(October 4, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Chas Wrote: Intellectual property law says you're a thief.

I'm not claiming your idea as my own, nor am I selling or distributing it as my own. No theft of intellectual property occurred.
Yes, I realize that the law doesn't give a shit. Doesn't mean the law isn't stupid.

(October 4, 2014 at 9:51 am)Chas Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 2:06 am)Aractus Wrote: You have the exclusive right to profit from your works, but you do not have the right to dictate what is done privately with those works.

When it is fair use, no. When it is piracy, then yes.

Right and who gets to decide what is "fair use"? You? Copyright lobby groups?

Copyright holders don't have the right, nor should they have the right, to decide what a person is allowed to do in private with their works.

---

(October 4, 2014 at 1:44 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: As a photographer, piracy doesn't effect you that much because people will rarely pay for photo's anymore any way.

Last year Tennis Australia sparked controversy when they posted this ad:

Essentially they were seeking volunteer professional photographers for one of their amateur events for a full 2 weeks (16 days total!) It sparked outrage - if they wanted volunteers they may as well have advertised for amateur photographers, not professionals who already find it difficult enough to get paid work.

(October 4, 2014 at 8:33 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 9:51 am)Chas Wrote: When it is fair use, no. When it is piracy, then yes.

Right and who gets to decide what is "fair use"? You? Copyright lobby groups?

Copyright holders don't have the right, nor should they have the right, to decide what a person is allowed to do in private with their works.

'Fair use' is well-defined for artistic or literary works. It is personal or non-commercial use. So have at it in private.

There isn't any 'fair use' of commercial software.

I too make my living on copyrighted material. I paint. And I expect to get paid for copies of my paintings whether they are reproduced as: prints, t-shirts, or on phone cases, tote bags or whatever. And copying them for private use is not an exception to the copyright laws.

But I do regularly authorize other to use my images for free on their websites provided that they attribute the work to me and link it to website where my images are for sale. That's good advertizing. Just plain copying the image on the web doesn't do anything for sales, because it doesn't tell people where to buy.

When it comes to blatant piracy of images on the web, I find churches are some of the worst offenders. Most people and companies will either attribute or take down when asked. Churches very often think they are just entitled. I end up filing a DMCA complant with their service provider to get it down.