Hacker News Reader

Comment by ketralnis | Hacker News Reader

Does rampant theft make theft any more acceptable?

No, but the fact that copyright infringement is not theft might.

Haha, looks like the MAFIAA war machine has been working pretty effectively that even HN readers are starting to believe it!

I recommend re-reading Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture periodically as an antidote to the reasonablish arguments pouring out of the entertainment industry.

The taboo against "theft" is a cultural norm, and now there's a new cultural norm.

It's possible that they've only seen it as a meme, in which case they would have no idea who to credit. I for one had never heard of the original until just now.

Apparently, yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Trademark_er...

for what its worth, that applies to trademark not copyright

IANAL, but since the content in question is not a trademark, I do not think that genericization applies.

Since Hyperbole and a Half is Creative Commons licensed (CC-NC-ND), it looks like its licensing requirements would be satisfied by attributing the original source ("Proper credit includes a prominent, easily visible link to the source of the material you want to use...")[1].

I think making sure that images in your blog post are properly licensed is difficult [2], but on the same level of difficulty and importance as determining a license for a software project [3].

[1]: http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/p/faq_10.html

[2]: I have personally had issues with this, which I wrote about at http://www.marteydodoo.com/2011/01/19/licensing-is-hard/

[3]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/pick-a-license-any-...

You should balance that against the fact that the license also forbids Derivative Works (the ND in the CC-BY-NC-ND) - which likely means that the images themselves, even with attribution, are breaking the license.

Fair use?

I believe you still have to credit the original copyright holder when claiming Fair Use.

No.

But you cannot claim authorship. That violates 17 USC 106A rights of attribution and integrity.

Woah ... I've just re-read 106A for the first time in a few years. There've been a few additions to that section, including a mess of integrity, modification, and destruction claims. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/1/106A

Notafan.

No, there is no such requirement. Fair Use is judged on a four prong test, none of which involve crediting the author:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com