Copyright?

[Pup]

I don't buy Bonsai Focus anymore I think buying the Kokufu book once a year would be much better value

Join the Nippon Bonsai Association at about $300-00 a year you get a magazine in Japanese and tickets to Kokufu. Plus the book every year. The books if you can get them run at about $100--150 each.
I still have to speak to a friend who may be able to shed light onit for me as I do not speak Japanese I cannot say whether there is copyright any way.

[Bretts]

Oh really? I have BF issues 121-123, and halfway through 121 so far, I'm absolutely loving them!!

I am guessing you don't have a Kokufu book to compare the value

[krazykangaroo]

Hi all,
As a professional photographer perhaps you would like my view on the topic.
A photographer owns the copyright of any picture s/he takes (as long as it is not a commission job) but if the subject of the photo is a person or something that can be easily identified as belonging to a person or business, the photographer cannot use the photo unless s/he has permission from the subject or subjects owner (signed release). For example - You cannot use for business or sales any photos of a coke can or a car/ television set (the designs are owned by the companies even if you own the actual product) for example but if these things are in the background and not an important part of the picture you should be ok.
If the subject of the photo is fairly generic - most people would not be able to identify the owner - then you don't have to get permission to use the photo. Unfortunately, many bonsais are fairly generic looking, maybe not to you or me, but to the general public.
Fair use in Australia is a general concept that if you are using a piece of a persons work (a few pages of a book, a photo or two, a line from a song etc) for educational or critique purposes you would probably not get into trouble for doing that. The exception is if your critique etc is overly critical, the owner of the copyright can sue if it damages reputation or business.

If you breach someones copyright, they will probably send you a C&D letter (Cease and Desist) either from themselves or their lawyer. But note - they do not have to do this and many people have been caught with a summons to court as their first notice.

The bare facts are that it costs so much to bring someone to court that it rarely happens except by larger businesses. This is not to excuse the behaviour. You can take someone to small claims court for damages though.
As soon as you find someone breaching your copyright to a photo, you must act to claim your rights or you could lose them. If you let something go for a while without sending a C&D letter at the least, even a small claims court judge will not find in your favour if the defendant can show that you knew about the breach/s for some time and did nothing so you don't really care.
As far as ebay is concerned, they are strict on copyright breaches and you should send them a notice about the breaches. If your claim is disputed, you will have to prove that they are your photos, otherwise anyone can claim these sorts of things to get rid of compeditors.
This is not an in depth answer but I hope it brings a little understanding.

Deb

[Pup]

Hi all,
As a professional photographer perhaps you would like my view on the topic.
A photographer owns the copyright of any picture s/he takes (as long as it is not a commission job) but if the subject of the photo is a person or something that can be easily identified as belonging to a person or business, the photographer cannot use the photo unless s/he has permission from the subject or subjects owner (signed release). For example - You cannot use for business or sales any photos of a coke can or a car/ television set (the designs are owned by the companies even if you own the actual product) for example but if these things are in the background and not an important part of the picture you should be ok.
If the subject of the photo is fairly generic - most people would not be able to identify the owner - then you don't have to get permission to use the photo. Unfortunately, many bonsais are fairly generic looking, maybe not to you or me, but to the general public.
Fair use in Australia is a general concept that if you are using a piece of a persons work (a few pages of a book, a photo or two, a line from a song etc) for educational or critique purposes you would probably not get into trouble for doing that. The exception is if your critique etc is overly critical, the owner of the copyright can sue if it damages reputation or business.

If you breach someones copyright, they will probably send you a C&D letter (Cease and Desist) either from themselves or their lawyer. But note - they do not have to do this and many people have been caught with a summons to court as their first notice.

The bare facts are that it costs so much to bring someone to court that it rarely happens except by larger businesses. This is not to excuse the behaviour. You can take someone to small claims court for damages though.
As soon as you find someone breaching your copyright to a photo, you must act to claim your rights or you could lose them. If you let something go for a while without sending a C&D letter at the least, even a small claims court judge will not find in your favour if the defendant can show that you knew about the breach/s for some time and did nothing so you don't really care.
As far as ebay is concerned, they are strict on copyright breaches and you should send them a notice about the breaches. If your claim is disputed, you will have to prove that they are your photos, otherwise anyone can claim these sorts of things to get rid of compeditors.
This is not an in depth answer but I hope it brings a little understanding.

Deb

Thank you for that Deb. As you can see I have put up some any way to, help in a discussion on the ( rules ) guidelines of creating Bonsai.
Brett and I have been discussing this for some time. Hoping to get other's involved. Not to critique the tree's them selves. Just those that are bending what is conceived as in correct as far as the (rules ) guidelines are concerned. So your explanation relieves my mind of some worry. Then at my age I have o lot to think about. Now what was it we were discussing.
Pup

[Japh]

Oh really? I have BF issues 121-123, and halfway through 121 so far, I'm absolutely loving them!!

I am guessing you don't have a Kokufu book to compare the value

You would be guessing correctly, however, value is subjective too. I suspect the nature of contents is vastly different, so what I get value from may not be the same as what you get value from

[Bretts]

Thats for sure Japh. I just got sick of getting issues that had very little of interest to me and figured I would be better spending the money on a great book each year
Plus they annoyed me in various ways such as damaged products and bad service

[Steven]

I have spent quiet a bit of time in the last couple of days researching copyright laws in Australia and have the following to share with you.

From The National Library of Australia website;

What is "fair dealing"?
The fair dealing provisions of the Australian Copyright Act permit you to use in-copyright material if it is:
a portion of textual material, usually 10% or 1 chapter or 1 article, for research or study; or
for criticism, review, parody, satire, reporting the news or for seeking advice from a lawyer.

For anyone interested, more information can be found on the National Library Wiki under Copyright status service

So, what does it all mean? It is my belief that we are only sharing information and pictures for education and research purposes. Therefor we should fit the criteria of the 'fair dealing' policy. However we should all make every effort possible to request permission from copyright owners prior to posting and always post full credits.

Regards,
Steven

[Bretts]

Thanks for looking into this Steven

[Pup]

I have just been though some sales catalogs I have of a Japanese auction of tree's would I be able to reproduce some picture's here?.
This would definitely help with the discussion on Bunjingi, here.
So if any one has an answer please let me know ASAP.

Pup

[Bretts]

Steven
So, what does it all mean? It is my belief that we are only sharing information and pictures for education and research purposes. Therefor we should fit the criteria of the 'fair dealing' policy. However we should all make every effort possible to request permission from copyright owners prior to posting and always post full credits.

I think an auction cataloge would be the least susseptable to a breech. But that is my humble opinion that I have already expressed.

[FlyBri]

I have just been though some sales catalogs I have of a Japanese auction of tree's would I be able to reproduce some picture's here?.
This would definitely help with the discussion on Bunjingi, here.
So if any one has an answer please let me know ASAP.

Pup

Gday Pup!

I reckon that there should be no issue, so long as you give credit to the original publisher (the more specific info you can provide, the better). AusBonsai's Mission Statement and its not-for-profit nature places us squarely in the 'education and research' camp.

Scan away, young man!

Thanks.

Fly.

[Bretts]

Good question Pup!

Copyright on the net is a bit of a grey area and I am not aware of the legalities being properly tested or explored in Australia... yet.

Permission should always be sought when posting someone else's pictures or writings however (here's the grey part) I understand that if you properly attribute and link (if possible), you don't have to ask permission.

It also comes down to 'web ethics' and 'fair use'. At least that's how we roll round here

Regard,
Steven

We are very lucky to have a sensible approach to copyright on this forum. So lets not get too slack about it. Try to keep those links and attributes with any copyrighted material quotes and pictures. Walter is one I know that has no problem with forums using pictures of his trees to learn from as long as he is acknowledged as the artist. I am sure all artists appreciate the thought when showing their trees.
Plus it is simply more informative for the reader!

[Dumper]

just put refercenes.
let say the picture that you scan from a book titile "a" (year publish) "publisher/author" "Chapter name or # " and "page #"
just references it
like
Abercrombie, D. (1968). Paralanguage. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 3, 55-59.

this way we are not taking material. we are referring to material.

that is what i would do

[Dumper]

or anything similar.

[Glenda]

or anything similar.

Just one other thing. If you ask permission to reproduce a photo for example, and you get NO REPLY, that counts as permisson. I know this because my son David does graphite portraits from pictures, and has checked into this area. Permission denied is permisssion denied, however.

Glenda