Copyright and "Fair Use" - Photolaw.net

[erik1925]

If you are asking Melvin, I am guessing you might need to wait till he is back from figuring out where the EMP supersized image repository is located

It's already been considered, Steve.
 

[Charlie]

If you are asking Melvin, I am guessing you might need to wait till he is back from figuring out where the EMP supersized image repository is located

It's in Missouri...

[guest8]

Not that I am saying that he did it, but if he had, why would he admit it publicly on an open forum? That just seems idiotic to me, and as smart as Mel is I am not 100% sure that he's as good of a Hacker as you all seem to believe he is.

So make your assumptions on where he got the photos from and move on, you will either get no response or you will not believe his response. Either way, that has no bearing on the ownership of the rights for the photos of posters or artwork as they are displayed on the internet.

[Undead]

Not that I am saying that he did it, but if he had, why would he admit it publicly on an open forum? That just seems idiotic to me, and as smart as Mel is I am not 100% sure that he's as good of a Hacker as you all seem to believe he is.

So make your assumptions on where he got the photos from and move on, you will either get no response or you will not believe his response. Either way, that has no bearing on the ownership of the rights for the photos of posters or artwork as they are displayed on the internet.

Will he respond, I doubt it, he will hide away until he feels it has been forgotten in my opinion. If he does respond I will be happy to hear his side and if he poses a good argument that can sway me to his side I will admit and acknowledge that fact though I do not believe that is possible in this particular case.

For his skills, one reason that I keep referring to it as an exploit rather than a hack is you need no and I really do mean 0 programming and web programming experience to find and use this exploit when it exists on a site. You simply need a very basic understanding of how the URL works to use it and more people than not do not learn this one, they actually find it out by accident. The fact that he runs and edits, I believe he does it himself, his own site and site pages no matter how simplistic the build means he has to know how the URL works or his site would not work at all.

I am ignoring all other points of this thread for the time being and stating my own opinion about the biggest point of this whole annoying thing.

How the photos were obtained has a huge bearing on who owns and has rights to them. No matter which side of fair use you fall on or what the laws interpretation actually says which is wide open to debate by real copyright lawyers who specialize in this field which there are many that contradict Mel's statements. But we are not talking about and I have not used examples of photos at any time in this that were EVER part of the public domain or even viewable by the public either at all or without the owners watermark at any point in time in the past or present. These facts and the fact that as such could only have come from one location in both cases make it clear where they came from. They again are not out there to be had publicly.

Think of it this way. Someone has a shed with a bicycle in it. They lock that shed with not a high dollar super strong all the bells and whistles pad lock but instead use a cheap made in China lock that is easy to break. You then go and break that lock and go into the shed without permission and take the bicycle home with you and start riding it around. Does the fact that the bike was not secured as best it could have been an acceptable reason to take the bike? Is it not a crime to still take the bike just because you knew how to and could? Even if the bike was unlocked and in plain view you know it belongs to someone else, does taking it and painting it a different color and keeping it make it less wrong? This part is referring more to the watermarked images. Keep in mind that we again are not talking about or arguing about images that were made viewable to the public, not photos that were just out there, find them in a Google search or something. They were photos that were behind that locked door no matter how poorly locked it was, it was indeed locked. Or in the case of Heritage they are photos that were made part of the public domain but only with a watermark. Going behind that locked door again to the locked part of the site that is not made publicly accessible to get the photos without the watermark is the same exact thing. This is the true point here.

The fact that he is a lawyer claiming to know all the ins and outs of what he calls trying to mock me, the "Internetz", to me makes it even worse and frankly very disappointing on a human level. He as someone educated in the law, any law, should know better. He as a human being with, hopefully, a conscience should know better. On a simple human level we all I hope know better than to just go into someones house because we can and start taking things. These photos in question were not taking as part of an art project but as part of a business service that was sold to an individual and paid for. The content in this case is not even relevant, the fact that they are part of a paid for service gives them monetary value. He says we are only talking about movie posters here, how does that really make these points any less important. He as a lawyer and just as an adult I would think could also address this situation or walk away from it at his discretion. He could do either without trying to ridicule the person making his statements in a childish manner. He instead of addressing the comments that he feels are damming seizes on a spelling error on a similar sounding word that is actually used in the proper context and acts as a juvenile about it. He when he feels right rather than pose a clear and concise argument as I would expect from a lawyer calls us names or ridicules us. This actually answers more questions to me about him than I would like to admit.

[stewart boyle]

If you had asked me the original question,and your assumption of how I had obtained these images was incorrect..I would simply have replied,No.

Why would I be so reluctant to give such a simple answer to a simple question?
Filibuster by any chance?

Stew

[Neo]

The fact that a few of you are being overly harsh on Mel for copying the big photo, with a simple URL gimmick, is really petty.  It's a classic poster, that was meant to be shared with the public.  Since some of y'all with eagle eyes wanted to note that it came from Poster Mountain, then that's your prerogative, and it's good advertising for them.  It actually compelled me to check out their gallery and see a lot of awesome stuff they worked on, and it looks like they do great work. 

Mel graciously shared the facts about the copyrights for photos of posters, for the knowledge of everyone.  It appears that some people want to make the issue about the photo of the Kong poster and his responses (or lack thereof) into a big saga.  They're images of art, art that was created to be enjoyed by everyone.  Now I'm gonna go check out some more of the stuff in Poster Mountain's gallery, and probably add a few movies to my Netflix queue. 

[erik1925]

"Breaking" (hacking) in to a secured part of any website (let alone downloading pics or information, without permission), is illegal --- PERIOD. How it was done (the "simple URL gimmick" you refer to, or workaround) is a non-issue and irrelevant.

How would you feel if someone "got in" to your online bank, medical or credit card files, and then downloaded and/or posted them to some public forum? I'm assuming you would not be happy (or would you care less?)

It's the same thing here... whether they be poster images or bank or medical data; the info (in this case, large, high res images of pre- and post- restored posters worked on by PM) is from a secured part of Poster Mountain's website that is not available to the public or displayed online, in general.

Just because someone figured a way to access those images and download them, does NOT make it right, let alone the comment that even though one may have spent $1000. in rendered services, gives one the right to do so.

That is pure hogwash.

Copyright discussion is a whole other issue... done "graciously" or not. They are not one in the same; not by a long shot.

[Neo]

"Breaking in" to a secured part of any website (let alone downloading pics or information, without permission), is illegal --- PERIOD. How it was done (the "simple URL gimmick" you refer to, or workaround) is not the issue.

How would you feel if someone "got in" to your online bank, medical or credit card files, and then downloaded and/or posted them to some public forum? I'm assuming you would not be happy (or would you care less?)

It's the same thing here... whether they be poster images or bank or medical data; the info (in this case, large, high res images of pre- and post- restored posters) is from a secured part of Poster Mountain's website that is not available to the public or displayed online, in general.

Just because someone figured a way to access those images and download them, does NOT make it right, let alone the comment that even though one may have spent $1000. in rendered services, makes one entitled to do so. That is pure hogwash.

I understand if Poster Mountain has reasons for not sharing the large versions of the images with the public, and if that's the case then I'm sure they appreciate someone bringing it to their attention, so they can take measures to prevent it from happening again in the future.  However, Jeff, my bank, etc. info. are not the same as a photo of a movie poster.  Poster Mountain posted the photo to their website, intending to share it with the public.  I don't see the big deal about using a URL gimmick to share a large version of it.  Mike said that's it's a very simple thing.  We'll have to agree to disagree about the moral unjustness about that, as it was a a photo (albeit a smaller version, that they posted on a public website) of art that was designed to be shared with the public.  Whether that action is potentially illegal is probably something that only an expert could determine.

[erik1925]

I understand if Poster Mountain has reasons for not sharing the large versions of the images with the public, and if that's the case then I'm sure they appreciate someone bringing it to their attention, so they can take measures to prevent it from happening again in the future.  However, Jeff, my bank, etc. info. are not the same as a photo of a movie poster.  Poster Mountain posted the photo to their website, intending to share it with the public.  I don't see the big deal about using a URL gimmick to share a large version of it.  Mike said that's it's a very simple thing.  We'll have to agree to disagree about the moral unjustness about that, as it was a a photo (albeit a smaller version, that they posted on a public website) of art that was designed to be shared with the public.  Whether that action is potentially illegal is probably something that only an expert could determine.

Brandon.. you MISS the basic point entirely. The superize, high res images on PMs site are NOT available to the public, nor are they viewable on their website. Similar to bank info and medical records, those images are LOCKED down and not viewable to either the public or even those that created accounts and passwords to access said images. That ability ended over a year ago. I know. I emailed PM yesterday about when they locked the archive part of their site down and they gave me that answer. As mentioned prior, I had to obtain a temp password to look at the large, hi res images of MY OWN posters that they had worked on, for me.

You use the word "gimmick" as though it was no big deal. And when Mike talked about simplicity, he was referring to the more simple security measures that had been used to protect that part of their site initially. Simplicity was the reason it was being pilfered.

At this point, the Xlarge, hi res database is now no longer as "simple" to access from wannabe hackers. 

Hacking/breaking into a secure part of any website is illegal, Brandon.  That info is easily and readily available online. Check it out. 

[guest8]

I think the comparisons to bank accounts and medical records websites are beyond silly. As soon as those images were made accessible to the public the act of opening them is no longer "hacking". That is poor website design, it is not the same as walking into someones home and taking something. Because PM posted it for public viewing, unwittingly or not, that's what they did.

There was no gimmick, hack, or trickery here.. if you typed in a public web address into the address bar the image comes up. They need to fire or sternly talk to their web designer because they didn't do their job properly. Everyone knows that if you post a photo to the internet and its not a copyrightable image that anyone can download it and do as they wish with it. That is why people re-size images and use watermarks!!!

So PM messed up and posted something publicly that they didn't want to, they made a mistake and have corrected that mistake. Now everyone is trying to crucify Mel for supposedly having copies of those photographs. Get over this little crusade and move on, there was no wrong doing here nor is this thread accomplishing anything. Mel has his quirks and can ruffle some feathers and god knows that he and I have had our online spats, but I consider him an online pal and I know that he only has the best intentions for the hobby and gives a lot back to the hobby which is more than I can say for a lot of other members of this site.

[50s]

I know that he only has the best intentions for the hobby and gives a lot back to the hobby which is more than I can say for a lot of other members of this site.

In that case, I wonder if Bruce provides those with best of intentions for the hobby unfettered access to the EMP Supersize image archive. If not, I am not sure then that that is much of a reason.

You know how much effort Tang puts into his videos. Should they be taken and used on other web sites without his knowledge or approval. I wonder if you think his videos are also free for all's as they just show a poster.

[guest8]

In that case, I wonder if Bruce provides those with best of intentions for the hobby unfettered access to the EMP Supersize image archive. If not, I am not sure then that that is much of a reason.

You know how much effort Tang puts into his videos. Should they be taken and used on other web sites without his knowledge or approval. I wonder if you think his videos are also free for all's as they just show a poster.

Bruce is free to do with his pictures as he wishes. Im honestly not sure what you are trying to get at with this statement about Bruces site.

As for the Tang videos . I am not familiar with them, so I am going to have to assume that they are something more than a video of just a movie poster. Therefor there would be some kind of intellectual property that is also a part of the same video.

[Undead]

I personally think this is beating a dead horses bones to dust and the point has been made thoroughly and clearly enough that it is by choice if it is not understood or ignored regardless of the examples used but that is again my opinion and I am not faulting others for theirs. Just to help a few others who may not understand but would like to with specific excerpts from the actual laws I am using some excerpts from the actual law statutes in question. I hope this will help in understanding that this is actually a crime and a criminal act to perpetrate it regardless of what you may think of it now.

Lets define what has been been made public and what has not been made public as being what has been intentionally shown through proper means, links, images or pages publicly index-able on a website and what has not been requiring you to intentionally gain access to an area that you are not directly or intended to view without permission or added direction that is behind a password secured entry way aka a login screen/page. Lets start with the small images which are thumbnails of the larger images intentionally reduced in size to prevent the view of exact detail but give an overview and identification of the poster that work is to or has been performed on and were indeed made public and never were the issue here. Kong was just one example of this. The larger images with full detail were however NEVER made public and to access without permission required the act of bypassing existing security regardless of the securities strength or thoroughness and the individual did knowingly exceed his authorized access to a portion of a website. I do not think this can be in question. The watermarked images from HA are public, the non watermarked images are not public through intended means and again requires accessing through a means that is not intended by the owners/developers. This is actually how the law reads and is interpreted in regards to public and not public in this instance. Altering a URL that can be altered to access an otherwise inaccessible area does not constitute being made public.

The following is strictly about hacking or actually cracking as hacking is and has been used out of context for so long most people do not bother to correct it anymore including myself.

What follows here is taken directly from United States state and or federal law statutes in which the acts discussed did occur. Most countries including Australia, Canada and Great Britain have similar laws and definitions. I did not interpret the following, they are copied excerpts from the actual law.

Legal definitions to consider when reading-
"Access" means to instruct, communicate with, store data in or retrieve data from a computer, computer system or computer network.
"Computer network" means:

• a. A set of related devices connected to a computer by communications facilities;
• b. A complex of 2 or more computers, including related devices, connected by communications facilities; or
• c. The communications transmission facilities and devices used to interconnect computational equipment, along with control mechanisms associated thereto.

"Computer services" includes, but is not limited to, computer access, data processing and data storage.
"Data" means information of any kind in any form, including computer software. Yes this includes images.
The "Internet" is a hierarchy of computer networks and systems that includes, but is not limited to, commercial (.com or .co), university (.ac or .edu) and other research networks (.org, .net) and military (.mil) networks and spans many different physical networks and systems around the world.

Definitions of the criminal act-
Unauthorized access.
A person is guilty of the computer crime of unauthorized access to a computer system when, knowing that the person is not authorized to do so, the person accesses or causes to be accessed any computer system without authorization or exceeds authorized access.

Theft of computer services.
A person is guilty of the computer crime of theft of computer services when the person accesses or causes to be accessed or otherwise uses or causes to be used a computer system with the intent to obtain unauthorized computer services, computer software or data.

Misuse of computer system information.
A person is guilty of the computer crime of misuse of computer system information when:

• (1) As a result of accessing or causing to be accessed a computer system, the person intentionally makes or causes to be made an unauthorized display, use, disclosure or copy, in any form, of data residing in, communicated by or produced by a computer system;
• (2) That person intentionally or recklessly and without authorization:
•    a. Alters, deletes, tampers with, damages, destroys or takes data intended for use by a computer system, whether residing within or external to a computer system; or
•    b. Interrupts or adds data to data residing within a computer system;
• (3) That person knowingly receives or retains data obtained in violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of this section; or
• (4) That person uses or discloses any data which that person knows or believes was obtained in violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of this section.

If you wish to continue to defend Mel that is great and your prerogative and a credit to your friendship and hope that we all have such friends. If the images and they are many, I only used Kong as an example were in the public view I likely never would have said a word. If the response was an actual response or even simple shot at me rather than attempt to deflect and ridicule I may have had a snippy return of my own and let it go. It was not handled as such. Is it out of hand? If someone here learns something about the crimes committed and as a result is never caught doing so because they will not do it, great and I do not think this is out of hand. If you still think it is OK to steal, that is your prerogative I will just have to make sure the valuables are locked up if you ever come over my house. Is Mel a great guy? I have no doubt he is in most respects and believe that this issue no withstanding would get along with him just fine but not on this particular one and am sorry that some people feel that it is a crusade against him. It is not. For me it is about laws that have been broken intentionally and incorrect use of the reading and intent of certain laws used to make it look OK which may make others think it is legal when it is not. Is Mel a criminal, in this particular case my personal opinion is a crime has been committed but I am not an attorney and it is for a court to decide which I am sure will not and hope for his sake never happens.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

I've simply skimmed through the gibberish that Mike and his pals wrote.  Suffice it to say that I think we can all agree that we're right and everybody else is wrong and/or diabolically evil. It's too bad Mike (is that you NickLowe?) and Adam don't do anything on this forum other than start fights.  Jeff really does nothing other than praise others' contributions.  We can only hope they actually contribute something positive and original someday.

I will continue to post images of movie posters generally without crediting intermediary sources on this forum for the reasons I've stated and the authorities I've cited. If you think I've committed a crime and/or been un"fare," please call the FBI, the MPAA, the National Enquirer, or sue me. Whatev:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/O-YZqH0vX_o" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/O-YZqH0vX_o</a>

[Undead]

I think we can all agree that we're right and everybody else is wrong and/or diabolically evil. It's too bad Mike (is that you NickLowe?) and Adam don't do anything on this forum other than start fights.  Jeff really does nothing other than praise others' contributions.  We can only hope they actually contribute something positive and original someday.

I will continue to post images of movie posters generally without crediting intermediary sources on this forum for the reasons I've stated and the authorities I've cited. If you think I've committed a crime and/or been un"fare," please call the FBI, the MPAA, the National Enquirer, or sue me. Whatev:

And again a typical response with no meaning intended to ridicule or incite avoiding the actual issues and questions again.

Mel PLEASE do continue to post images, we all including myself love to see them. Just make them legally accessible images that you can and I will never say a word.

As to me not contributing and only inciting fights, I believe you are very far out in left field here and I will be happy to have you prove otherwise with real examples if you can find them, please PLEASE do so. I seem to have contributed information to this forum for identification as an example that you yourself, at least here on APF, fully acknowledged that has never been posted anywhere online before. Can you show me an original meaningful piece of research that you have produced or have you merely expounded upon others works for years? For Jeff or Adam not doing anything other than praise others contributions, I see no evil here. What other purpose would a thread like Show us Your Collection or Latest Acquisitions exist for? How could acknowledging someones contribution of information thanking and applauding them for doing it be wrong? Last, this is for others, who the heck is NickLowe?

I was not going to bother repeating these but since you are so intent on being a dick. Do you have an answer?

1. Did you or did you not access through means other than those intended by the website owners and or developers copy an image and or images from a password protected portion of a legal business or corporations website(s) without prior permission and re-post said images claiming FAIR use and or circumnavigate a websites efforts to display images with a watermark prominently displayed and added during the proper server call made at said site(s) through a URL exploit allowing the same said image(s) to be displayed in full without said intended watermark for the purpose of downloading and or re-displaying same said image(s)?

2. Have you or have you not on this site and others including your own used the published research and information of others without crediting said sources?

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

I was not going to bother repeating these but since you are so intent on being a dick. Do you have an answer?

Mike - if that is your real name - I'm not going to play your silly games. However, this is verging on harassment and I've reported it to the forum owners for appropriate action.

[Undead]

Yes that is my real name.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Yes that is my real name.

Thanks, just wanted some more info about you. Can I use this address for service of process in case we have to go to court to resolve our little spat?

[Undead]

Please do.

And I think that pretty much everyone would agree by the above that you have now gone and proven beyond all doubt the type of person you are.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Please do.
And I think that pretty much everyone would agree by the above that you have now gone and proven beyond all doubt the type of person you are.

We shall see. Not too cool to call someone a criminal for posting an image on a just-for-fun forum like this.  It's also defamation with presumed damages. By the way, here's the original post showing a public domain image that you've identified as "criminal activity."  As you can see, to the extent it's relevant, I clearly identified Poster Mountain as the source:

[jayn_j]

Step right up folks!  The next show starts in 5 minutes.  See the death defying threats and counter-threats.  See the amazing duel of the attorneys.  Fun for the entire family.
-APF disavows any responsibility for any viewer caught up in the ensuing litigation madness.

[Undead]

We shall see. Not too cool to call someone a criminal for posting an image on a just-for-fun forum like this.  It's also defamation with presumed damages.

No I am claiming that it is a crime to illegally obtain that image through means other than those intended by the sites owners and then post it. Actually forget post it just obtain it. And I do believe I stated quite clearly that it is my opinion and would require the courts to make the final decision. As such shall we move on the freedom of speech next?

[CSM]

Nice douchey scare tactic Mel 

[Undead]

We shall see. Not too cool to call someone a criminal for posting an image on a just-for-fun forum like this.  It's also defamation with presumed damages. By the way, here's the original post showing a public domain image that you've identified as "criminal activity."  As you can see, to the extent it's relevant, I clearly identified Poster Mountain as the source:

The Kong is again just the one example of an image that did not come to you the way it was intended. Heck I even stopped arguing about fare use. But if you want to, how often do you actually acknowledge? This is still no matter how you look at it primarily about where that image came from. Please show me where Poster Mountain publicly posted the large King Kong image you are showing? Or this one also from the login side of Poster Mountain? Same for the over-sized UN-watermarked photos from HA?

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Now Steve, Chris and Ari and the old NS4 gang will remember my old pal Nick Lowe, who made similar charges of "plagiarism" against me back in the day:

http://stylec.yuku.com/topic/7867/Introducing-MoviePosterCollectorscom?page=1#.Un_n5WTF3GY

"Nick Lowe" also had very odd problems with the English language, just like "Mike" can't seem to spell "fare" right.

Now Ari, do pray tell if Nick's posts originated from New Jersey? You refused to tell me the IP address of "Nick Lowe," even though you knew the answer: