b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 7445402 (Thread)

# The difference here
is we don't make money from those images so we're either just about legal or at least not worth the effort of suing.

Zoo makes money from selling the magazine. They wouldn't be allowed to just steal people's articles off the net to print, nor would they get away with raiding the flickr pages of freelance photographers to reprint, for example.

Add to that the fact that you don't have permission to use the source images you use and you might be on shaky ground then allowing someone else to use the pics for gain.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:27, archived)
# Also
you say you'd be reluctant to stop someone doing something with a picture you'd made from other people's pictures.

Fair enough but you can't stop them. Actively telling them they can use them might sort of absolve them from any legal difficulty.

Don't actively do either one then all you have to worry about is whether you're okay making the pictures you make.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:33, archived)
# that last bit is more the side i was worried about
i don't want to expose myself to legal risk just by letting them print it. i was hoping that a fairly informal "well, i don't object to you printing it if you like, but bear in mind that it was made with the use of other people's work that i don't own the copyright to"
(I helped save b3ta! plentyofants more ghee, vicar?, Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:36, archived)
# They'll read that as 'Yes'
Especially if they also want you to actively email it to them.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:43, archived)
# no, they don't want me to email them - just email telling them it's ok to use it
and i presume (thinking about Barbarossa's comment), that just mailing the address with the subject couldn't considered consent to additional terms not mentioned in the gaz, as there can be no presumption that i would have seen & agreed to such terms (indeed, i haven't seen any)
(I helped save b3ta! plentyofants more ghee, vicar?, Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:49, archived)
# like I said, if you want the kudos then do it
but ensure you explain that it's created under a CC license ( and put it in your profile, linking to said license and tell them it's a one use deal for this issue.

I'd rather hope that you'd hold out though.
(I helped save b3ta! Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice, Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:52, archived)
# no. i don't really like zoo, so it's not about kudos (& they've used ones before, anyway)
it's more about what i'd see as the right thing to do, and not wanting to be hypocritical, given my own attitude to sources
sadly, i'd like to put my work under a cc licence, but there's only about 3 of them that don't use anyone else's work, so i don't feel in a position to do so. better to leave the legal situation murky rather than be accused of licensing out other people's pictures
(I helped save b3ta! plentyofants more ghee, vicar?, Thu 26 Jul 2007, 17:01, archived)
# If your work
is considered parody of the original then it can be deemed as 'transformative' and no-one can claim breach of copyright. I read it and there is legal precedence.
Mattel vs Tom Forsyth regarding food chain barbie. (cf. the 2003 9th Circuit case Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions). ( apprently)
(I helped save b3ta! Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice, Thu 26 Jul 2007, 17:06, archived)