> From: Eryk Salvaggio <
eryk@maine.rr.com>
> Hi Curt,
>
> Concerning the Getty case, devils advocate here, isn't it, in a sense,
> reasonable to assume that
> you shouldn't be allowed to consume their bandwidth for a project using
> their image?
> It seems to me that you are trying to defend its use via context- "sure,
> I am using the image, but
> its non-profit, I'm a small website, I'm not competing with you, etc
> etc", when really, by law, they
> own the image and if they don't want you using it they have a right to
> ask you not to use it.
> Fair use is murky, but this doesn't even seem like a murky issue, you
> took their image, unaltered,
> and inserted it wholly into another work, and it seems your defense is
> that it is okay because you
> were also taking their bandwidth away from them at the same time?
I think that Eryk makes an intelligent and brave point here. I cant help but
agree with him. I always thought the 'I'm small and insignificant and don't
make any money out of this work' argument was really lame. As Eryk says, if
you just copied the image into your work, i.e. appropriated it, and then
told them to take a flying fuck, there might be a point. If some nazis took
my work and used it in a non profit way I'd still feel that I had the right
to control use of my images. At the end of the day, the person who created
that image is just like you, and artist. And if they gave Getty some control
over their image, that control comes with strings, i.e. that Getty protect
the image. I would expect the same for my work. Cheers, Ivan