I don't want to get involved in this dispute but I do want to point out legal standings regarding what is called "fair use" under US Copyright law. Obviously if one hasn't copyrighted the material then there is no standing whatsoever to control it..... and the internet is certainly larger than the reach of US law... still having said that, it appears to me that Mr. Legault is legally entitled to use the works of Mr Vandebergh for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research" as outlined below at least in jurisdictions where US Laws apply, assuming Mr Vandebergh has copyrighted the materials in dispute..... http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law. Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work. The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission. When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney. FL-102, Reviewed November 2009 -----Original Message----- From: Ralf Vandebergh Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 8:50 AM To: SeeSat-L@satobs.org Subject: about frame sequences, images use and copyright Before I definitely disappear from this list the following; Recently Mr Legault presented over this list a page were he ‘analysed’ my images to discredit them. As a matter of fact, he did not even ask for permission to use the images. I remember an other amateur contacting him to use one of his own images for analysis, and he did not give permission. The worst is that at the end of his page he concludes with; no real detail, no real color based on his own thoughts. My presentation of images and animations is not based on subjective conclusions of one person, but they show what is really captured, and an expert in astro-imaging or even someone less then an expert is able to see what is a seeing artefact or not. This is clearly real: http://freeimagehosting.nl/pics/4eb40c5a3f0f55f3f8f618bbf1938c61.gif http://ralfvandebergh.startje.be/vieuw.php?qid=328303 I would ask again to Mr Legault to be so kind and remove the images from his page to not force the copyright rules. Best regards, Ralf Vandebergh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/private/seesat-l/attachments/20110528/b2fa404d/attachment.html _______________________________________________ Seesat-l mailing list http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l _______________________________________________ Seesat-l mailing list http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 28 2011 - 16:09:16 UTC
