morality of breaking copyright restrictions

Lois is right. I would also add that just because one person elects not to enforce the right to protect their material does not by extension cancel the rights of other artists who may feel differently. Simply because a rock group decides to let patrons film their concert doesn’t then shift the obligation to a museum to inform its patrons that they cant photograph the mona lisa.

Lois is right. I would also add that just because one person elects not to enforce the right to protect their material does not by extension cancel the rights of other artists who may feel differently. Simply because a rock group decides to let patrons film their concert doesn't then shift the obligation to a museum to inform its patrons that they cant photograph the mona lisa.
The Getty is one museum where photography of most exhibits is permitted. I was so surprised to hear this that I had to confiem it with one of the guards. It is very unusual. Nearly every museim I have ever visited does not allow it. "Handheld and video cameras using existing light are welcome in the permanent collection galleries. Please check at the entrance of the changing exhibitions for any restrictions in those galleries. Flash photography, tripods, and monopods are not permitted. Any photography is for personal use only and may not be sold. Wedding and engagement photography is not permitted. "Any commercial or other unauthorized use of any transmission, picture, film/type, writing, drawing, or other depiction or description of any Getty name, mark, or logo is prohibited without prior specific written approval of the J. Paul Getty Trust. . . "The Getty may photograph, film, or videotape visitors for educational and promotional purposes. Use of a ticket is implied consent for the use of the holder's likeness, voice, or video image for marketing purposes." - See more at: http://www.getty.edu/visit/center/plan/faqs.html#center_plan_faqs_photography lois

This discussion, prompted me to look into copyright law. I was amazed at the breadth and complexity of what it covers. e.g., It seems to me that if you video yourself singing “Happy Birthday to You” at your child’s birthday party, you should be careful about sharing it, lest you are liable to AOL Time Warner, for royalties.
Also, it prompted me to remove my signature line (an obvious line from a book/movie) in case I have unwittingly been infringing a copyright. Too bad. I really liked that signature line and it may have given a bit of free publicity to the movie/book.
Eventually, I guess I will come up with my own original signature line. (Which, apparently, according to current laws, I will retain ownership of, until 70 years after my death.)

This discussion, prompted me to look into copyright law. I was amazed at the breadth and complexity of what it covers. e.g., It seems to me that if you video yourself singing "Happy Birthday to You" at your child's birthday party, you should be careful about sharing it, lest you are liable to AOL Time Warner, for royalties. Also, it prompted me to remove my signature line (an obvious line from a book/movie) in case I have unwittingly been infringing a copyright. Too bad. I really liked that signature line and it may have given a bit of free publicity to the movie/book. Eventually, I guess I will come up with my own original signature line. (Which, apparently, according to current laws, I will retain ownership of, until 70 years after my death.)
I don't think you would have anything to worry about. The Internet is so wide open and everyone copies things from copyrighted works. It's not as if you are selling it. Copyright holders don't usually go after people who quote from their works unless it's a wealthy entity that can potentially take in a lot of money on somebody's work (like Amazon or Google)-- and it's usually a large chunk of the material, not just a quote. But you may want to avoid using it for moral reasons. Lois
This discussion, prompted me to look into copyright law. I was amazed at the breadth and complexity of what it covers. e.g., It seems to me that if you video yourself singing "Happy Birthday to You" at your child's birthday party, you should be careful about sharing it, lest you are liable to AOL Time Warner, for royalties. Also, it prompted me to remove my signature line (an obvious line from a book/movie) in case I have unwittingly been infringing a copyright. Too bad. I really liked that signature line and it may have given a bit of free publicity to the movie/book. Eventually, I guess I will come up with my own original signature line. (Which, apparently, according to current laws, I will retain ownership of, until 70 years after my death.)
I don't think you would have anything to worry about. The Internet is so wide open and everyone copies things from copyrighted works. It's not as if you are selling it. Copyright holders don't usually go after people who quote from their works unless it's a wealthy entity that can pootentially take in a lot of money on somebody's work (like Amazon or Google)-- and it's usually a large chunk of the material, not just a quote. But you may want to avoid using it for moral reasons. Lois It was for moral reasons that I used it, as I thought that it expressed an essential, poignant/beautiful truth that everyone should have a chance to consider. It just did not occur to me, previously, that posting it, as a signature line, could be an illegal behavior. If you recall, the gist, of the quote was that we are all interconnected, to the extent that we don't even "own" our individual lives. But of course, in our ownership society, we must operate under our shared perception that almost everything (even ideas of essential beauty and truth, expressed in an "original" way) can be owned.
I don't understand why you are looking for absolution from the people here?
Actually I was looking for something quite opposite - I was looking for some reason to feel guilty, but nothing was forth coming. Playing a little devil advocate so to speak. But, considering how much time I do spend seeking copyright permissions to reprint stuff at my blogs - and my recent long and convoluted attempts to reach Asimov's daughter (keeper of the estate) to give me permission to repost a short 2500 essay of his:
The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44 http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm The Relativity of Wrong By Isaac Asimov
Well there's no money in it for her, so she basically told me to go to hell. I responded
Dear Robyn Asimov, I'll admit, I'm disappointed by your conclusion. This short 2,5000 word essay by Isaac was intended to stir public discussion and thought, not to be treated like a sacred painting stuffed in a distant dusty corner of some church. I believe your father would also be quite disappointed by your narrow interpretation. I wish I could ask you to reconsider, but I imagine that would be more futile dreaming.
Now since we do have the legal right to reprint <250 words - I'm going to have to spend a bunch of time isolating short quotes and then summarizing what's in-between while tossing in some barbs at the greedy, short sighted, daughter. Fortunately, she's the exception and I've actually had quite good luck getting permission to reprint others work. Guess, I'm adding this to make it clear that I am not totally glib about copyright laws and morality - but one size does not fit all. Plus progress is all about sharing and mingling of ideas (I notice great distance was kept from that notion ;-} )

Case in point
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2014/06/catmandos-drfeynman-primer-deniers.html

All that and now it’s lost at the bottom of page 3 - Nooo… must…… share…….

I don't understand why you are looking for absolution from the people here?
Actually I was looking for something quite opposite - I was looking for some reason to feel guilty, but nothing was forth coming. Playing a little devil advocate so to speak. But, considering how much time I do spend seeking copyright permissions to reprint stuff at my blogs - and my recent long and convoluted attempts to reach Asimov's daughter (keeper of the estate) to give me permission to repost a short 2500 essay of his:
The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44 http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm The Relativity of Wrong By Isaac Asimov
Well there's no money in it for her, so she basically told me to go to hell. I responded
Dear Robyn Asimov, I'll admit, I'm disappointed by your conclusion. This short 2,5000 word essay by Isaac was intended to stir public discussion and thought, not to be treated like a sacred painting stuffed in a distant dusty corner of some church. I believe your father would also be quite disappointed by your narrow interpretation. I wish I could ask you to reconsider, but I imagine that would be more futile dreaming.
Now since we do have the legal right to reprint <250 words - I'm going to have to spend a bunch of time isolating short quotes and then summarizing what's in-between while tossing in some barbs at the greedy, short sighted, daughter. Fortunately, she's the exception and I've actually had quite good luck getting permission to reprint others work. Guess, I'm adding this to make it clear that I am not totally glib about copyright laws and morality - but one size does not fit all. Plus progress is all about sharing and mingling of ideas (I notice great distance was kept from that notion ;-} )

:wink:

Isaac Asimov considers The Relativity of Wrong http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/07/isaac-asimov-relativity-of-wrong.html Thursday, July 3, 2014 A few months ago I stumbled on this old article by Isaac Asimov published at Skeptical Inquirer in 1989. I thought he did a very nice job of discussing the development of knowledge with an eye towards considering the significants of our decreasing uncertainty in the knowledge that we do possess. I thought it would make a good addition to my collection over here since trying to grasp the rational driving our right-wing climate science denier pals is what my little journey is all about. Getting permission turned into a convoluted trail of dead ends, but I finally did get through to the Asimov estate - That's where my luck ended as Asimov's daughter seems focused on making money and my silly request was dismissed - though she offers a slightly different excuse, one that to my eyes has about as much substance as a three dollar bill: (snip)