So I have started this new thread to get some input. I haven't put much thought into this myself and am not taking a position so please, keep it civil. A thought occurred to me while reading the thread. Is the sharing of copyrighted Far Side comics materially different from the sharing of copyrighted music files. Why or why not?

eta: I have thoroughly enjoyed the far side thread

It just reminds me to go out and get that huge book he published with every one ever published

"fair use" does not include distribution

I know that Gary Larson thinks that it is stealing.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I'm walking a fine line here.

On the one hand, I confess to finding it quite flattering that some of my fans have created web sites displaying and / or distributing my work on the Internet. And, on the other, I'm struggling to find the words that convincingly but sensitively persuade these Far Side enthusiasts to "cease and desist" before they have to read these words from some lawyer.

What impact this unauthorized use has had (and is having) in tangible terms is, naturally, of great concern to my publishers and therefore to me -- but it's not the focus of this letter. My effort here is to try and speak to the intangible impact, the emotional cost to me, personally, of seeing my work collected, digitized, and offered up in cyberspace beyond my control.

Years ago I was having lunch one day with the cartoonist Richard Guindon, and the subject came up how neither one of us ever solicited or accepted ideas from others. But, until Richard summed it up quite neatly, I never really understood my own aversions to doing this: ''It's like having someone else write in your diary, he said. And how true that statement rang with me . In effect, we drew cartoons that we hoped would be entertaining or, at the very least, not boring; but regardless, they would always come from an intensely personal, and therefore original perspective.

To attempt to be "funny" is a very scary, risk-laden proposition. (Ask any stand-up comic who has ever "bombed" on stage.) But if there was ever an axiom to follow in this business, it would be this: be honest to yourself and -- most important -- respect your audience.

So, in a nutshell (probably an unfortunate choice of words for me), I only ask that this respect be returned, and the way for anyone to do that is to please, please refrain from putting The Far Side out on the Internet. These cartoons are my "children," of sorts, and like a parent, I'm concerned about where they go at night without telling me. And, seeing them at someone's web site is like getting the call at 2:00 a.m. that goes, "Uh, Dad, you're not going to like this much, but guess where I am."

I hope my explanation helps you to understand the importance this has for me, personally, and why I'm making this request.

Please send my "kids" home. I'll be eternally grateful.


Most respectfully,

Gary Larson

Quoted: "fair use" does not include distribution

+1


Or even copies for your own use of material you have not paid for. (I believe there is an exception for educational/academic stuff or something like that).

Quoted: "fair use" does not include distribution

Do you think that displaying the pictures on the internet is distribution? We surely agree that if I showed you my Far Side book, it would not be distribution, don't we? I admit that .jpg files are much more readily copied and therefore, internet posting is distinguishable from mere display of a book I have purchased. Does it matter that the poster does not intend to distribute the material but only make it available for viewing? If someone posts only with the intention of displaying something he lawfully possesses and someone else copies that image, do the copiers actions convert the posters intended fair use into illegal distribution?

I am leaning towards the marketplace of ides theory, along the same lines as the first reply. In other words, having sampled the quality material that is available, I am encouraged to support that material by buying the material, having been assured that I will be pleased with my purchase.

eta: Along the same lines as the issue of the poster's intention:

Surely it would not be wrongful to loan out my Far Side book. That isn't distribution, is it? Now what happens if the borrower scans or photocopies that book? Does it matter that I know the borrower could easily do so when I lend it?

Furthermore, should it matter whether or not the sharing, borrowing or posting has a negative impact on the commercial value of the work? Why or why not? Should the injured party be required to prove an actual negative impact on commercial value or merely a potential or likely negative impact? If he need only prove a likely negative impact, how can one make such an assessment. Can the fact that some will undoubtedly steal the work be offset by the lieklihood that the exposure to the material will also stimulate others to purchase the work?

I don't believe there is a problem in linking/posting these images.  I see it as free advertising for Larson.  However, copying to your HD and or printing them is different.  If Larson has a problem with linking/posting, he should not allow them to be available on the web.  I.E. don't post them himself and sue whoever does.

Quoted: However, copying to your HD and or printing them is different.

What about copying one or two from a newspaper or friend's collection and posting in your office, cube, etc.? Is that different from saving to HD and using them in the same way? I don't think anyone would debate that copying his works carte blanche and distributing them en masse would be wrongful.

I don't see it as any more wrong than copying and pasting an article from a news website.

Quoted: I don't believe there is a problem in linking/posting these images.  I see it as free advertising for Larson.  However, copying to your HD and or printing them is different.  If Larson has a problem with linking/posting, he should not allow them to be available on the web.  I.E. don't post them himself and sue whoever does.

He does exactly that.

Quoted: I know that Gary Larson thinks that it is stealing. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I'm walking a fine line here. On the one hand, I confess to finding it quite flattering that some of my fans have created web sites displaying and / or distributing my work on the Internet. And, on the other, I'm struggling to find the words that convincingly but sensitively persuade these Far Side enthusiasts to "cease and desist" before they have to read these words from some lawyer. What impact this unauthorized use has had (and is having) in tangible terms is, naturally, of great concern to my publishers and therefore to me -- but it's not the focus of this letter. My effort here is to try and speak to the intangible impact, the emotional cost to me, personally, of seeing my work collected, digitized, and offered up in cyberspace beyond my control. Years ago I was having lunch one day with the cartoonist Richard Guindon, and the subject came up how neither one of us ever solicited or accepted ideas from others. But, until Richard summed it up quite neatly, I never really understood my own aversions to doing this: ''It's like having someone else write in your diary, he said. And how true that statement rang with me . In effect, we drew cartoons that we hoped would be entertaining or, at the very least, not boring; but regardless, they would always come from an intensely personal, and therefore original perspective. To attempt to be "funny" is a very scary, risk-laden proposition. (Ask any stand-up comic who has ever "bombed" on stage.) But if there was ever an axiom to follow in this business, it would be this: be honest to yourself and -- most important -- respect your audience. So, in a nutshell (probably an unfortunate choice of words for me), I only ask that this respect be returned, and the way for anyone to do that is to please, please refrain from putting The Far Side out on the Internet. These cartoons are my "children," of sorts, and like a parent, I'm concerned about where they go at night without telling me. And, seeing them at someone's web site is like getting the call at 2:00 a.m. that goes, "Uh, Dad, you're not going to like this much, but guess where I am." I hope my explanation helps you to understand the importance this has for me, personally, and why I'm making this request. Please send my "kids" home. I'll be eternally grateful. Most respectfully, Gary Larson

Regardless of the legal issues involved, that has to be the classiest "cease and desist" letter that I have ever read.

Quoted: Regardless of the legal issues involved, that has to be the classiest "cease and desist" letter that I have ever read.

I wholly agree. You have to respect him for that. Also, notice that the financial issue is ancillary, at best... he links his concern to that of his publishers and does not focus on the financial aspects, even then. It seems that his larger concern, as expressed, is his right to control his works as an artist, something totally understandable and worthy of respect.

I still enjoyed the thread and would like to see it continue, all due respect to Mr. Larson. The reason I raised this issue is because of my perception, based on previous thread, that most members here are categorically opposed to electronically sharing copyrighted materials in conjunction with the incongruity of the popularity of the Larson thread. The Larson thread, at least on its face, appears to me to be practically indistinguishable from sharing of mp3s or videos, etc. I was hoping someone could convince me otherwise.

I wonder also, what about the pictures for gun nuts threads? Aren't most of those images copyrighted? Obviously, if distribution is authorized or encouraged, that is different but if it is not, aren't those threads just as wrong?