The Pirate Bay Raided By Police, Site Down

[fluffy]

Fair enough. Perhaps "misappropriation" would be a better choice of words, but it tends to candy-coat the illegality of the act which was the focus of my comments.

[36Drew]

Copyright Infringement (or piracy) is far more widespread than just downloads. There's a tendency to believe that if you find something published online, that it must be freely available. Even local media has crossed that line.

http://www.castanet.net/news/Behind-the ... ld-devices

That image of the driver is mine. I was not asked if it could be published on castanet. I did give permission for it to be used on the site I submitted it to. Castanet, by the very letter of the law, has committed the same offence as a downloader.

I don't really care. It's not a huge deal. I suspect they simply syndicate a feed from the other site. However, it goes to show how easy it is to run afoul of copyright law.

[fvkasm2x]

Copyright Infringement (or piracy) is far more widespread than just downloads. There's a tendency to believe that if you find something published online, that it must be freely available. Even local media has crossed that line.

http://www.castanet.net/news/Behind-the ... ld-devices

That image of the driver is mine. I was not asked if it could be published on castanet. I did give permission for it to be used on the site I submitted it to. Castanet, by the very letter of the law, has committed the same offence as a downloader.

I don't really care. It's not a huge deal. I suspect they simply syndicate a feed from the other site. However, it goes to show how easy it is to run afoul of copyright law.

It's possible that there is something in the fine print here that says anything uploaded to their website becomes their property

[36Drew]

It's possible that there is something in the fine print here that says anything uploaded to their website becomes their property

I emailed the owner of Drivesmart with the original photo along with the information. He emailed back asking for permission to publish the photo to his website. No such permission exists for re-publication or syndication rights to third-party sites (such as Castanet).

As for "becoming their property" - I think you don't know how copyright works.

[Hassel99]

You should google "fair dealing" aka fair use in this USA

The Canadian concept of fair dealing is similar to that in the UK and Australia. The fair dealing clauses[11] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting. With respect to criticism, review, and news reporting, the user must mention the source of the material, along with the name of the author, performer, maker, or broadcaster for the dealing to be fair

.

They can use it for news but should Give credit, in this case they did but perhaps to the wrong entity.

[36Drew]

You should google "fair dealing" aka fair use in this USA

The Canadian concept of fair dealing is similar to that in the UK and Australia. The fair dealing clauses[11] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting. With respect to criticism, review, and news reporting, the user must mention the source of the material, along with the name of the author, performer, maker, or broadcaster for the dealing to be fair.

They can use it for news but should Give credit, in this case they did but perhaps to the wrong entity.

The article on Castanet's website is not a news article. It does not engage in any form of criticism/review/research/education/parody/satire of the actual photograph itself, and the photograph is not material to the article (ie., the article can stand on it's own without the photograph).

Again - I don't think you understand how copyright works. The concept of "fair dealing" allows for an exception on copying to discuss the actual thing you're copying. In the case of a photograph, the "fair dealing" use would cover critique or review of the photograph. It was neither, in this case. While the subject of the photograph was also the subject of the article, the text in and of itself did not actually critique or review the photograph. As you've rightfully pointed out, there has been no credit of photographer/owner of the photograph.