legallity photos trading copyrights etc...

[spacepower7]

So I downloaded a bittorrent file. It contains 1000+ fine art paintings, or technically photos/scans of fine art paintings. They are all sized for computer desktop resolutions, not print quality.

Is it legal to possess these and share them with family and friends? Most of the paintings are over 100 years old. Does the photographer own the rights or the artist, or are these "Fair Use"? I am guessing that these were scanned from an artbook or included on a cd-rom for a college textbook.

It's like an art museum for your CPU, a wonderful collection

What are your thoughts on the technical/legal VS moral/ethical rights on sharing these jpegs with family and friends?

[AmigoMac]

I would like to check that personally ;)

PM me and I will tell you my point of view :)

I PM'ed you ...

[iGary]

If they are photographs, then the photographer has copyright on the images as soon as the shutter clicks.

[MongoTheGeek]

If they are photographs, then the photographer has copyright on the images as soon as the shutter clicks.

Using that logic I own the copyright to the SI swimsuit edition I took a picture of with my cameraphone at the news stand...
or the tape I just dubbed...
Or the copy of MS Office I just burned for archival purposes...

[wordmunger]

Using that logic I own the copyright to the SI swimsuit edition I took a picture of with my cameraphone at the news stand...
You do, but you still need to get permission to include copyrighted images in your work. In the example above, the copyright has lapsed on the paintings, so the photographer has no permissions work to do.

or the tape I just dubbed...
Or the copy of MS Office I just burned for archival purposes...

Ummmm... No. Copyright laws are very specific. So photographers get copyright on the photos they take, but tape dubbers and software copiers don't have copyright on their products.

[caveman_uk]

Ummmm... No. Copyright laws are very specific. So photographers get copyright on the photos they take, but tape dubbers and software copiers don't have copyright on their products.
Is that because taking a photo is a 'creative step' and generates a new original image whereas simply copying something is a mere duplication and not creative?

[MongoTheGeek]

You do, but you still need to get permission to include copyrighted images in your work. In the example above, the copyright has lapsed on the paintings, so the photographer has no permissions work to do.


Ummmm... No. Copyright laws are very specific. So photographers get copyright on the photos they take, but tape dubbers and software copiers don't have copyright on their products.

It was an attempt to illustrate some of the absurdity in it all.

[wordmunger]

Is that because taking a photo is a 'creative step' and generates a new original image whereas simply copying something is a mere duplication and not creative?

Well, that would be the optimistic take on it. I suspect the real reason is because private companies (e.g. magazines and newspapers) want to protect their investment and so lobbied Congress to give copyright protection to photos. Audio dubbing doesn't qualify because recording companies lobbied congress to make that illegal.

[wordmunger]

It was an attempt to illustrate some of the absurdity in it all.

Oh, it's amazingly absurd. The cutting edge of the copyright wars right now is in music sampling. There's a great documentary on the subject at http://copyrightcriminals.com/.