Copyright?

[Bretts]

Thanks guys
A name and a link from the website is even easier

[nevilleh]

Canberra BS has researched a bit about copyright for "authors" in the club. Here is what we found

Copyright information

Fair Use Doctrine
Website articles and Bonsai Knowledgebase content may include images or text quotes used under Copyright law "fair use" / “fair dealing” doctrine. In such a case, the material should be identified as from an external source, as appropriate.
No significant portion of copyrighted content outside of fair use should be contributed to the website and Bonsai Knowledgebase unless explicit permission has been received from the original copyright owner(s) of such content and proof of permission to do so has been sent, electronic or otherwise, to the webmaster.

Information about Fair use or Fair dealing provisions of the copyright act (copied from ☺ the Information Services of the Australian National University).
...

research or study: section 40(1) <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/ ... 3/s40.html > of the Act provides that copyright in a work or an adaptation of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is not infringed by a fair dealing for the purpose of research or study. Similarly, under section 103C(1) copyright in an audio-visual item, or in a work included in an audio-visual item, is not infringed by a fair dealing made for the purpose of research or study;

criticism and review: section 41 <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/ ... s103c.html > of the Act provides that copyright in a work or an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, is not infringed by a fair dealing for the purpose of 'criticism or review', whether of that work or of another work, provided sufficient acknowledgement of the work is made. Any acknowledgement should identify the author and identify the work/audio-visual item from which the copies are taken by its title or other description.

In addition, the following limits <http://information.anu.edu.au/daisy/inf ... s/376.html> prescribed in other parts of the Act may assist to determine if you are copying a 'reasonable portion':
• 10% or one chapter of a book (whichever is the greater);
• more than this if the work is out of print or unobtainable in a reasonable time;
• the whole or part of an article in one issue of a periodical;
• two or more articles in one issue of a periodical if they are on the same subject;
• the whole or part of a literary or dramatic work in a published anthology if not more than 15 pages;
• an artistic work which accompanies a literary or dramatic work for the purpose of explaining or illustrating text;
• the whole or part of an artistic work if it is not separately published or is unobtainable in a reasonable time.
• Where you are copying in accordance with these fair dealing provisions, permission need not be sought from the copyright owner, and no payment to the copyright owner

cheers
Neville

[Glenda]

....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

Just to clarify this, the onus is on you to prove the other party received the request and did not reply.

Glenda

[mashby]

Pup
In my previous incarnation I was actually an IP (Intellectual Property) and media lawyer. "Fair Use" of published works such as books, videos etc, only applies, generally, to educational institutions. Copying a CD or DVD that you have bought is fine as long as it is for your own "backup copy" and not as a present for a friend.
Regarding photographs, you can use them, so long as you acknowledge the photographer/publisher of the book you are taking them from. ie copyright (you know that circle with the "c" in it - I can't find it on my keyboard) Kezei Kazan 1998 published in "Books name" published by "publisher's name" 2001. If you don't know the name of the photographer just credit the publisher and name the book.

Also, "bonsai" would be considered an "art form" (like a sculpture - as mentioned earlier in this thread) and as such, you have the rights over the photographs taken of your trees because the photos were taken without your permission. I would get onto evil bay and tell them to get the seller to take the photos down as you have the copyright and he does not have permission to use them.

Also, a note to Glenda, if you ask for permission to reproduce a photo and get no reply - that does not count as permission. You need express approval from the copyright holder who can dictate how you use it - because as soon as your son makes a graphite portrait from pictures, he has the copyright in his portrait, and this is where things can get really confusing and messy.

If something is copyrighted (there are no forms to fill out or any thing like that - it is automatically the creator's right), the photographer (except where he takes a photo of something that is already copyrighted), a writer of a book (unless the rights have been assigned to the publisher), this reply (unless when I joined up I accepted terms whereby I assigned my rights to the administrators of the site - this what Facebook does... by getting an account and accepting the terms of use, anything posted on your Facebook page, such as photos of your sister's 40th birthday or comments you make, automatically give Facebook copyright in those things and they can use them whenever and however they want) are automatically the copyright of the person creating the photo, book, sculpture, painting, video etc.

Pup, in short, and due to the jurisdictional issues related to the internet, my advice would be to put up the photos and give credit to the photographer (if possible) or the publisher of the book. If it is all in Japanese and you can't tell who the photographer or publisher are, just say copyright belongs to the publisher of "the name of the book"

[Glenda]

......Also, a note to Glenda, if you ask for permission to reproduce a photo and get no reply - that does not count as permission. You need express approval from the copyright holder who can dictate how you use it - because as soon as your son makes a graphite portrait from pictures, he has the copyright in his portrait, and this is where things can get really confusing and messy.....

Its interesting that different sources have different interpretations. This was advice we were given by a solicitor, and not just a local one, either. However, Mashby, as you say

In my previous incarnation I was actually an IP (Intellectual Property)and media lawyer......

I will bow to your advice as having seniority.

Glenda

[kcpoole]

Its interesting that different sources have different interpretations. This was advice we were given by a solicitor, and not just a local one, either. However, Mashby, as you say

In my previous incarnation I was actually an IP (Intellectual Property)and media lawyer......

I will bow to your advice as having seniority.

Glenda

That is crux of the whole issue I think Glenda. Different people an countries interpret the same things differently. But essentially, if you get permission, or else credit the artist / owner if you cannot, then you most likely be covered
Blindly copying pictures or text without attempting to acnowledge the owner is a blatant rip off of their work and should be avoided or removed if asked

Ken

[bodhidharma]

G,day Folks, glad to be home I will keep this short as i am as jetlagged as hell but i want to add to this discussion as i have just returned from Japan. I was talking with a fellow In one of the most famous nurseries in Omiya why they had NO PHOTOGRAPHY signs up ( we were standing in front of last years Kokofu winner ) sorry... just wanted to add that, and his reply was simple. The owners and nursery involved with the tree get paid a lot of money to get the tree photographed and this is a big part of their income but, i guess this is in Japan and in the flesh, not off the internet. After having said that though he let me take some, bless his heart. Oh, i did spend money there though

[Makkanan]

Some very detailed information here and quite useful.... thanks for the posts and references as we all navigate this sea of ambiguity....
In dealing with the issue in the academic realm, there is indeed a generally accepted 10% rule...for text rather than image. I think that one of the main determinants, as referenced here, is whether the 'borrower' will be receiving any quantifiable gain from the use of the image. Therefore, seed guy from eBay clearly breaks this. On the other hand, as there is no cost or profit aspect to this forum (of which I'm aware) then we come out OK on this part of the scorecard. Where it may get messy based on precedent is whether the image is of a professional photographic calibre. The time/expense which went in to creating the image has also been a factor in disputes: the average jpeg snapped in the backyard on a mobile is of course different to a studioshot with lighting dishes, stobes, etc....
It does get absurd however.... believe it our not an image which was simply right-clicked and "save image as....." is deemed more likely to be 'property' than if you use your snipping tool in Vista/7 and snip from the image.
In some countries, the practice has been to list 'no reproduction allowed without permission' under properties..... the default being that if this tag is not present, it's open season.