The Crystal Ball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

Someone should probably note ... those animals and photgraph are courtesy of Tom Baker/Python Dreams.

I'm sort of a stickler for following copyright law. ;)

-adam

---

Awww, it's Fair Use :D.

However, Adams correct, this is Tom's baby so I should have stated that from the beggining.

Quote:

---

Awww, it's Fair Use :D.

---

Even though Adam has pictures of his snakes on his site doesnt mean that you can take them as yours. I saw someone posting around adams pictures one time and i got onto that guy for it. Just be carful of what picturs you post that arnt yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stangs13

Even though Adam has pictures of his snakes on his site doesnt mean that you can take them as yours. I saw someone posting around adams pictures one time and i got onto that guy for it. Just be carful of what picturs you post that arnt yours.

---

well some of the pic were posted on a public forum so i could see why it would be fair use, but i decided not to post them because they were on another forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stangs13

Even though Adam has pictures of his snakes on his site doesnt mean that you can take them as yours.

---

Did I ever claim those photos were mine for heavens sake? Was heading out the door, hotlinked the photo and forgot to mention it belonged to Tom. Now, if you'd like to I'd be quite happy to explain what the Fair Use provisions of the US Copyright Laws are, but this is not the thread for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcaustralia

i decided not to post them because they were on another forum.

---

Yeah, that's the reason I decided to hotlink them, since the rules on other forums are still sketchy.

changing the subject, I was waching some pics of the hypo mojave, and do some one have a hypo mojave or what happend to that project I dont see any one ells doing it?

i have only seen the het hypo/mojave pics i was wondering the same thing today.

http://www.ballpython.com/morph.php?morph=hypomoj

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Did I ever claim those photos were mine for heavens sake? Was heading out the door, hotlinked the photo and forgot to mention it belonged to Tom. Now, if you'd like to I'd be quite happy to explain what the Fair Use provisions of the US Copyright Laws are, but this is not the thread for it.



Yeah, that's the reason I decided to hotlink them, since the rules on other forums are still sketchy.

---

Nope, I just was using it as an example...wasnt directing it at you in particular.

I have seen the hypo mojave but I dont see any one doing any more hypo mojaves or making somethin new with it and hypo mojaves are just wow!

i find the BEL very fascinating...

the plattyxlesser and lesserxlesser produce BEL, and now mojavexmojave. this maybe old news to you guys, but i am just discovering mojaves!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Awww, it's Fair Use :D.

---

Actually, it's not ... according to US federal copyright law and more specifically, the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), as well as potentially the 1997 No Electronic Theft Act (NET), photographic images are by default copyrighted works.

"Fair use" would not apply (failing on both items 2 and 4).

( In another life, I spent more time testifying in copyright suits than I would have liked. ;) )

Not to mention that Tom is a super nice guy that worked hard to produce those stunning animals and take those amazing shots and should be given all the credit in the world for them. :sweeet:

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kizerk

the plattyxlesser and lesserxlesser produce BEL, and now mojavexmojave

---

Super lessers and super mojaves may both be technically considered blue eye'd lucies, but the super mojave doesn't hold a candle to the super lesser ... people that have seen both in person know. ;)

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

Super lessers and super mojaves may both be technically considered blue eye'd lucies, but the super mojave doesn't hold a candle to the super lesser ... people that have seen both in person know. ;)

-adam

---

Oh yeah. your right...I forgot about that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

Actually, it's not ... according to US federal copyright law and more specifically, the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), as well as potentially the 1997 No Electronic Theft Act (NET), photographic images are by default copyrighted works.

"Fair use" would not apply (failing on both items 2 and 4).

( In another life, I spent more time testifying in copyright suits than I would have liked. ;) )

Not to mention that Tom is a super nice guy that worked hard to produce those stunning animals and take those amazing shots and should be given all the credit in the world for them. :sweeet:

-adam

---

:eek: BAM!! Thanks for the info Adam...seems you know more than just ball pythons!! But you know ,you are a profesional so I should expect it.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

Actually, it's not ... according to US federal copyright law and more specifically, the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), as well as potentially the 1997 No Electronic Theft Act (NET), photographic images are by default copyrighted works.

"Fair use" would not apply (failing on both items 2 and 4).

( In another life, I spent more time testifying in copyright suits than I would have liked. ;) )

---

Ok... now I'm going to call you out Adam but I may regret it ;).

Now, I agree with you about defaulting copyright works (in fact, all original works are by default copyrighted, so it follows that digitized photos are). Where I disagree is that fair use wouldn't apply.

Item 2: The nature of the copyrighted work

Basically if the work is either unpublished or fictional, you will have a weaker case for a fair use defense, then if the alternative is true. Since the work is published and it's factual (I would hope ;)), Item 2 would not apply.

Item 4: The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market

Since posting the photos on a public forum did not deprave the owner of the works of income, the 4th Item would not apply either.

An interesting case on fair use was Kelly v. Aribba Soft Corporation. The claim being that Aribba Soft's use of Kelly's photos (but only displaying them as thumbnails) was a violation of copyright. Kelly got a default judgement, however, the ruling was overturned by the 9th District Court of Appeals, as they said the use qualified as fair use.

Now, that case revolved around thumbnails, and to date no case has been brought against any company for copyright infringement for full size photos, when the defense of fair use was used. So really, this is all conjecture since it hasn't been tested in the courts (and the judicial allowances for most fair use cases are aplenty).

Copyright infringement is a tough nut to crack when there is no perceived income for the defendant, and there is no perceived loss in income for the plaintiff.

I guess this is what 4 years as an undergrad with no degree gets you... I know a little about a lot and a lot about nothing ;).

Quote:

---

Not to mention that Tom is a super nice guy that worked hard to produce those stunning animals and take those amazing shots and should be given all the credit in the world for them. :sweeet:

-adam

---

No arguement there, and I appreciate you catching that so readily :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Ok... now I'm going to call you out Adam but I may regret it ;).

---

OK, I’ll play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Item 2: The nature of the copyrighted work

Basically if the work is either unpublished or fictional, you will have a weaker case for a fair use defense, then if the alternative is true. Since the work is published and it's factual (I would hope ;)), Item 2 would not apply.

---

Got me there … I got item 1 and item 2 reversed … (It’s been a while since I’ve played the copyright game for real) … The purpose and character of the use did not transform or add anything to the original work and would not favor fair use …and while some Circuits are backing away from the commercial vs. non-profit side of purpose and character, a measurable argument could still be made because of the commercial aspects of this website and the fact that you didn't even add any text to the image (providing no educational benefit).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Item 4: The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market

Since posting the photos on a public forum did not deprave the owner of the works of income, the 4th Item would not apply either.

---

In my opinion, item 4 would absolutely apply … The Crystal Ball python is the heart and soul of Tom Bakers business (Python Dreams) and the catalyst for his competitive edge needed to gain business and generate revenue in the highly competitive industry of ball python mutations. The fact that there is another breeder with a much more established business and more well know reputation that is also producing crystals would help the plaintiff.

I think the rulings in Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997) and Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. , 672 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir. 1982) … and of course … Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985), Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985) all show how this idea would fall in favor of the plaintiff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

An interesting case on fair use was [color=black]Kelly v. Aribba Soft Corporation. The claim being that Aribba Soft's use of Kelly's photos (but only displaying them as thumbnails) was a violation of copyright. Kelly got a default judgment, however, the ruling was overturned by the 9th District Court of Appeals, as they said the use qualified as fair use.

---

But the ninth circuit in that case ruled that the thumbnails were only fair use because they were linked to the website where the full sized images were available … and because a thumbnail was a sufficient alteration to the work (see item 1 above) … and the real DAGGER in your argument is that the ninth circuit in Kelly v. Arriba specifically stated in their summary that “The in-line links that displayed the full picture were not fair use, so were infringing the exclusive rights of Kelly” … granted, in 2003 they modified that aspect of their decision, but only because they felt the District Court ruled on something that it shouldn’t have, not because of anything to do with fair use … Had the case taken the long haul, it’s still unclear where it could have gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

So really, this is all conjecture since it hasn't been tested in the courts (and the judicial allowances for most fair use cases are aplenty).

---

Exactly, which is why in my opinion erring on the side of caution and throwing in a credit to the owner of the original work goes a long way towards avoiding potential problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Copyright infringement is a tough nut to crack when there is no perceived income for the defendant, and there is no perceived loss in income for the plaintiff.

---

I like my odds on this one given the reasons above … I think experienced council schooled in ins and outs of the ball python business could make an extremely strong arguement for potential loss of income ... and with fair use being an affirmative defense, I wouldn't want to have to try and disprove something like that. ;)

That's what I have off the top of my head from a couple of good fights 8 or 9 years ago (and a little help from the Stanford Univerity Libraries to brush up on some case specifics) ... if I had an actual education in this stuff, I'm sure I could do much better. :carrot:

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

OK, I’ll play.

---

I had no doubts :).

Quote:

---

Got me there … I got item 1 and item 2 reversed … (It’s been a while since I’ve played the copyright game for real) … The purpose and character of the use did not transform or add anything to the original work and would not favor fair use …and while some Circuits are backing away from the commercial vs. non-profit side of purpose and character, a measurable argument could still be made because of the commercial aspects of this website and the fact that you didn't even add any text to the image (providing no educational benefit).

---

Wow, how could have I missed that! The first item in determining whether fair use applies and I totally bombed it. :D I suppose an experienced lawyer would argue that the text preceding it would be considered a modification of the original, and the photo itself acted as the educational benefit. However, I'm not a lawyer, let alone an experienced one :).

Quote:

---

In my opinion, item 4 would absolutely apply … The Crystal Ball python is the heart and soul of Tom Bakers business (Python Dreams) and the catalyst for his competitive edge needed to gain business and generate revenue in the highly competitive industry of ball python mutations. The fact that there is another breeder with a much more established business and more well know reputation that is also producing crystals would help the plaintiff.

---

One problem with that, however, the forth item only applies to the works value. And when used for noncommercial purposes (which in this case it was), it is on the burden of the plaintiff to prove that my posting of the photo actually effected the photos value.

Quote:

---

But the ninth circuit in that case ruled that the thumbnails were only fair use because they were linked to the website where the full sized images were available … and because a thumbnail was a sufficient alteration to the work (see item 1 above) … and the real DAGGER in your argument is that the ninth circuit in Kelly v. Arriba specifically stated in their summary that “The in-line links that displayed the full picture were not fair use, so were infringing the exclusive rights of Kelly” … granted, in 2003 they modified that aspect of their decision, but only because they felt the District Court ruled on something that it shouldn’t have, not because of anything to do with fair use … Had the case taken the long haul, it’s still unclear where it could have gone.

---

Agreed. I wish it had gone all the way, as we'd have actual precedent in the case.

Quote:

---

Exactly, which is why in my opinion erring on the side of caution and throwing in a credit to the owner of the original work goes a long way towards avoiding potential problems.

---

That's definately true. However, (for the benefit of everyone reading this) giving credit does not qualify you to claim "fair use." It is a requirement to claim fair use, but it's not automatic.

Quote:

---

I like my odds on this one given the reasons above … I think experienced council schooled in ins and outs of the ball python business could make an extremely strong arguement for potential loss of income ... and with fair use being an affirmative defense, I wouldn't want to have to try and disprove something like that. ;)

---

Me either. To be honest your point about erring on the side of caution is a good one. These "could go anyway" type of cases aren't fun for anyone, especially those named as defendants :).

Turned out to be an interesting thread regardless :). Not to mention the original point: That crystal is an amazing morph and all props go to Tom for making it real :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

OK, I’ll play.

---

rawr! ;) :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

if I had an actual education in this stuff, I'm sure I could do much better. :carrot:

---

But you don't know 100...and stuff! :8:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cassandra

But you don't know 100...and stuff! :8:

---

:carrot::carrot::8::8:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

However, (for the benefit of everyone reading this) giving credit does not qualify you to claim "fair use."

---

Absolutely correct! ... but, as a person that constantly spends pain staking hours trying to capture the perfect picture of a single animal that was produced after years of raising up the parents that were purchased with probably more money than I should have spent at the time and snapping and deleting and snapping and sizing and cropping and getting mad and deleting and then finally getting it, a little credit when someone resposts one of my pics goes a long way ... I'm sure that Tom would agree. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

That crystal is an amazing morph and all props go to Tom for making it real :D.

---

Bravo! Case dismissed counsler! ;) :sweeet:

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

Absolutely correct! ... but, as a person that constantly spends pain staking hours trying to capture the perfect picture of a single animal that was produced after years of raising up the parents that were purchased with probably more money than I should have spent at the time and snapping and deleting and snapping and sizing and cropping and getting mad and deleting and then finally getting it, a little credit when someone resposts one of my pics goes a long way ... I'm sure that Tom would agree. ;)


-adam

---

You mean those awesome pictures dont just spit right out of your camera??? I thought everything came so effortlessly to you! My image of you is shattered! :rainon:

:P

Awesome discussion, guys! Thumbs up to both of you!! :gj: :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

You mean those awesome pictures dont just spit right out of your camera??? I thought everything came so effortlessly to you! My image of you is shattered! :rainon:

---

I wish! ... I absolutely HATE taking pictures because I am sooooo bad at it ... it's depressing getting everything set up, getting the snake to actually come out of the ball and sit still, take what appear to be (on the little camera LCD screen) great shots, and then load them on the computer to have them look HORRIBLE ... this happens to me at least 3 times a week and I hate it!

I am so in awe of everyone that takes great pictures! ... It's a true skill and one that I'm convinced I'll never learn ... I just keep buying stuff to help me take better pictures but that has only limited success ... I'm sure that sooner or later it will get to the point where I'll just pay someone with talent to do it for me. :P

-adam

Awwwwww... :hug: That happens to me, too. It's why we don't see tons more pictures of my animals around here.


But I still wuvs ya...even if you're not perfectly talented at EVERYthing! :blowkiss: And even if you don't know 100! :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

And even if you don't know 100! :P

---

FWIW, I'm working on that ... I'm up to 7!!! ;) :sweeet:

-adam

Adam, you take good pictures of snake nookie...you can at least be proud of that. =D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cassandra

Adam, you take good pictures of snake nookie...you can at least be proud of that. =D

---

Yeah, but that's cause I'm a nookie-ologist. :sweeet: ;) :carrot:

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

I wish! ... I absolutely HATE taking pictures because I am sooooo bad at it ...

---

Well, I'll trade you my picture taking talent for your collection any day of the week :D

Wait a minute... your pics are awesome Adam. I currently have your Albino/Car. Albino as my background. I love that photo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Wait a minute... your pics are awesome Adam. I currently have your Albino/Car. Albino as my background. I love that photo.

---

Thanks! ... It actually took like 100 shots before I got that picture ... those two snakes are "runners"!

-adam

Awww don't feel bad Adam. I have a whole slew of pictures of "this is where the snake used to be", "look close, that's the tip of his tail disappearing from view" and the ever popular "squint, it's a close-up and VERY blurry, but there IS a snake in that photo!" :oops:

same with most photographers tbh
even pros take over 1000 photos at a time and keep around 20 at most

Adam,

You should see the billions of photos i take and only keep 3. With a good camera photoshp,and acsesories you can do everything.

I love taking pictures of snakes.... :)