DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. Since the author is not a lawyer the contents shall not be considered as legal advice.
We would always go about our day to day lives without bothering to look at how we should be doing our actions. Especially nowadays, as technology becomes a very big part of our lives, we do not realize that there are things that we do that sometimes we should question. On a daily basis, especially bloggers or those people similar in interests, post as liberally as they want to, pictures of almost everything that they do and basically make a virtual trail of their lives. You have sculptures, statues, paintings, and much more that can be captured by themselves or used as a background. Honestly if you look closely, there is nothing wrong with a few pictures of things that we think are beautiful or unique.
The provisions on the Law on Copyright, Sec 172 states that works are created from the moment of their creation and are protected by the sole fact of their creation. This means that the sculptures, statues, paintings and all other creations, if created, are protected. Knowing this, can we assume that if a person captures these creations and posts them on the internet would there be an infringement of copyright? The same goes with billboards which origin are from a certain work by others.
Normally, we would say that there is nothing wrong as we are just appreciating the works of others and we are not taking any credit for their work. Appreciation without any intention would suffice as not to infringe on any copyright. Although this maybe true on a shallow understanding, the law gives it deeper meaning by qualifying it as part of fair use. Sec 184 about limitations on Copyright talks about this and states that what should be provided are the source and the name of the author. This is further elaborated by Sec 185 as it qualifies fair use giving factor to what could be the basis of fair use. The factors are
(a) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit education purposes; (b) The nature of the copyrighted work; (c) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
It is clear that there are many factors in qualifying such actions and we cannot just automatically say that there is infringement. What is important is the intention. If the person exploiting the work of others through the internet is with the intention to do acts which are only granted to the copyright holder, then it is clear that there is such violation. These rights talked about are the ones enumerated in Sec. 177 more specifically those regarding reproduction of a work and those of public display of a copy of a work, to name a few. If actions are the ones in such enumeration then there should be consent. What the laws on copyright are protecting are the rights of the creator of the work. If another person would benefit for the work of another then that wouldn't be fair. Some people would say, that in case of doubt, ask permission. In this way, even if people think that you are infringing, your not because you asked permission. This is a act of prevention as liability would not arise because of precautions made. As they say, its better to be safe than sorry.
No comments:
Post a Comment