PDA

View Full Version : The perils of copyright infringement



Charles Kozierok
08-17-2002, 07:08 PM
The PC Guide is mostly a discussion/help site and not a news site, so it's not that common that someone wants to post a news article here that they have seen elsewhere. However, if you do find a newsworthy piece somewhere, a reminder that you should post a short snippet of it and then put a link to the article, instead of just quoting the whole thing here.

Here's a good illustration of why this is sound policy (http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=42).

YODA74
08-17-2002, 07:30 PM
I Know this is a very thin line are you saying just news articals or all info on the web...EXample say someone named jeffblossom needs help with his hardrive and someone from here posts an answer from a web site or a section that helps fix the prob. and someone from that web recogniz's the exact words and throws a fit??

I would just consider this to be Knowledge usable becouse it is printed on the web As long as you do not try and print it out and take credit (change names and call it yours)

The same could go for avatars off of others sites??? (not creating your own) Where does one actually draw the line??

I'm just trying to understand this so pls. don't take it wrong.


:confused: and bewildered :D

Charles Kozierok
08-17-2002, 11:43 PM
No problem at all Yoda.

I should qualify this matter in that the FreeRepublic case isn't typical. This is a case where the owner of the site was specifically asked to refrain from allowing a certain type of behavior and chose to make an issue of it. It's not likely that a pack of vicious lawyers would descend on The PC Guide just because one or two articles were posted. At the same time, I feel an obligation to make sure people understand these issues in general terms.

Copying graphical elements such as avatars withoug permission is plagiarism. I would hope that nobody would do such a thing. I certainly never do it on the site.

As for news articles, KB pieces etc ... the appropriate method is to quote only a relevant portion or snippet, and provide a link. It's not a huge deal, but it's good to know.

jabarnutcase
08-18-2002, 12:20 AM
Point well taken-
I can see, (in this day and age especially where everyone is lawyer crazy), that a reference back to the site to give credit (where credit is due) is not a bad idea at all.

sea69
08-18-2002, 12:47 AM
what came first?

the chicken or the egg?

;)

ErnieK
08-18-2002, 06:12 AM
Charles
I too take your point. I am guilty of what you say. I posted recently quoting from a magazine (giving details of originator and magazine) but in retrospect see that I could be, rephrase that, I am guilty of what you say. My only excuse is that the article was/is not available on their site. Yet again I have put my big foot right into it. :o

Charles Kozierok
08-18-2002, 08:07 AM
Don't worry about it, Ernie. As I said, this isn't something where one or two instances will cause a problem. I just wanted folks to be aware of the issue in general.

Sea: there's a somewhat amusing but slightly rude answer to your question that I probably shouldn't include here. :)

Vic 970
08-18-2002, 04:16 PM
yoda is quite correct in that it is a very thin line, yet it is complex and complicated.

I am the owner of copyrighted material, much of which I want exposed to public view, and whilst I am quite (very) happy to have a link to my website displayed, I would not wish it to be copied or reproduced without my permission, as it, or part of it could be published in a different context, or altered etc. which could put a different slant on what I, the copyright owner wish to convey.

I hope this helps to give the viewpoint from 'the other side'

YODA74
08-18-2002, 04:53 PM
That's what I'm trying to get at Vic 970 and I fully understand your point and well taken but I think people are pulling all of this copying out of context as in "copy rights" and "copying" this are two different things altogether.

copying someones web page and posting it at another site for the purpose of enjoyment is not copy right infringment only if you alter the contex and take credit for the artical then it becomes copy righted
Am I correct in this assumption or am i missing something.

Another example: Linux users that use the linux penguin as an avitar... that penguin is a copy righted pic or logo as you will, but is thouroughly used thruoght the internet without permission.I believe that BLK. Viper had one of his pages on his web..someone accused him of stealing it and calling it his own.I wish i could find that again I would post a link to it. But the fact was is that the names were changed (as in who wrote the artical and took credit)and thats where you get nailed.

malcore
08-18-2002, 05:29 PM
Well Yoda, I think what you are talking about is plagiarism : to take something by someone else and pass it off as your own. Copy right infringement on the other hand, is the wholesale copying of someone else's work,and publishing or distributing it without the owner's consent, regardless of whether he is given credit for it or not.
Copying small bits is generally accepted, but copying entire articles or web pages for that matter is considered copyright infringement, and for good reason I believe.
I'm sure if we were to ask Vic if we could publish an entire page from his website and told him for what purpose, he would be more than obliging. It's all about respect and requesting permission, a simple and not very time consuming task.

YODA74
08-18-2002, 05:38 PM
Malcore your not getting the point and I am not going to argue about nonsence

This is the fact and the law

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentages of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See Circular 21 and FL 102.

http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html#q47

so pls lets not turn this into a peeing contest.when it come to the law I will win.


It has to be filed as copy righted and not just say so becouse someone printed it on a web.



Plagiarism is taking someone else's works, ideas and anything else that's abstract without giving credit]," I never said not to give the person credit.

malcore
08-18-2002, 05:43 PM
...nevermind.... :rolleyes:

sea69
08-18-2002, 07:22 PM
I believe that BLK. Viper had one of his pages on his web..someone accused him of stealing it and calling it his own.I wish i could find that again I would post a link to it. But the fact was is that the names were changed (as in who wrote the artical and took credit)and thats where you get nailed.


was the context to which my comment was referring to.

;)

Steve
08-18-2002, 09:11 PM
if you do find a newsworthy piece somewhere, a reminder that you should post a short snippet of it and then put a link to the article, instead of just quoting the whole thing here


Copying graphical elements such as avatars without permission is plagiarism. I would hope that nobody would do such a thing. I certainly never do it on the site.


As for news articles, KB pieces etc ... the appropriate method is to quote only a relevant portion or snippet, and provide a link. It's not a huge deal, but it's good to know.

Sounds pretty clear (and reasonable) to me. I guess I should be (and will try to be) a little more diligent at it. :)

Lucias_Clay
08-18-2002, 09:22 PM
Realise this though a work does not have to be registered with the copyright office to be protected.
Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright
http://www.copyright.gov/

malcore
08-19-2002, 06:33 AM
I'm going to poke my nose in here one last time, because I hate to be accused of talking nonsense.

"copy rights" and "copying" this are two different things altogether.
Not so. Copyright is the right to make an entire copy or copies and this right lies with the copyright holder.

copying someones web page and posting it at another site for the purpose of enjoyment is not copy right infringment
Actually this could be considered an infringement of copyright.

only if you alter the contex and take credit for the artical then it becomes copy righted
This is what I was referring to with plagiarism. I was not accusing anyone of plagiarism, just making a distinction. My point being that taking credit for another person's work is not necessary for a copyright infringement. Merely copying ( and I did use the word entire) can be regarded as an infringement.

Sorry IXL for belabouring this point.

BigBlue66
08-19-2002, 12:56 PM
Which came first, the chicken, egg or the question about the chicken or the egg?

sea69
08-19-2002, 01:03 PM
please answer your pm!

tia


LOL- BB how you feeling??

ok - I hope!


;)

Vic 970
08-19-2002, 02:46 PM
Hi Yoda, and all,

First of all I am not trying to make a point here, nor inferring that anyone is suggesting that, I merely offered an opinion of how I see it from the 'other side' for members to consider.

but I will try to pass on what knowledge I have as briefly as possible.

Now the laws of copyright may differ in us, I don't know, but in uk..,

Copyright exists in certain works of art, written matter etc. etc.

It is automatic from its conseption, and belongs usually to the writer, or if in the employment of another, to the employer, to whom the work was contracted.

ie: if you write a song, in your own time, then the copyright belongs to you, immediately you start to write the song.

If you are employed (or contracted) to write a song, then it belongs to your employer.

I repeat it is automatic, you do not have to register it, licence it, or anything else.

so let's look at an example of infringement.

On Monday I write a song, on Tuesday I play it to my music teacher, on Friday I go to the local pub and find my music teacher playing it, to the public, for money, without my consent.

the music teacher has infringed my copyright & I have a right to sue.
-------------------------------------------

that, is the simple basics.

so the problems

I need to prove that I wrote the song, and that I wrote it before he performed it (or before he wrote it, if he claims to be the copyright owner)

there are various ways to do this, but a simple (and cheap) way, is to send a copy of the song to your solicitor (by registered post) , to be retained (unopened) on safe deposit. Until it is required, eg: in court case, when the solictor brings it to court, gives evidence of reciept, then opens the envelope in court.
------------------------
In respect of documents the copyright symbol should be displayed with the (copyright) owners name & the date.
------------------------
NOTE: a copyright owner can of course give a general permission for use of their work, & you may see something like...,

this document may be freely copied and distributed, providing it is done as a whole & not altered in any way.

You could also see something like
this document may not be copied in any way, either in part or in whole without the express written permision.. etc etc.

at the end of the day, I think circumstances of each case will dictate, and decisions made on..,

whether the copyright owner is ...,

upset/how upset by the use of his/her work.
losing financially, or otherwise

whether....,

there is anything to gain (ie: does the other party have any money?)
& what will it cost to take action.

BTW: it can of course be sold (& re-sold) like any other property.

It lasts until 50 years after the death of the original copyright owner.

Hope this helps.

YODA74
08-19-2002, 03:28 PM
I mean no disrespect here by anymeans, I wasn't wanting this to turn into a big free for all on IXL's post I was just wanting to understand where we should draw the line.On all this nonsense, I could state the law all day long and it would not make a difference to most.I was in Law enforcment for a number of years but that doesn't make a F.

Some how this whole thread got turned around into a shooting match. although, I appreciate the imput of our friends that live in other parts of the world, the laws there are totaly different in respect to the USA,and it would be hard to understand the way the court systems here work unless you were born and raised here.


Copy right laws have been infringed on for a long time Churches are a number one infringer but they are a non profit orginization and are not subject to copy right laws.

And I emphisize non-profit for a reason (You can look it up in the law books under copy right laws.And I don't mean the nonsence that you read on the web.Go to the law library.Where you will find the BI-laws.

My apoligies to IXL for turning your thread into a shooting match. I will not be commenting any more on this.
As long as it's for non-profit

Vic 970
08-19-2002, 04:28 PM
I too was in law enforcement (but not handling copyright) which does go some way to understanding the various 'letters of the law'

I'm sure we were all trying to just pass on/obtain knowledge here for the basis of understanding.

I think the point to note here is that our membership is world wide & that different laws apply dependant on where you happen to live. therefore the thin line becomes a little jagged. so where to draw it :confused:

I think it is better anyway to post a link if the subject is large, I suppose I prefer to read the article first hand.

may this remind us all to think before we post.

tommy
08-20-2002, 01:34 AM
Yoda,

While it may be true that Churches are number one copyright infringers, it is not correct to say they are not subject to copyright laws. They are. :)