If you look a week or so back on the M&M blog, you’ll see the post “Well, since they asked so nicely…” But you can’t watch the video. It’s gone.

Just recently, this video went flying through everyone’s email boxes, making fun of the newest “bubble” of Internet companies, such as social networking sites, being valued at 57 megananotrabillion dollars. Now it’s been taken down by YouTube and other sites, due to a single photographer, Lane Hartwell, claiming copyright infringement.

I found out about the takedown from Wired. What I found more interesting than the actual story was the comment trail. It blows my mind how wide the spectrum of belief is. From copyright-backers to “it should all be free” backers. (On a related note: I once had someone tell me that if you posted something…ANYTHING…to the Web, it automatically became public domain!) As a professional in a creative field, I find the misinformation quite disturbing.

While wading through all the comments from people about the whole thing, I came across this gem:

“I realize this is a hard concept for most of the “Copyright-infringement-is-theft” crowd to wrap their heads around, but copying a photo found online is *NOT* the same as stealing a painting from a gallery.”

Well, sure it isn’t the same, but only in that online you are not taking the original physical item. But make no mistake, as far as copyright is concerned, there is no difference between hard drive or canvas. Both are physical media.

Obviously, people are very much in the dark when it comes to copyright law. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but it’s my job to know at least the basics. There are three things that I think most people don’t quite understand: first, the concept of intellectual property; second, the fact that copyright is automatic. The minute a work is put to physical media, it is copyrighted. One doesn’t have to register a work to have it copyrighted. (The role of copyright registration is a story for another time.) The third, and most egregious, is the concept of Fair Use.

The crowd who thinks the photographer is in the wrong will scream “Parody! Satire! FAIR USE!” They are wrong.

While the work as a whole may be a parody, it’s not a parody of her picture—and therefore is not fair use. Had it parodied her picture, she probably wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Hartwell has every right to ask that her photo be removed. It belongs to her. Her claim is legitimate.

Is it not the same as using a bit of a song. They are not using a small bit of her picture.

They will argue that Richter Scales isn’t making any money off the picture. Again, they are wrong. How many people knew who the Richter Scales were before this? (I think I hear crickets.) They perform…they now are better known—if I’m not mistaken, that will translate into more ticket sales to their performances. Or maybe more sales of their album. They are available on iTunes.

This is, of course, not the first time this has happened. It’s not the most newsworthy (well, until someone starts aping the heavy-handed ways of the RIAA). But it may be the most insidious. People think that if you put it up on the Internet, you know the risk you take of it being stolen. Does this really matter? What if I wanted to sell copies of my pictures online? I shouldn’t be penalized because I posted them online. They are mine, after all. And yet it happens, day in and day out.

The thing is, all of this could have been avoided if the Richter Scales had simply asked for permission (make no mistake, they did have the ability to contact her, through her Flickr page). They most likely would have gotten the permission. Instead, they just took it anyway. What’s truly sad is that it wasn’t an individual who took the picture, but it was an ENTITY that took it. A creative group at that. You would think they would have known better.

Oh, and as I write this, I found that it IS still available, but for how long, who knows.