smooth rifle twin, two Oerter rifles now in England and the Wm Henry, Jr pistols – perhaps additional arms if I look back at our permissions. Some of these groups gain income for their operations through the sale or licensing of images. Some were willing to work with us because this was an educational and Foundation / not for profit project rather than a commercial book. We also contracted with certain photographers for use of their photos in this one book only. Many fine folks volunteered their arms and their knowledge, but it was quite a project over three years to pull this information together. We want to live up to our agreements so that future students will be welcome at the same locations.

I think we are all interested in sharing what we have learned with others, and your comments fit pretty well together. Sharing some of the process we go through in putting out a book can inform each other.

This post was not meant as a promotion for this book or others, but if interested please see this thread when the book was published in spring 2018 for more information - https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=49282.0 Quite a few images and an overview of the content and context was provided. Questions are welcome.

Thank you again for this exchange of information and ideas. Bob

[spgordon]

If the book is no longer in print then the copyright cannot be enforced since there is no financial loss to the holder since he is not selling the photo any longer.

Copyright, fair use, etc. is very complicated--but the above is not accurate. Publishers retain the rights to material in out-of-print books. Many publishers make considerable income through licensing the rights to material from out-of-print books (permitting a chapter or a map to be reprinted, for instance).

For many years I believed that institutions such as archives (in which I spend many of my days) had the right to control how images of documents in their collection circulated. That is, I knew that I had the right to publish the text of the document, without asking for permission; but to use an image of that document, I thought, I needed to ask for permission. It turns out this is not the case, even though many institutions still imply/insist that it is.

There are competing "goods" involved in copyright law: (a) we want information to circulate; (b) the labor of those who generate and circulate information should be fairly compensated. As long as the spirit of this balance is respected, it seems to me that both sides should be modest in asserting their "rights."

Scott

[RAT]

I worked 25 years at a university library. Part of my job was instructing faculty about copyright. Even they get it wrong.

The correct answer for all copyright questions is... "it depends". In other words, there is no "this is OK" and "this is not OK".

There are 4 fair use factors. These factors have to be considered in their entirety. One regards educational uses or personal study. Most think that if it's for educational purpose, it's OK. That's incorrect. It's only OK if the other 3 factors also "lean towards" fair use. You need to look at it like a scale... balancing one way of the other.

Dan is partly correct. If the work is out of print... AND you have made a good faith effort to obtain the original... AND there is no "market effect" (i.e. permissions market)... then it leans towards fair use. Combined with educational use or personal study... not a commercial use... AND will have limited distribution... then you are OK with distributing copies. Copies to class members are OK... posting online for all to see is generally not allowed.

Clear as crystal... isn't it?

[spgordon]

Dan is partly correct. If the work is out of print... AND you have made a good faith effort to obtain the original... AND there is no "market effect" (i.e. permissions market)... then it leans towards fair use. Combined with educational use or personal study... not a commercial use... AND will have limited distribution... then you are OK with distributing copies. Copies to class members are OK... posting online for all to see is generally not allowed.

If by a "good faith effort" to "obtain the original" you mean to contact the owner of the copyright, yes--i.e. the publisher. My point was: out of print does not mean out of copyright, as was suggested. Many out of print books (such as Moravian Gunmaking I) are still under copyright to publishers who are quite active and easy to contact.

For the better part of a decade I ran a university press, which was part of a consortium with four other university presses. Many of our books and those of the other presses in the consortium were out of print. But the consortium made quite a bit of money from permissions for material from volumes that were long out of print--because the consortium still controlled the rights to those titles. When the consortium dissolved around 2009, the controlling entity sold off much of the backlist (the physical volumes) but kept the rights to the volumes so that he could continue to earn money off of permissions for material in out of print books. As far as I know, he still is.

I'd be thrilled if we lived in a world of "open access," but that is not the world we live in--and as long as we expect others to bear the financial costs (and risks) of publishing books and articles, we cannot expect that these books and articles can circulate freely without some compensation to the publishers.

[RAT]

The term "fair use" is written into copyright law (title 17). Judges will reference the text of the law when deciding cases.

Let's go back to Dan's point about classroom use...

I'm teaching a class to our gunmakers guild. There are 30 paid members. Non-members are not allowed. I'm providing a free handout to each member. The handout has copies I've obtained from various sources. I will quote the sources in a bibliography contained in the handout. Under fair use can I make and distribute 30 copies of the handout without getting copyright permission.

The use is educational in nature... which leans towards fair use.

It's not a "course packet" that students have to buy. So I derive no income from other's copyrighted material. That also leans towards fair use.

The distribution is limited. Which leans towards fair use.

The nature of the material is historical, and therefore "factual" in nature. This leans towards fair use. If it was "imaginative" in nature (songs, movies, etc.), it would lean against fair use. For example I couldn't show "the Gunsmith of Williamsburg" video in class because that would be a "public display" of a copyrighted movie. I would need permission from the copyright holder.

I'm limiting it to a couple of photos or quotes from each source. Therefore the quantity is limited, which leans towards fair use.

Is there a permissions market where the copyright holder could charge me? Maybe... maybe not. But this one factor doesn't trump all others. I feel safe using the material under the "fair use" provision written into the law. Why? Because taken as a whole the use leans in favor of "fair use".

For practical purposes, universities often use (non-legal) "guidelines" such as... "one chapter" from each source. Generally they follow court cases to determine what they're "guidelines" will be. They do this to stay safe from legal challenges. The big case 20 years ago was against Georgia State University. I won't quote everything here... you can look that up yourself... but we followed that case in detail as it was being argued.

A really good source for information is at the University of Texas website...

https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/copyright

My own philosophy... I make a "good faith" effort to stay within the law.

By the way... "good faith" is also a quote from title 17.

I won't post stuff online. You need to buy the book as I have done. However, I do feel comfortable distributing copies of some stuff to individuals if they ask... and if it's of limited quantity (i.e. one chapter or a couple of photos). I do this because it enhances our education of the subject... which... taken as a whole... benefits us all. And... it's my legal right to do so under the "fair use" provision written into copyright law. The rights of the author, photographer, or publisher are not absolute.

[spgordon]

I agree with everything that you've written here. I myself operate with a pretty liberal construal of "fair use" in my classes, in talks I give, and (probably too liberally) online. In books and articles that I write I bend over backwards to obtain permissions, in part because the publishers and journals require me to do so and will not move forward without permissions (even when, in some cases, I believe strongly that they are not required).

Again, the only point I wanted to make initially is that one cannot assume that because something is out of print that this thing is out of copyright. That had been stated: "If the book is no longer in print then the copyright cannot be enforced."

[RAT]

I believe that's generally considered true if the work is older than 70 years. Why? Because that's considered a reasonable life span for the original copyright owner.

I'll admit that I once made a personal photocopy of an original work... in it's entirety. Here are the conditions that made me feel comfortable doing so...

1. It was out of print.

2. The used market was extremely overpriced.

3. It was originally published in multiple volumes, and not all volumes were available on the used market.

4. In this case the publisher owned the copyright, not the individual authors (also something to watch out for). I contacted the publisher and inquired about purchasing a reprint or a scanned copy of the original. They had no interest in doing so.

I obtained copies of each original volume through interlibrary loan (which wasn't an easy task) and photocopied every page. I felt I had made a "good faith" effort to obtain the original before doing so.

The other part of this is whether you can find an attorney that will represent either party in the case... and finding a court that is willing to hear the case. Large publishing companies of academic journals have the means to have legal teams to bring these cases forward. Most people involved in our subject probably don't.

[spgordon]

I believe that's generally considered true if the work is older than 70 years. Why? Because that's considered a reasonable life span for the original copyright owner.

With semi-"old" books, as you say, it is complicated:



But this really wasn't what was being discussed in this thread. People were discussing quite recent books that were out of print--and for such books, it is not complicated. Merely because a book is out of print does not mean it is free of copyright. This doesn't mean that, under certain conditions (failure of a good faith effort to contact the publisher), one cannot responsibly re-circulate parts of this work. But that's the exception to the rule, which is that a book going out of print does not place it beyond copyright protections.

A friend of mine started a "Countdown to the Commons" announcements on Twitter--announcing when classics (Winnie the Pooh, say) have passed into the commons (out of copyright protection). NPR stole her idea!

Some of the classics of our field were published in 1960. These publishers would have had to renew their copyright to extend their rights beyond the original length of the copyright.

[RAT]

Going back to the original post...

My whole point is that I generally agree with the original post, but the copyright owners rights are not absolute. They have limits. We, as individuals, have rights too. These are specified in the "fair use" provision of title 17. We, as individuals on both sides have the responsibility to be aware of those rights and behave accordingly. Personally, I tend to stay clear of anything where I feel I need permission. The only case where that might happen is if I ever publish anything. Then it's clear that permission is a necessity.

I'm comfortable enough in my knowledge of copyright to make these decisions. What I won't do is ask for permission if I feel I don't need permission. I can't speak for anyone but me. It's an individual decision.

[Bob McBride]

Going back to the original post...

My whole point is that I generally agree with the original post, but the copyright owners rights are not absolute. They have limits. We, as individuals, have rights too. These are specified in the "fair use" provision of title 17. We, as individuals on both sides have the responsibility to be aware of those rights and behave accordingly. Personally, I tend to stay clear of anything where I feel I need permission. The only case where that might happen is if I ever publish anything. Then it's clear that permission is a necessity.

I'm comfortable enough in my knowledge of copyright to make these decisions. What I won't do is ask for permission if I feel I don't need permission. I can't speak for anyone but me. It's an individual decision.

I agree Bob.  If someone chose to make a feature length documentary about dumb guys who make Black Powder firearms movies they would be 100% within their rights to use my likeness, my Black Powder TV logos, snippets of my videos, and indeed entire videos (so long as they added value to his production) where he spoke over me or used little arrows or whatever to point to one particular idiotic thing I’ve done or another in the video to prove that I’m the grandest of all black powder video idiots on Earth and deserve to be the star of his show. When he is done with the documentary the images of mine that are in his production become his copyright along with the rights to the entirety of the production and I have no say whatsoever in the matter. If I were to give him a copyright strike and a court determined he was protected under fair use, which they would, I would be legally liable and he would clean my clock.

Also, the four factors of fair use give us a general guide for what is fair use in any random scenario but what is and isn’t generally accepted as fair use is usually well understood by the people in a particular industry where fair use is a concern. What I’ve described above is generally accepted as fair use in video production but it isn’t directly applicable to the music industry, say, but if you are adding value, new context, education, criticism, or are otherwise expounding on the original so much as to add new context, it’s generally fair use. Also, ‘education’ isn’t necessarily meant in the classical sense. If you use someone’s work to educate others about the work itself, such as what a film critic with a TV show does, that is educational in the fair use sense, and protects the critic when using snippets of copyrighted movies on his show. We copyright holders do have rights, but they end, as with all rights, at the tip of someone else’s nose.

[RAT]

I believe using the original for commentary, review, or what Weird Al does with music... is considered fair use and is OK. That's kind of what you describe with your video example.

Also... you don't have to be afraid to post photos on the forum... just ask the copyright owner first? When I was at the university I asked a few copyright owners just by sending them a friendly email. It doesn't have to be on some legal form. Sometimes you get an email back simply saying... "sure, that's OK". It doesn't have to be that complicated, and you don't always have to write a check.

[Bob McBride]

I believe using the original for commentary, review, or what Weird Al does with music... is considered fair use and is OK. That's kind of what you describe with your video example.

Also... you don't have to be afraid to post photos on the forum... just ask the copyright owner first? When I was at the university I asked a few copyright owners just by sending them a friendly email. It doesn't have to be on some legal form. Sometimes you get an email back simply saying... "sure, that's OK". It doesn't have to be that complicated, and you don't always have to write a check.

Weird Al is a great example and what he did was ‘transformational’ which is an important fair use term I’d forgotten to mention above.

[Bob McBride]

Here is an interesting short and fun video that covers the four factors, their use and limitation, the OP’s concern with what people do with images from a book that they buy from him (first sale rule), the importance of ‘transformative’ in fair use doctrine, and the overall widening of fair use today.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Bob, Weird Al is just plain great.