Well, that didn't take very long at all. I told myself, and others, that I wouldn't be re-entering the copyright debates until something actually happened (a bill.. anyone?... a royal commission... something?). So, here it is January 4th, and that goes out the window. At least I'm still going to the gym and writing poetry every other day (so far).
The modified version of my no copyright resolution is that if something out there strikes me as interesting, I will blog about it, but I will refrain as much as possible from engaging in discussions about my blogging in the comments section. Everyone else should feel free to argue against what they think I'm saying, but I'll be busy elsewhere until we're all sitting around some committee table in Ottawa. Fair enough?
So, here 'tis -- this morning, following some fascinating feminist links from the new Antonia Zerbisias blog, I happened across a discussion of unauthorized photo use on the Internet. It's here at a pretty raw, and sweary blog called Bitch Ph.D. -- The camera captures your soul: What is this picture for? The discussion continues in the comments section and then in a follow-up post you can find on your own at the main site.
The issue at hand is not strictly copyright, but I think the ethical discussion underlying this post about porny re-use of personal online photos on Flickr has relevance to our discussion about copyright. Both begin, after all, with respect, and both delve a bit into the question of whether locks are necessary to protect what is ours. Does someone's "freedom" to reuse material found on the Internet include the right to unpermitted pornification of personal imagery?