Unfair use

A few months ago, I got an e-mail that contained a sequence of images that showed an eagle attacking a swan. They were cool pictures. The e-mail gave credit to the photographer, but after so many Mars hoaxes, I have learned to not trust e-mail, so I googled the resort that was referenced in the e-mail. The Waterlily Bay Resort web site gave credit to a different photographer.

Why do people do that? Why copy a bunch of pictures to send around when a link to the original web site would do just fine, and why give the credit to somebody else?

I don't understand the e-mail hoax, but the most intriguing part of this story is that the original photographer removed his images from wherever they were stored, saying, "I removed the pictures off of pbase as I was worried that they would be taken and used without my consent." I can relate to that.

Apparently "fair use" means that any web image can be used on any web site or sent in any e-mail. The image sequence not only appears on the Waterlily Bay Resort web site, but it also appears on this blog. Considering that it was flying around the world in an e-mail, who knows where else that it ended up?



I occasionally do a search on my name and today I found this and this.

Both slide shows have several images that were taken directly from my web site. I am not sure of how the slide show web site is supposed to work, but it looks like a way of sharing slide shows with music, or whatever. The slide shows can be viewed, downloaded (to send in e-mail) and embedded on a web site.

It's the slideshare.net terms of use that really bugs me. They go about stating the DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT NOTICE PROCEDURES, but then they follow it up with this:

Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and
attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that a product or activity is
infringing your copyrights. Indeed, in a recent case (please see http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/
for more information), a company that sent an infringement notification seeking
removal of online materials that were protected by the fair use doctrine was
ordered to pay such costs and attorneys fees. The company agreed to pay over
$100,000. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether material available online
infringes your copyright, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.

Did they just say that I should pay an attorney for a consultation before I complain about an infringement? That's just a nasty attitude on the part of slideshare.net. Whatever happened to common courtesy? On top of that, why jump through all of the paper hoops, even if it is the requirement by law? How about accepting an e-mail with some links? It seems that common courtesy has become as uncommon as common sense.

I haven't decided what I am going to do about the slide shows. The whole thing just bugs me. I don't understand how someone could be satisfied by taking images from a web site without permission and packing them into a slide show, blog or e-mail, and I don't like that I need an attorney to get a little courtesy.

Update

I cross posted this on my personal blog and I got a very quick response from Rashmi from slideshare.com. He said that I could contact them with the feedback form on their web site. That's the courtesy that I was looking for :)

Update 2

I have been in contact with the slide show creator and we have agreed upon which images of mine that he can use. There is no need for slideshare to take any action.

This is a happy ending.