A note from the cockpit

Good point

John K Jordan

Thanks for the education. Some of us are lax on copyright issues when it comes to passing around humor when we should probably be more aware.

I'm curious about how the Fair Use exclusions apply to things like cartoons and humorous photos posted on internet social media (including forums such as this), for example points #1 and #4 as described here and elsewhere, in particular section #1 concerning non-profit use: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107.

This page offers opinion on these points: https://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/fair-use-faq.html

I understand professional comedians are often under fire for making money with jokes they heard or read. I wonder what Facebook does about the untold numbers of visual postings every day!

It's better to be safe than sorry, of course.

For humor that should be 100% safe, here's something I made myself to put up at our laser lab. It's based an old (serious) joke sometimes used on laser warning signs. I've never seen one with this wording nor done as an eye chart so I guess it's an original - unless someone else had the exact idea! (Google do not stare laser beam remaining eye for examples.) If anyone works around lasers feel free to print and post it.

(I know some people have permanent slash defects in their retinas from carelessness around a laser with an invisible beam, in particular, failing to put on protective goggles when adjusting something that "will only take a second.". All it takes is a millisecond of specular reflection from something such as a wrench dropped through the beam.)

JKJ

Woodfinder

John K Jordan

BTW, I've heard two strangers mention Woodfinder in conversation recently.

Fair use

Ellis Walentine

Thanks for the fair use guidelines, John. I suppose we could defend a challenge from a cartoon copyright owner, but, as the commentary says...

These factors are guidelines, and they are not exclusive. As a general matter, courts are often interested in whether or not the individual making use of a work has acted in good faith.

Of course, we post stuff like this in good faith -- strictly for our mutual amusement -- and there's no commercial gain or competition with the originals, but who has the time and the resources to fight a complaint in court? To me, it's easier to err on the side of caution.

Ellis

Re: A note from the cockpit

Dave Bair

I once posted a short video of the bride-groom dance at their wedding. Facebook informed me that the music playing in the background was copyrighted and that they had deleted the audio portion of the clip. Apparently they aggressively protect copyrighted materials.

Re: Fair use

John K Jordan

>>>Of course, we post stuff like this in good faith -- strictly for our mutual amusement -- and there's no commercial gain or competition with the originals, but who has the time and the resources to fight a complaint in court? To me, it's easier to err on the side of caution.

Further reading did indicate that in almost all cases like this the copyright owner doesn't pursue casual exchange like here (it actually benefits them since it is also advertising for their comic) and it's almost unheard of for them to take a conflict past a polite notice. But I agree completely, it's not worth the risk and the horrible waste of time it would take to even deal with the simple case.

For those who like a dose of cerebral humor try xkcd.com (page through the previous comics) and his companion what-if.xkcd.com - some outstanding reading. I even bought the book. This guy doesn't waste time on fancy colored art work and it doesn't detract the least.

JKJ

Re: Good point

Sgian Dubh

"here's something I made myself to put up at our laser lab."

John, I couldn't help a wee smile wondering if it's just me that's imagining or seeing a typo in that poster? Aren't there too many o's in DOONT ... or is it deliberate? Slainte.

Re: Good point

David Yoho

Ahh, Richard, you probably should look again. The O's are correct and read "do not". At least with my good eye they do!!

Vision Problems and Benefit Auctions

John K Jordan

>>>John, I couldn't help a wee smile wondering if it's just me that's imagining or seeing a typo in that poster? Aren't there too many o's in DOONT ... or is it deliberate? Slainte.

>>>Ahh, Richard, you probably should look again. The O's are correct and read "do not". At least with my good eye they do!!

Yes, it's "DO NOT" but what can you expect from a respected author not necessarily a professional proofreader? GD&R (as we used to write: grin, duck, and run!)

BTW, Sir Richard, I bought two copies of your book. I would like to auction the second copy here on WoodCentral as a benefit auction. Can we still do that?

JKJ

Re: Good point

Sgian Dubh

Ah. Now you've pointed it out I can see how I transposed a couple of letters. Stupid me, ha, ha. Slainte.

Re: Vision Problems and Benefit Auctions

Sgian Dubh

John, of course you can auction your extra copy. I appreciate the fact that your purchased two copies to start with.

And, yes, proofreading even my own text is challenging. I can't tell how many times I went over the text for Cut & Dried, in both my original manuscript and in the final proofs of the book, and still typos got through. I found I got (and get) what I can only describe as a sort of word blindness. By that I mean I sort of ended up sometimes reading what I thought I'd written, not what was actually on the page. I can only describe as some sort of mental block. Slainte.

Re: Vision Problems and Benefit Auctions

John K Jordan

>>>And, yes, proofreading even my own text is challenging. ...ended up sometimes reading what I thought I'd written, not what was actually on the page. I can only describe as some sort of mental block. Slainte.

That's actually extremely common among humans. I happen to be married to a professional proofreader before she became an editor before she became a DOE manager before she retired. She can take a quick look through a manuscript mine and see EVERYTHING I'm blind to.

JKJ

Re: Vision Problems and Benefit Auctions

Garthinsandiego

Read some time ago (don't remember the source but can do internet search if interested) that the brain receives far more information than it can process. As a result it takes shortcuts such as pattern matching from memory to speed things along. That's why we "see" faces and animals in clouds and ink blots...and why we are not good at proofreading our own work. We actually "see" what we thought we wrote and not what's actually on the paper (screen.) Interesting stuff.