‘Fair Use’ and the Flickr widget

9 thoughts on “‘Fair Use’ and the Flickr widget”

  1. Oh what a sticky subject this is! As one with little artistic talent yet a lot to say, I depend heavily on “visual aides” like images and videos, and not a small amount of music, to help express the point of my blog posts – taking full advantage of the old “a picture paints a thousand words” thing. I’ve never claimed to own any of this “borrowed” stuff and have provided source attributions wherever I could, but it has occurred to me that it’s a “fine line” issue and that does give me pause. Hell, just because I think a piece of art is representative of what I’m thinking, that doesn’t mean that the artist would agree. Sticky indeed!

  2. I wonder how an artist can claim exclusive ownership to anything that’s on the internet. At the same time I wonder how an artist can prevent someone from putting his work on the internet.

    After someone (without permission or attribution) puts someone else’s copyrighted work on the the internet – can subsequent recipients of that work be guilty of it’s further distribution if they have no idea where it originated?

    Even more removed, what if it’s an automated “widget” that spreads the work? Can the programmer who developed the widget be guilty too? And WordPress that employs it?

    I don’t have any real answers either. It’s like y’all said… “it’s a sticky subject.”

    1. Supposedly, if you publish something on the Internet, it is considered automatically copyrighted by you. Adding a copyright notice states it in writing for anyone who might think otherwise (like the editor of Cooks Source magazine). The Internet is still the Wild West as far as the law is concerned and it still operates pretty much on the honor system.

... and that's my two cents