"rf" and others.

[Richard]

Please kindly keep your silly ass flame wars to this newsgroup.
Here, you have the right to say as you damn well please.
On a privately hosted bulletin board, administrators, can and will, admonish
punishment swiftly for those who wish to attack others.

I asked a legitimate question.
"rf' comes along and is attempting to begin a flame war.
You've had your say. Now watch it disappear from the board.

Btw Duende, where's that tangible proof of copyright?
Your word is not good enough.

 

[rf]

Please kindly keep your silly ass flame wars to this newsgroup.
Here, you have the right to say as you damn well please.
True.

On a privately hosted bulletin board, administrators, can and will, admonish
punishment swiftly for those who wish to attack others.
How?

I asked a legitimate question.
"rf' comes along and is attempting to begin a flame war.

No, I did not. I merely pointed out that the viewers of that board would be
better off looking at the source of the argument, not just your misguided
side of it.

You've had your say. Now watch it disappear from the board.

Waiting... Waiting...

Btw Duende, where's that tangible proof of copyright?

Did you not read the reply in the batcave board from one Wyrm? Here it is
again:

<quote>
There's no NEED for "registration from the copyriight office". I suggest
you DO bother read some things like, say:
</quote>

Said Wyrm was even gracious enough to provide you with a couple of links on
the matter of copyright law. Have you read them yet? No, I did not think so

Your word is not good enough.

Yes, in this case it is. He also published the image prior to you. This in
itself indicates that you stole it.

Now, you can rant as much as you like from here on in. I think it has been
successfully proven both here and at your hosts board that you don't know
jack shit.

Bye now.

 

[Richard]

Try to understand this, dipshit, that means you "rf".
Any bulletin board has real live people who are in control.
If you violate the rules, those people will take measures to control your
actions.
As you are not a director of batcave.net, you can not speak on their behalf
as to what their user may or may not do on their service.

My question is legitimate as to the understandings of their TOS.
You also, do not speak for Duende.
This argument is between him and me.
So far, he has not offered one shred of evidence as to his actual creation
of the image.

Of which, BTW, may or may not be copyrightable.
There is a condition where "mere variations" of common items, such as a
ruler, or a calendar, are not copyrightable.
Since the "eye" is, uh well, rather common place and easily reproduced
photographically, a mere variation rendering may not necessarily be
copyrightable.

As in the case of those items generally deemed in the public domain.
Such as a tree.
And then again, we have what is called "fair use".

And as the saying goes, "If you don't want it stolen, don't put it on the
internet".

 

[SpaceGirl]

Of which, BTW, may or may not be copyrightable.
There is a condition where "mere variations" of common items, such as a
ruler, or a calendar, are not copyrightable.

So, if anyone designs a calendar it's not copyrightable? I'm sure a lot
of publishers would disagree...

Since the "eye" is, uh well, rather common place and easily reproduced
photographically, a mere variation rendering may not necessarily be
copyrightable.

If you drew your own variation of it, of course YOU would own the
copyright on that. If you simply take a copy of someone elses, that
doesn't mean you then own the copyright.

As in the case of those items generally deemed in the public domain.
Such as a tree.

If I take a photo of a tree, I own the copyright to that photo. If
someone else takes a photo of that tree, then they own the copyright for
THEIR photo, but not mine. Public domain or otherwise, if you CREATE
something you OWN it under copyright.

And then again, we have what is called "fair use".

Fair use does not supercede copyright tho. If you have an image on your
site from someone elses site then I guess it could be deemed as fair use
UNLESS the owner specifically says you cannot use it OR you are claiming
that you made it yourself.

And as the saying goes, "If you don't want it stolen, don't put it on the
internet".

Very, very true... but again this does not mean that it's legal.



--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[rf]

Fair use does not supercede copyright tho. If you have an image on your
site from someone elses site then I guess it could be deemed as fair use
UNLESS the owner specifically says you cannot use it OR you are claiming
that you made it yourself.

No quite so mir. In fact the other way round. [1].

Fair use is quite clearly explained in the copyright laww and the references
which I now deem that RtS has read but mis-understood.

If I am a web site reviewer and I take a screenshot of your image of an eye
and use it in my review to extol the virtues of your site, along with some
prose idolising the said image then that is fair use.

If I am a web site reviewer and I take a screenshot of RtS's image of an eye
and use it in my review to downcry the site as being rubbish, along with
some prose ridiculing the graphic design of the said image then that is,
once again, fair use.

If I simply copy your image of an eye to my site then that is *not* fair
use. That is, quite simply, theft.

[1] You may use my image on your site in a manner other than "fair use" ONLY
if I have either given you, the SpaceGirl, explicit permission (and you had
better have that in writing) or if I have publicly stated that said image is
in the public domain.[2]

[2] Publishing the image on a web site does NOT make the image public
domain. I must make an explicit statement, on the page where I publish the
image (or elsewhere), that I place said image in the public domain and
relinquish any rights I may hold under copyright law.

It's a bit like being married and/or pregnant. It's easy to do it, it is
quite hard to undo it.The copyright laws are designed to be hard to
circumvent, it takes a serious and concious effort *on the part of the
author* to dismiss them.

 

[Steve Pugh]

Fair use does not supercede copyright tho.

Well, it sort of does. 'Fair Use' is a set of legal exceptions from
copyright.

If you have an image on your
site from someone elses site then I guess it could be deemed as fair use

Only if the usage falls within the categories defined as fair use -
educational, critical review, parody, etc. and meets the limitations
placed on such usage (e.g. you can only quote short passages for
review purposes, etc.)

Different countries have different definitions of fair use. For
instance parody is fair use in the US but not in the UK.

I don't see how RtS's site can fall under any of the fair use
categories, so he is infringing copyright is he uses other people's
images.

UNLESS the owner specifically says you cannot use it OR you are claiming
that you made it yourself.

Nothing to do with fair use. Fair use overrides the owner's wishes,
and if you are using an item under fair use and also claiming that you
made the item then, um, er, ask a lawyer.

Steve

 

[SpaceGirl]

Fair use does not supercede copyright tho. If you have an image on your
site from someone elses site then I guess it could be deemed as fair use
UNLESS the owner specifically says you cannot use it OR you are claiming
that you made it yourself.

No quite so mir. In fact the other way round. [1].

Fair use is quite clearly explained in the copyright laww and the references
which I now deem that RtS has read but mis-understood.

If I am a web site reviewer and I take a screenshot of your image of an eye
and use it in my review to extol the virtues of your site, along with some
prose idolising the said image then that is fair use.

If I am a web site reviewer and I take a screenshot of RtS's image of an eye
and use it in my review to downcry the site as being rubbish, along with
some prose ridiculing the graphic design of the said image then that is,
once again, fair use.

If I simply copy your image of an eye to my site then that is *not* fair
use. That is, quite simply, theft.

[1] You may use my image on your site in a manner other than "fair use" ONLY
if I have either given you, the SpaceGirl, explicit permission (and you had
better have that in writing) or if I have publicly stated that said image is
in the public domain.[2]

[2] Publishing the image on a web site does NOT make the image public
domain. I must make an explicit statement, on the page where I publish the
image (or elsewhere), that I place said image in the public domain and
relinquish any rights I may hold under copyright law.

It's a bit like being married and/or pregnant. It's easy to do it, it is
quite hard to undo it.The copyright laws are designed to be hard to
circumvent, it takes a serious and concious effort *on the part of the
author* to dismiss them.

Okay!

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[Daniel Ruscoe]

Richard wrote:

If I take a photo of a tree, I own the copyright to that photo. If
someone else takes a photo of that tree, then they own the copyright for
THEIR photo, but not mine. Public domain or otherwise, if you CREATE
something you OWN it under copyright.

Perfect example of this - this morning I was out snapping photos for a
website. I've got a lot of photos of buildings and landmarks that
anybody could take a photo of (if they don't mind the muddy hike), but
when I publish them online I'll watermark the website logo on there to
mark ownership.

Anybody could make similar photos, but the fact is these ones are mine.
It's just the same for anybody.

The only exceptions are stock photos and photos you've paid for.

 

[rf]

Anybody could make similar photos, but the fact is these ones are mine.
It's just the same for anybody.

The only exceptions are stock photos

Stock photos are (or should be) in the public domain. That means the person
who has supplied those photos has publicly dismissed their copyright
interest in them.

and photos you've paid for.

Not always.

If I take a photo of my pet roo then I own copyright to that photo.

If I sell you a print of that photo to you then I still own copyright to the
original photo. You have only purchased the right to use your print of the
photo for the purpose for which you purchased it (for instance, to publish
on your web site).

You are not within your rights to use the copy as if the original photo were
your own, unless I also conciously and purposely assign the copyright of the
photo to you, and you had better have *that* in writing.

For example if you try to sell further copies of the photo to other people
then there is a breach of copyright.

Just like software. Try to sell somebody a copy of your copy of, say,
windows, although that is a slightly different application of the copyright
laws.

Whilst I Am Not A Lawer I have studied this a little (unlike the OP). I
write software for a living. I guard and protect my copyright to said
software quite zealously, to the extent that I have distributors out there
who enforce my rights and are quite willing to use the law to protect those
rights.

As to the OP's eye, well, who would want to steal it anyway and it is not
even Duende's eye so the matter is now moot.

Besides the poor girls eye is at such a seriously dangerous angle to the
rest of her head that she must bump into walls and other obstacles quite
regurlarly. Maybe she has been hitting the martinis too much with Neal

 

[Oli Filth]

As to the OP's eye, well, who would want to steal it anyway and it is not
even Duende's eye so the matter is now moot.

Besides the poor girls eye is at such a seriously dangerous angle to the
rest of her head that she must bump into walls and other obstacles quite
regurlarly. Maybe she has been hitting the martinis too much with Neal

The iris and pupil on RtS's image seem to be cut and paste from Duende's
image (look at the specular light reflection, and the light bits in the
iris). Do partial images used in this way still count as copyright breach?

 

[Daniel Ruscoe]

Stock photos are (or should be) in the public domain. That means the person
who has supplied those photos has publicly dismissed their copyright
interest in them.


Not always.

If I take a photo of my pet roo then I own copyright to that photo.

If I sell you a print of that photo to you then I still own copyright to the
original photo. You have only purchased the right to use your print of the
photo for the purpose for which you purchased it (for instance, to publish
on your web site).

Ah, yes, of course. By 'paid for' I meant paid a photographer to take
for you. I suppose even then you would have to agree the copyright of
the image be transferred to you.

Just like software. Try to sell somebody a copy of your copy of, say,
windows, although that is a slightly different application of the copyright
laws.

That's just the example I thought of when I started reading your reply.
Of course, if you'd paid someone to produce the software for you,
copyright could be yours.

I see a lot of PHP job offers that insist you give them copyright over
whatever code you write. I've never had to do that as the jobs always go
to some guy in India for $5.

While we're doing image copyright, do you know of any companies in the
UK that will accept images online and sell them as prints? Sort of like
Cafepress, but good.

 

[Richard]

Richard wrote:

So, if anyone designs a calendar it's not copyrightable? I'm sure a lot
of publishers would disagree...

The simple calendar itself is not copyrightable.
Photographs, and other items placed on it are.

If you drew your own variation of it, of course YOU would own the
copyright on that. If you simply take a copy of someone elses, that
doesn't mean you then own the copyright.

If I take a picture of a building, then edit it so the building is shown
twisted out of shape, in essence, that is a parody. It is not copyrightable.

If I take a photo of a tree, I own the copyright to that photo. If
someone else takes a photo of that tree, then they own the copyright
for
THEIR photo, but not mine. Public domain or otherwise, if you CREATE
something you OWN it under copyright.

Which I have stated many times.

Fair use does not supercede copyright tho. If you have an image on your
site from someone elses site then I guess it could be deemed as fair
use
UNLESS the owner specifically says you cannot use it OR you are
claiming
that you made it yourself.

Who's to say I didn't do the precise same work on my own?

 

[Steve Pugh]

If I take a picture of a building, then edit it so the building is shown
twisted out of shape, in essence, that is a parody. It is not copyrightable.

No, it is copyright. You would own the copyright for both the
original photo and the edited picture.
The fair use definition of parody would not even come close to
applying in that case.

Steve

 

[SpaceGirl]

The simple calendar itself is not copyrightable.
Photographs, and other items placed on it are.




If I take a picture of a building, then edit it so the building is shown
twisted out of shape, in essence, that is a parody. It is not copyrightable.





Which I have stated many times.




Who's to say I didn't do the precise same work on my own?

True, but not likely. You'd still end up with the same result, therefor
end up slapped around the head for copyright. Someone else did it first.
I'm not a lawyer either, but you have to be pretty careful when it comes
to (c). If you didn't create the image from scratch yourself (which you
freely admited) then *someone* copied it from somewhere didn't they,
even if it wasn't you?

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[Tonnie]

The simple calendar itself is not copyrightable.
Photographs, and other items placed on it are.

The whole product is copyrighted.

As stated earlier, you have no idea of what you are talking about. So it
would be preferable if you just shut up, and stop demonstrating your
stupidity.

If you took the picture and altered it, it is.

If I take a picture of a building, then edit it so the building is shown
twisted out of shape, in essence, that is a parody. It is not copyrightable.

It is not a parody, it is an artistic expression and therefor
copyrighted. And even the parody can be copyrighted.

A common statement made by those who have no clue at all.



Tonnie

 

[Toby Inkster]

Do partial images used in this way still count as copyright breach?

Yep.

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle SpaceGirl scribbled in the mud:

Okay!

You're so easy. <g>

 

[Richard]

Fair use does not supercede copyright tho. If you have an image on your
site from someone elses site then I guess it could be deemed as fair
use
UNLESS the owner specifically says you cannot use it OR you are
claiming
that you made it yourself.

Not quite.
"fair use" has to deal with using someone else's work "in part".
Like that of a newspaper quoting another source.
Or as we see in websites, a paragraph taken from a book and commented on.
An image taken from another site and used without permission for commentary
purposes.
Such as one might do with their favorite tv show.

"Fair use" is part of the copyright law. It is not superceded in any way.

"Far use" does not involve the outright marketing of a work for your own
profit.

"Public domain" means basically, works not protected by copyright.

The question still remains, is the work claimed by duende his own original
work entirely? Or did he merely "morph" an image that was in "public
domain"?
Unless he can show that 100% of the work was of his own doing, he can not
claim copyright.

 

[Richard]

While sitting in a puddle SpaceGirl scribbled in the mud:

You're so easy. <g>

Yet another wonderful one liner response.
There used to be another poster who also enjoyed one line responses.
I'm wondering if you aren't him.

 

[SpaceGirl]

While sitting in a puddle SpaceGirl scribbled in the mud:




You're so easy. <g>

I have a cold. I'm all out of fight. Any I'm certainly no expert when it
comes to copyright etc.


--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #