There are exceptions (There are always exceptions!). For exampe, if she took the images herself (unlikely with this topic, but she may have visited Ballarat and taken pictures of the Eureka Stockade), or if she paid for the rights to use the pictures without attributing. People don't generally do that just for study purposes.
Explanation
Tech Apps Quiz 4
Yes, and that's how to spell it as well.
If you don't mention anything then people might think that they were taken by you, so you're really pretending that somebody else's work is your own. That's plagiarism, and is possibly in breach of "moral rights" clauses in Australian copyright laws.
Most certainly true.
They are his friend's intellectual property, and he should not use them without his permission.
Yes, he can use them, but only for study purposes.
How a site is found, and what somebody incorrectly believes about the word "published" has nothing to do with the Landcare group's obloigations for follow copyright rules. Their use of the pictures is public, because it can be found by using Google.
If he has taken them, then they are his intellectual property.
Being non-for-profit volunteers doesn't give you the freedom to break copyright rules.
An internet site is very different to a "private study" assignment when it comes to copyright rules.
If she does that, she's plagiarising.
... provided it's a genuine summary using Jacinta's own words, thoughts and ideas.
Alex still needs to follow copyright rules, and the terms and conditions of the newspaper site.
Before the year 2000, plagiarism was not acutally a breach of any legislation. It was a bit like going for Collingwood - morally wrong, but not agaist the law. In 2000 new legislation attached "moral rights" to intellectual property, and breaching those rights became a breach of copyright law, as well as wrong.
A game is the same thing as an MP3 or a picture from the point of view of "intellectual property". The copy you have bought is for your use only, and you are typically not allowed to give it away.
Just because you're not selling things that have been illegally copied doesn't make the copying legal.
"Not charging for them" doesn't excuse your action. Your payment is typically only for your use of the MP3. That is all you have paid for, so that is all you are allowed to do. The owner of the intellectual property is missing out on income if copies are given away, because some of the people receiving the file for nothing might have otherwise paid for it.
Provided it's for study purposes, and provided only a "reasonable amount" is used, then it's most likely OK.
... assuming you're not "spying" - ie it's not a photograph of something that is clearly somebody else's intellectual property, eg plans, diagrams and charts that somebody doesn't want copied.
... provided no "snippet" of text is so big that it is more than one-tenth of all the text in the website from which it was taken.
You are allowed to use a resonable amount of others' intellectual property for the purposes of study. One track from a whole CD is not a problem, provided you are only presenting the PowerPoint, and not storing it anywhere where others could copy it.
There are many situations where it's fine to copy items from the Internet. For example, you might have correctly sought permission and paid for access, or you could be using information fiarly for study purposes.
There are many instances where, for the purposes of study, copying material from the internet is allowable.
There are many instances (eg, a reasonable amount for the purposes of study) where you can use material without seeking any permission.
Actually, the terms and conditions probably give him permission to use any number of pictures for study purposes.