# Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I do not expect Shad et. al to have to become lawyers.

I noticed another forum has made "everything" copyrighted for use only on it's forum and for it's members.

Of course, you can post anything on your own forum, that does not immediately make it the law, and since this particular forum is available for anyone to read, it's a public forum, not restricted at all.


But, I wish to avoid any unpleasantness aimed at this forum, so do we have a reading on this?

My limited understanding is that selected phrases, quoted and credited to the individual, is like anything else in the world, it's fine. The intent us normally to support a statement or line of reasoning, and to be sure that the source is not misinterpreted.


Obviously copying a manual and posting it is wrong.

Can we have a guideline here?


(all of that said, I think if the shoe was on the other foot, I would want my exact words quoted, and not paraphrased or interpreted, but that's just me).

Regards, Greg


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2009)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

the rules are not that complicated. 
if i copy, let us say, the manual of LGB,  that is no crime. 
if i then post it here, it is Shad's problem. 
if i just post it as an URL, an address, here, it is not shad's problem, only mine. 
if i cite a copywrighted work, i may do so, but not more, than three lines and i have to state the source. 
if i post a copywrighted picture here, it is Shad's and my problem. 

sounds bad, doesn't it? 

BUT, if the copywrighted work or picture is posted for "educational reasons", it is permitted, when the source is stated. 
(and, as another thread just made clear, the main reason for this forum is that experienced L-scalers can educate younger ones how to execute the hobby, isn't it?) 

i personally, if i am not sure about a pic or work, i copy it to my own webspace, and link it from there to any forum where i want to show it. 
that is an easy way, to take the heat from the forum's master. 

korm


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

A while back, I was downloading some files from a Yahoo user group. It was a construction series printed many decades ago in a UK publication. The files were scanned PDF's of the original series. Absolutely no doubt who wrote them originally. The guy posting the series got a letter from a lawyer in the UK, telling him to stop posting the series or else. He stopped.

Our buddy "lownote" tried to post a video of the first running of his new Ruby using a song in the background. The video got pulled, by YouTube as I recall. 


I know from first hand experience that if you post anything that looks copy righted on this website, it will get removed. As was explained to me, Shad is the one who potentially gets burned. So, to the very great credit of our moderators, "a pound of prevention is worth a pound of cure" 


Really sad isn't it? It is perfectly legal to flood the internet with "free speech" (pornography, violence, drugs, profanity etc.), but you can't hang out some images or files in support of a hobby.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

From the U.S. Copyright Office: Fair Use:[/b][/b]



*One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (**title 17, U. S. Code**). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.*


*Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:*

 

*the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;*
 

*the nature of the copyrighted work;*
 

*amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and *
*the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. *

*The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.*


*The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” *


*Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. *


*The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission. *


*When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.*
*FL-102, Revised July 2006* 

Further information: U.S. Copyright Office: FAQ:[/b]


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

Well, we know that each post in a forum is not copyrighted individually, and the use is nonprofit, educational, and the nature of the work is public statements that are available to anyone. 

Also, when I quote things, I just quote what is necessary as a foundation or basis for comment., so the amount is low. 

Now someone Might say that negative comments are tough on the product, but the copyright in question here is on the contents, i.e. the words of a forum. 

Looks pretty straightforward. 

I think it's unlikely that I would get permission from certain individuals in certain forums. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

It would be interesting to see how the law Dwight posted is actually
"interpreted"as it pertains to the internet. I would say that a website like MLS is "educational", it's definitely not "commercial nature".


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

It would be interesting to see how the law Dwight posted is actually "interpreted"as it pertains to the internet.
As stated quoted above, "The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission." Again, it's a murky area. hehehe Final interpretation would have to be up to a court on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully we'll never have to find out.  

It's good to bring this up though, and good that members are thinking about it.  Thanks Greg.


----------



## joe rusz (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

Greg, I'm a little late to this party and am not really a willing participant (I just wanted to use the bathroom, ha, ha). 

However, it strikes me that the forum you mentioned is trying to keep folks from clipping material from its site and posting them to other sites such as, say, MLS, the thinking being that if folks read the clip on MLS, they won't want to go to--and join--that other site. Right? 

Anyway, I think this is a bit of an overeaction, since so much of the stuff on user sites/forums and such ain't worth the bytes its, umm, bitten on? Except, of course, for the great stuff our guys on MLS put out  

For me, the deciding factor is whether something is commercially produced and sold--like a magazine or a song--or merely scribbled like a note or a post to a friend, and posted on a site such as ours. Sure, it's technically "owned" by the author. But did he/she produce it for profit or merely for enjoyment? And more important, did he invest time and money in producing it, hoping to profit from its sale? Like say, someone writing for GR or Gazette would? 

Tangent: when I see some of the articles a guy like "Fletch" has developed for MLS, I feel like he is the most generous person in the world to offer it to us for free. Thanks, Fletch! 

Before I posted a photo from Gazette on MLS, I asked permission from Bob Brown, to use it. He agreed. But grabbing commercially produced stuff from any medium and using it publically (on a forum) is a no-no to me. But then, I work in the print medium...


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

One doesn't "copyright" something. When one creates something it is automatically protected by copyright laws. In essence, I hold a copyright on this post. There is no earthly reason for me to exercise that right as the content is pretty mundane and I don't stand to lose anything if this post is copied. The only reason to exercise that copyright would be if I stood to lose the opportunity to profit by someone's copying my post. That would include someone else's making money off of my post. 

A book or manual or websight or instruction sheet has a copyright because it was created (it does not need to say "copyright" on the material.)


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

Actually, you do not hold a copyright, I believe you agreed to the T&C of MLS, and MLS holds the copyright. (OK so I'm having some fun)... (read the second to last paragraph on the forum stuff) 

I do get your point. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

Greg's referring to the Terms of Use on the bottom of each forum page http://www.mylargescale.com/Home/tabid/36/ctl/Terms/Default.aspx


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

Is there an attorney in the house that can answer this once and for all from a legal point of view?


----------



## ThinkerT (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

The Admin/Owner of another site I go to got a legal phone call from AP (Associated Press) demanding that the articles cut and pasted to his site (by quite a few individual members) from AP sites be deleted. He ended up having to delete about two thirds of the threads (well into the six digit range for posts) and implimented an automatic seven day ban on anybody posting more than a link or quoting more than a few words to an AP site. The people there debated the whole thing back and forth amongst themselves for a while; at one point the Admin was going to use ...special internet powers... to forbid links between his site and AP ones. In the end, they stuck with the 'link and a few words' policy. 

Folks on other sites have also noted an increase in this sort of thing. The more paranoid sorts are commenting that the 'powers that be' are growing irked with the internet being a source of information they do not control and seek to bring it more under their sway. 

On this site, though, barring dustups like the one in the OP, I really don't see much of a problem. Most of what we deal with is either highly specialized model making type stuff or pretty much in the common domain already.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

To me, it's just what you said it was Dwight, the law was written in a manner that intensionally made it ambiguous providing the owner every opportunity to litigate against everyone at their whim. Which as far as I can see only profits the legal profession. Maybe the answer is; roll up the rugs, turn off the lights, and just shut the Internet down. I mean you can never tell Mr. Gore may just get upset and sue everybody anyway, for non-payment of royalties using what he invented.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

The more paranoid sorts are commenting that the 'powers that be' are growing irked with the internet being a source of information they do not control and seek to bring it more under their sway


Not quite. It's actually all about the money - what else! AP has been having all kinds of problems with its content being posted without them being paid. AP was/is a cooperative owned by many newspapers, so they - and they alone - share the results. In theory. 


Is there an attorney in the house that can answer this once and for all from a legal point of view?


I don't think enough internet piracy/copyright cases have gone to the supreme court yet to have any definitive answers. The internet keeps evolving and causing these kind of issues. 


On a related note. I do photography for real estate agents in my spare time, and the local 'multiple listing service' has elaborate wording in its agreement for posting pictures of a home with the listing. Basically, when you upload the photo, they own it and you relinquish all rights - and they managed to list them all, including 'moral right'. Then, in order for you to continue in business, they grant you a perpetual license to use your own (sorry, their) photo elsewhere. What a nerve. And it still doesn't cover the fact that a digital "image" can be modified - increase the contrast, for example - and therefore become a different "image", or maybe it doesn't. No-one has gone to battle over that one yet.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 04/26/2009 8:58 AM

I don't think enough internet piracy/copyright cases have gone to the supreme court yet to have any definitive answers. The internet keeps evolving and causing these kind of issues. 




I think you hit the nail on the head...for blogs and forums. There is a key word that folks need to consider when talking about copyright issues. The word is "works". If you read the FAQ information that Dwight posted, you'll notice it keeps using the term "works". In the context of a blog or a forum, the "works" is the web site contents...the whole web site. That's important, because it establishes the context for fair use in regard to the third rule cited in the fair use of copyrighted information cited above by Dwight.


Remember the four "rules":
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. * amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whol*e; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 

Clearly, quoting (plagiarizing???) small amounts of content in relation to the total size of the web site would constitute fair use.


Regarding rule 1, if the purpose of the quote is to comment or critique on what what being quoted, I believe it's clearly fair use. I think that's established in 1st Amendment....the right of to free speech.


Regarding rule 2, the nature of the WORK...clearly a forum is fundamentally established to encourage comment or critique. Given that, I cannot see how the owner of any copyrighted forum web site could accuse anyone using the material in his "work" as having plagiarized his work. Clearly, the "nature of the copyrighted works" for a GRR forum is NOT proprietary...as would be an article or score of music or the lyrics of a song or computer program which are made by a DEFINED individual or team of individuals. Typical copyrighted material has this "nature". Forum entries do not.


Regarding rule 4...the value...I look at this in reverse. In the context of litigation, value lost is something you can sue about. It means you can establish a dollar value for the loss. If you can't, then you don't have a loss and you can't sue. Lawsuits regarding physical or emotional injuries to people really have two parts....part 1 is about was there an injury...part 2 is about legally arguing about the amount of loss. Often, part 1 is simple...people got hurt...people got sick, etc. The more difficult part is establishing the VALUE of the LOSS. In the context of forum quoting, fair use, plagerizing, etc, I cannot conceive of how the copyright holder could establish a loss when the site access is free and there are no "use" charges mandated...and lastly...where the actual copyrighted material (the posts) were put there without any remuneration or promise of remuneration to the poster.


So....given the totality of the "works" in a forum, the fact that the purpose of the site was to cause comment or critique, that the nature of the copyrighted material lacks aspects of proprietariness, and that the value would be very difficult to establsh....it seems to me that limited plagerism or quoting of forum text posts is clearly fair use.



In fact...I have NOT figured out why the forum owners even bother to cite a copyright on their sites...unless its just there for the purpose of claiming ownership to the look and feel of the site. Perhaps some lawyer told them that they have to "own" the contents so that they have the "right" to delete offensive material or posted material that is clearly a real copyright infringement. Don't know.


As Pete said... "I don't think enough internet piracy/copyright cases have gone to the supreme court yet to have any definitive answers." I agree and I think forum owners/moderators who push this "I own it" point of view for ideas and expressions freely contributed and posted are just wasting their time....unless, of course, they WANT to spend thousands on attorney fees to establish "definitive answers".


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

Regarding "loss" in cross quoting from one forum to another. If there is some piece of information on this site that people want to know, then they come here to learn it... and are thus exposed to the advertising on this site and the advertisers pay the site owner for the privelege of having their advertisement seen. If someone quotes that information on another site then that information is available on two sites and the "other" site is now garnering viewship of the advertisements from this site which is interpreted as a "loss" to the advertiser and thus they will be less apt to pay for advertisements here and spend at least some their advertising dollars on the "other" site, thus there is a loss to the owner of this site. 

All the while, the person that placed this tidbit of information has gained NOTHING except notariety for being the person whose name the information was posted under 

Speaking, personally, as the originator of some small (extremely small) portion of that "information" that has been posted here, but with no vested interest in it, other than the human desire for recognition of my public esteem, as long as the information is credited to me, I don't really care who disseminates it... that is, until the one disseminating it does so in some manner that I personally object to, such as including obscene, disparaging or disgusting words or images in any context with it. e.g.: I object to anyone using a photo or drawing of mine in conjunction with promoting terrorism, gore, promiscuous sex or tobacco (and possibly other things that at my whim I decide I don't want my personal reputation associated with.) 

At present, the forum rules here and at other web sites "claim" to prohibit such association, (although YouTube is pushing the envelope and are very close to crossing the line from my viewpoint!)


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 04/26/2009 1:17 PM
Regarding "loss" in cross quoting from one forum to another. If there is some piece of information on this site that people want to know, then they come here to learn it... and are thus exposed to the advertising on this site and the advertisers pay the site owner for the privelege of having their advertisement seen. If someone quotes that information on another site then that information is available on two sites and the "other" site is now garnering viewship of the advertisements from this site which is interpreted as a "loss" to the advertiser and thus they will be less apt to pay for advertisements here and spend at least some their advertising dollars on the "other" site, thus there is a loss to the owner of this site. 



Excellent point...I clearly understand the concept you are explaining. Given that we are talking about "plagiarizing" one or two sentences out of probably thousands on these web sites, I'm still not of the belief mode that one could identify a loss (of the advertising dollars) in the context of a loss that one could sue over. I don't see how one could argue that plagiarizing X sentences from another site cause the other site to loose Y dollars. Now...if someone were plagiarizing whole articles...and posting them on other than the copyright owners site and hit counts could show a reduction in traffic on the copyright owners site, then I could understand how a "loss" might be calculated. Some of that goes on...especially where the owners site is slow and clunky...and the thief's site is fast and glitzy. 

Remember...going back to my first point...it's the owner of the WORK that must suffers the loss when there is a copyright infringement. In this case, it's the owner of the whole web site. And you've provided a good example of one characteristic of the work's value....advertising revenue. But from a loss claims perspective, I don't see how you can establish the loss in a WORK that is continually changing in it's contents. I do understand that concept when a work is a fixed thing...like an article or score or computer program. But a forum is a continuously changing WORK...so I think almost all aspects of claiming copyright are bogus in the context of the post contents on that site. 

I don't understand how you could link an advertising loss (the damage claim) to a few plagiarized sentences (the injury). Remember...first step in a lawsuit...prove there was an injury...second step, establish the claim (the loss value). In this case, I think it would be very hard, given the other aspects of what constitutes "fair use", to easily get past the injury argument alone. Ergo, I think copyright claims on the content of a discussion forum are mostly bogus.


This ain't all nailed down as Pete and Dwight have pointed out...but the whole copyright assertion idea for this kind of internet service sure seem weak.


----------



## jlinde (Jan 2, 2008)

Under current law, free use is basically limited to the following: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and parodies. Many 3rd party works that are posted on MLS and other hobby-related forums probably fall within the "comment" safe harbor. Perhaps the most obvious use falling outside the scope of the free use doctrine is posting material to your own site in an effort to allow others to avoid paying any subscription or user fees; this goes straight to prong 4 of the analysis re dimunition of a work's value (which, in addition to being important for establishing damages, a plaintiff must - I believe - allege to establish a prima facie copyright violation case). Of course, copyright protection doesn't extend to underlying facts - if I compose an operatic tribute to the Pennsy K-4, _Tristan und das Pacific_, the musical composition, libretto, etc., are subject to copyright, but not the fact of the engine's belpaire firebox (the elegance of which is featured in the 2nd aria).  


As long as the moderators keep an eye out for posts that include large portions of commercial works, it's hard for me to imagine there is major risk involved.


(Apologies for the opera analogy.  I've been out in the sun with the kids for hours.)


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Mike Reilley on 04/26/2009 2:27 PM
Posted By Semper Vaporo on 04/26/2009 1:17 PM
Regarding "loss" in cross quoting from one forum to another. If there is some piece of information on this site that people want to know, then they come here to learn it... and are thus exposed to the advertising on this site and the advertisers pay the site owner for the privelege of having their advertisement seen. If someone quotes that information on another site then that information is available on two sites and the "other" site is now garnering viewship of the advertisements from this site which is interpreted as a "loss" to the advertiser and thus they will be less apt to pay for advertisements here and spend at least some their advertising dollars on the "other" site, thus there is a loss to the owner of this site. 



Excellent point...I clearly understand the concept you are explaining. Given that we are talking about "plagiarizing" one or two sentences out of probably thousands on these web sites, I'm still not of the belief mode that one could identify a loss (of the advertising dollars) in the context of a loss that one could sue over. I don't see how one could argue that plagiarizing X sentences from another site cause the other site to loose Y dollars. Now...if someone were plagiarizing whole articles...and posting them on other than the copyright owners site and hit counts could show a reduction in traffic on the copyright owners site, then I could understand how a "loss" might be calculated. Some of that goes on...especially where the owners site is slow and clunky...and the thief's site is fast and glitzy. 

Remember...going back to my first point...it's the owner of the WORK that must suffers the loss when there is a copyright infringement. In this case, it's the owner of the whole web site. And you've provided a good example of one characteristic of the work's value....advertising revenue. But from a loss claims perspective, I don't see how you can establish the loss in a WORK that is continually changing in it's contents. I do understand that concept when a work is a fixed thing...like an article or score or computer program. But a forum is a continuously changing WORK...so I think almost all aspects of claiming copyright are bogus in the context of the post contents on that site. 

I don't understand how you could link an advertising loss (the damage claim) to a few plagiarized sentences (the injury). Remember...first step in a lawsuit...prove there was an injury...second step, establish the claim (the loss value). In this case, I think it would be very hard, given the other aspects of what constitutes "fair use", to easily get past the injury argument alone. Ergo, I think copyright claims on the content of a discussion forum are mostly bogus.


This ain't all nailed down as Pete and Dwight have pointed out...but the whole copyright assertion idea for this kind of internet service sure seem weak.







I really do understand your viewpoint, but just to belabor the point... the content of a newspaper is not entirely unlike the content of a web site. Both (usually) only get added to, not "changed"... once written it is still there tomorrow and once written it is copyrighted. The question of who "owns" it is an interesting one. I have posted images here that I have specifically copyrighted myself... says so on the image itself. To then say that the site owner owns that material is odd. I created it, I published it, I own it. I only allow it to be viewed here. If it were juxtaposed with objectional material I would revoke that right to retain it for viewing (something I am about to do with YouTube!)


Besides, the MLS "terms of use" says the content is copyright 2007 and that is two years ago and I have posted items that were not in existence back then so the copyright holds no sway, at least in my mind, which is not to say that any lawsuit would agree with me or what I think! I learned a long time ago that the law has absolutely nothing to do with right, wrong or fairness... it is only a means of controlling society to keep us basically civil toward each other, sometimes at the expense of the individual and their ideas of right, wrong or fairness.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

My first question is about 'fair use' of photos. If I gather, say, 80 pictures of various narrow gauge consolidations from all over, as a reference to build and detail a model for my own pleasure, it's pretty clearly fair use. BUT what happens if/when I share that collection? If I put them in an album and sell them I'm definitely in the wrong, but what if I simply post the lot as an online album, with the intent that others can access the same information I already used (in one place instead of taking hours and hours to search and sort) for free? It's intent is for educational and research, but is it fair? 

Then there are prototype color scheme charts or descriptions, does, say the successor to the DSP&P own this information? Or the researcher who first collected and REprinted the information? Or whom? 



One board I frequent takes the stance that they are NOT liable for ANY of the actions of posters, including content, another says that the board owner OWNS anything posted. forever. Personally i think the first makes more sense.... but would it survive a legal challenge?


----------



## dltrains (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

And if you post content to MLS in the way of a new submission since it's copyrighted by the site, can you then post the same submission on another site? 
And recall a few photos that have been linked to, come with a warning that the link shouldn't exist as it's costing the owner bandwidth. 

Dave


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2009)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

that is real bottomless quicksand! 

i take a pic - it is my copyright. 
i load this pic up to "my" webspace supplied "for free" by a provider, who earns by advertisements hooked to the space. by the rules those sites have, the content - the whole works - is copyright of the provider. 
i link this pic of mine to a forum. - the pic becomes part of the "whole work" of the forum. 

the pic is "copyrighted thrice" by then. 
and the forum and i are guilty of using copyrighted work of my site-provider. 

looks a bit funny to me.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

When I wrote software for "the company", the software was copyright by the company because they paid me to create it. But if you commission an artist (arteest?) to paint your portrait, you pay him to create your image, but the copyright is the arteest's unless he/she specifically assigns the copyright to you.

The company I worked for went through dozens of iterations of what I was to what the copyright notice was to be put on and "how" to put it there and what it was to look like. Over the years the company name kept changing as reorganizations took place and various attorneys ascended to the position of corporate lawyer. The discussions with them were quite often very weird. They would at various times demand that we go back and change the copyright as written in various modules of the software that was complete but being used in salable equipment or even stuff that was for completely internal use (software that controlled manufacturing and/or test equipment. 

For a while they demanded that we include the phrase "All Rights Reserved" and then later it had to be "All rights reserved." (Capital letter on only the first word and include the period.) Then they demanded that we do NOT include that phrase. Explaining that it was only needed for the "Pan American agreement" treaty for international copyright law, but that treaty had expired so they said we could not put it in. A few months later it was explained that there were other treaties with other countries that were still in force and included references to the Pan American Agreement and so we had to put the phrase in again. 

They said at one time that only the top level of the program could be copyrighted, but then later said each module had to carry its own copyright and that the total "work" was to have another copyright that could be found by some means by any person with the appropriate tools... this was before Windows had the "Properties" function and before Microsoft had defined a section of the executable code to contain such information. "Source code" and executables are different entities and there was an argument for a while as to whether one can copyright something created by a machine from what a human wrote. i.e.: can a work created by a machine be copyrighted? or, can a machine be accorded the right to its own work (Isaac Asimov notwithsanding)?



As to posting your own copyrighted work on a forum... have you not "assigned the work" to the owner of the forum? Similar to an artist assigning the rights to a work to the object of the work rather than keeping it for himself, or an employer usurping that right by right of salary paid?

Sticky subject, ain't?

Unfortunately, I think each "case" will boil down to the eloquence of the lawyers and what case law they can dig up as ammunition and how bored the jurors will be at the time the case law is expounded upon.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

On this subject of photographs, here's my take.

You take a photo...and download it into your computer. That's the original art...and the copyright for it is yours.

You take a COPY of that photo and put it on a web site. Unless YOU own the website, most website policies say you GAVE license for that site to have the photo. From the site's perspective, the site now owns the COPY of the photo you posted now. If the site claims copyright to all posted material on the site, then the site owner has the copyright on the COPY you gave him...and he can do whatever he wants with it...mostly. The "mostly" part has to do with the agreement you agreed to when you "joined" the site...you know that page that pops up when you register that scrolls forever and has "I Agree" in a button on the bottom. 


That agreement could say that you surrender all "rights" to anything you upload. It could say the owner can edit, delete, modify, change, etc...anything you upload. That's the "mostly" part. You need to know what you agreed to...because those agreements allow the copyright YOU HOLD ON YOUR ORIGINAL WORK to be relicensed JUST by uploading a COPY of the work. I recall vaguely that one forum type web site I visited had an upload tool for photographs...and when you uploaded a photo onto the site, the tool put in the lower right hand corner something like "Copyright XYZ site 200X". The damn tool applied a copyright notification...


This is the same for all the software on your computer. You'd don't OWN any of it. The developer, in virtually all license agreements I've seen, retains ownership. What you have is a license from the owner for use of a COPY on your machine. 



When I worked for the Navy as a software development manager...all the software (specifications, designs, source, object, etc.) built by the defense contractors that I paid for was under THEIR copyright. What the US Navy got was called an Unlimited Use License. Once it was delivered and accepted...we could do anything we wanted with it...including providing it to another defense contractor to make modifications. And the modified version became a NEW copyrighted version where the second defense contractor owned the copyright to the second version. As time passed, some of the larger defense contractors started to object to the Unlimited Use License in the contract...because they wanted to become a sole source for modification to that software...under THEIR copyright. Twas a big fight...


The point here is that YOUR retention of copyright is heavily influenced by what you agreed to when talking about uploading ANYTHING onto a web site...unless it's YOUR website on YOUR computer.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2009)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

...unless it's YOUR website on YOUR computer.

...or webspace, you rent/pay for your use.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 04/26/2009 9:27 PM
...unless it's YOUR website on YOUR computer.

...or webspace, you rent/pay for your use.

NOPE...that web space you rent MIGHT have terms and conditions you agree to that compromise your copyright. You need to know what you agree to when you rent it. It's not cart blanc even with rentals. There can be terms and conditions.


----------



## stanman (Jan 4, 2008)

I'm not a lawyer, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

What a complicated situation this is.

I develop software, and I don't provide a license agreement. The software is copyrighted, and as far as I'm concerned the person I sell it to owns it, but isn't permitted to make copies for his friends.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

And recall a few photos that have been linked to, come with a warning that the link shouldn't exist as it's costing the owner bandwidth


Yes, the lengths that some sites will go to because they perceive you are 'stealing bandwidth'. 

As far as adding copyright, our multiple listing service does it. I took this pic, and I have several almost identical ones that they haven't taken possession of:


----------



## Greg Vocks (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

Here is an entertaining way of looking at copyright issues: 
http://www.stfrancis.edu/content/cid/copyrightbay/


----------



## Paradise (Jan 9, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

the law was written in a manner that intensionally made it ambiguous providing the owner every opportunity to litigate against everyone at their whim. Which as far as I can see only profits the legal profession.

So so true... 

I do not expect Shad et. al to have to become lawyers.

If he did, he would probably make a real boring forum host.


Andrew


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

*RE: Request a reading on "copyright" rules on these forums.*

It appears that comments in this thread have yet to consider what constitutes material that can be in the public domain and its impact on a copyright. 

In this regard, see selected excerpts from the United States Copyright Office as follows: 

Definitions include: 

What is a copyright notice? 
How do I put a copyright notice on my work? 
A copyright notice is an identifier placed on copies of the work to inform the world of copyright ownership that generally consists of the symbol or word “copyright (or copr.),” the name of the copyright owner, and the year of first publication, e.g., ©2008 John Doe. While use of a copyright notice was once required as a condition of copyright protection, it is now optional. Use of the notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office. See Circular 3, Copyright Notice, for requirements for works published before March 1, 1989, and for more information on the form and position of the copyright notice. What is a work made for hire? 

What is a work made for hire? 
Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle; the exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer, or commissioning party, is considered to be the author. See Circular 9, Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act. 

Where is the public domain? 
The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner. 

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html 

*** 

Certain Unpublished, Unregistered Works Enter Public Domain 

Certain works that were neither published nor registered for copyright as of Jan. 1, 1978, entered the public domain on Jan. 1, 2003, unless the works were published on or before Dec. 31, 2002. 

Under the 1909 Copyright Act, works that were neither published nor registered did not enjoy statutory protection, although they were protected under common law in perpetuity as long as they remained unpublished and unregistered. But under section 303 of the 1976 Copyright Act, works that were created but neither published nor registered in the Copyright Office before Jan. 1, 1978, lost their common law protection and acquired a statutory term of protection that was the life of the author plus 50 years, amended in 1998 to life plus 70 years. 

As a result of the 1976 Copyright Act, any of the works in question whose author had died over 50 years prior to 1978 would have entered the public domain after Dec. 31, 1977. To provide a reasonable term of copyright protection for these works, and in light of the fact that these works had enjoyed perpetual protection under common law, Congress extended their term by at least 25 more years. Congress also encouraged publication by providing an additional 25 more years, extended in 1998 to 45 more years, of protection if the work was published on or before Dec. 31, 2002. 

That first 25-year period expired on Dec. 31, 2002. Any work that was neither published nor registered as of Jan. 1, 1978, and whose author died before 1933 entered the public domain on Jan. 1, 2003, unless it was published on or before Dec. 31, 2002. If the author died in 1933 or later, the work will be protected for 70 years after the author’s death, due to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998. 

http://www.copyright.gov/pr/pdomain.html 

*** 

Examples of what might have caused the work to be in the public domain in the United States include lack of proper notice, failure to renew, failure to comply with manufacturing requirements, being a sound recording fixed prior to U.S. protection, and lack of national eligibility, that is, the source nation and the United States did not then have a treaty relationship. 

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/domain.html


----------

