View Single Post
Old October 23, 2012   #90
bwaynef
Tomatovillian™
 
bwaynef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Clemson SC
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kurt View Post
Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. From what I gather if the "pirated"photos don't have a copyright originally then Moneypenney can do whatever she wants.
I'm supposing that you copied this from a website and pasted it for all of us to see. While the information is somewhat applicable to the discussion, the failure to attribute from where the information originated is akin to exactly what Penny is being accused of. That there is any mention of Peer-to-peer only goes to complicate/confuse the discussion, as that is entirely NOT where Penny is being accused of getting her images. (Also, there are PERFECTLY legal uses for p2p.)

Also, your last sentence, which does seem to be your original work, is wrong. Copyright is owned by the creator the instant there is a creation. Copyright CAN be registered to make legal proceedings move in a more timely fashion, but is not completely necessary. Copyright belongs to the creator until such time as the creator grants it to someone else.

A side note: metadata is routinely stripped by photographers and websites for sundry reasons ...and most photographers are rethinking the legal route for protecting copyright in lieu of adopting a stance wherein they're willing to give up any losses incurred by the use of a small file that might be stolen ...as well as stringent watermarking to promote their brand even when use in a fashion that abuses their copyright. (i.e. Attaching their brand to an image that is only useful for presentation on the web due to its small size, such that if it is used without authorization, it is immediately obvious where the picture came from.)
bwaynef is offline   Reply With Quote