Forum

[JohnSnow]

Originally Posted by Moon-Lancer

i don't have time to read this whole thread at the moment, but its a very interesting read so far.

To make the issue of digital ownership more fuzzy, how many of you here that venomously against piracy have ever used an avatar that you did not create (and i don't just mean you copped the image or added text)

Just to pick on someone i know heavily against piracy, JohnSnow, did you ask newline cinema or Viggo Mortensen for use of that image? do you think that you should pay a fine and are you comfortable in doing so?

My avatar, I made from scratch. I did not steal anyone else's intellectual property to give myself an online identity.

Hopefully you understand my point John. Also apologies if I upset you by using you as an example.

I'm just trying to show the issue is not black and white, or at least i don't see it that way. I don't know where i stand on the issue. Both sides have very good and relevant points.

No worries, I'm not the least bit upset.

To answer your question, if New Line Cinema chose to charge for the use of this image, I think they'd have the right. I would then have the right to decide whether or not to continue my use of the image. However, there's two possible arguments here:

1) I'm using a still image from one instant of a 3 hour movie. To call this "0.1% of the product" would be generous. Hence, if I own the movie (which I do, in multiple copies), using this image constitutes "fair use."

2) To some degree, said "extraction" is marketing (basically product placement) that actually helps the company. Hence, it's still "fair use."

There's a parody strip called "Bored of the Rings" that makes use of a lot more still images from New Line's films than my teeny little avatar does. And, since they don't profit from it, that's still considered "fair use."

Obviously, whenever someone makes money, it changes things a lot. However, there is still a threshold, even if nobody is profiting from it, where you have clearly transcended "fair use." Posting the entire movie online for anyone to download for free would certainly qualify.

But, by the same token, 1000 people colluding to get the entire text of 4e online by each posting one page is still not "fair use." By distributing copyrighted material over the internet, in my opinion, you have transcended "fair use" whether you profit by it or not.

(There's a "quality" argument too - that allows something like YouTube to skate 'cuz it's low-res. I don't know if it's got much of a leg to stand on legally, though.)