1. There is a copyright issue in this case because a family's personal photo was exploited without the family's knowledge or permission. This specific instance represents a possible violation, or could be perceived as a violation, of section 106 of the copyright law, which states that the owner has exclusive rights to the copyrighted work. Specifically, section 106(5) mentions using copyrighted pictures, and the fact that the owner of the picture has the exclusive right to display it publicly.
2. The pros of this case study from the shop owner's perspective is using the photograph as a way to advertise for his business, and therefore make a profit. The cons he is faced with as a result, are the risks of getting caught for his copyright violation. The pros for the family are allowing their extended family and friends to enjoy the family picture. However, the con of the family posting their personal picture on the internet was the risk of someone taking advantage of the picture and using it illegally, which is exactly what happened.
3. From a business perspective there is a copyright violation because the copyright owners (the family in the photograph) did not give permission for their family's photograph to be publicly displayed. According to the copyright law, the copyright owner has exclusive rights to display their intellectual property. Additionally, the shop owner was using this photograph as a way to advertise his business and make a profit. Therefore, my decision in this case is that the shop owner violated copyright law by displaying the family's personal photograph without their permission, and for financial gain.
4. If the scenario presented in this particular case study had occurred in an educational setting, it would look something like this: a teacher shows his or her class a picture of a family. The teacher has not received permission by the family to use the photograph, however the purpose for this usage is educational. Based on the concept of transformativeness, the teacher has the right to show this picture in order to serve an educational purpose, which is different from the original intent of the photo. In section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 it says, "The fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright. This includes reproduction in copies for purposes such as...teaching..."
5. I personally feel that in this case, while I feel a little bad for the shop keeper who claimed that he thought the photograph was "computer generated," he still violated the copyright law. Although his violation was accidental, it was unfair for the husband and wife whose faces (and their children's faces) were posted for the world to see. While this is a fairly minor and relatively harmless situation, it could have been worse. For example, the shop keeper could have stumbled upon a picture of the husband with a different woman, and while the photograph could have been an innocent situation, the exploitation of the photo could have misconstrued the situation and led to disastrous repercussions.
International nature of the infringement is both a blessing and a curse. Few who know the family are likely to see it, however, it is difficult to get much appreciation for copyright across international borders - even for countries who have agreed to honor copyrights from other countries.
ReplyDelete