He may just opt to join us in a fried Mars Bar.
On Jul 27, 11:52 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Molly - US copyright law says that the act of fixing your expression
> in a tangible medium invokes copyright protection. Nothing more need
> be done for the author to own the copyright in the expression. Thus,
> posting a comment on Minds Eye results in the writer owning a
> copyright in the posted text. Of course, there is also fair use, about
> which I've written you earlier. I'm interested in what Google's
> counsel says about all this. Jim
>
> On Jul 27, 6:11 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Molly,
>
> > As far as I know, posting something to the group doesn't automatically
> > enshrine it in copyright law. In my experience, some other kind of action
> > would usually be needed. I don't know this for sure with regards to the
> > Internet, however. Outside of my expertise.
>
> > As I've said, it's your responsibility to make the decision.
>
> > There may be a complication, however. Given that your blog is Google
> > Adsense-enabled and carries Amazon AWS advertising -- and hence you are
> > profiting from content you did not write -- I think Vam and Fran's talk of
> > wanting to see some kind of return for their contributions may need
> > addressing, no? :)
>
> > Ian
>
> > 2009/7/27 Molly Brogan <[email protected]>
>
> > > For clarity, can you site us some copyright law that tells us clearly
> > > that as soon as we post something in this group (no matter what name
> > > we are posting under, and whether or not we have a legitimate profile
> > > to match it) we own a copyright to it without actually applying for
> > > copyright with the office of the country of our citizenship? This
> > > would certainly be of interest to me and go a long way in clarifying
> > > the concerns we are all voicing now. Last I checked, copyright was
> > > something you applied for and were awarded after (in the US) paying
> > > for the privilege. There is, on the internet, creative commons
> > > copyright, but as that is not in use here, it does not apply.
>
> > > Do you think that googles terms and conditions were referring to
> > > material that may actually have a copyright? This is probably the
> > > case, and reminds me that I should be listing the copyright info when
> > > I post things from my books in these groups. But it doesn't really
> > > matter anyway, because copyrights only come in handy if I can prove in
> > > court that I obtained mine at a date prior to the publication of my
> > > material under someone else's name, in which case, I might be awarded
> > > damages if someone made money using my work as theirs.
>
> > > It is all only points of interest. Going forward, I will only use the
> > > posts from Minds Eye from folks who have given permission, and as I
> > > said, this won't really change things much. Each post is accredited to
> > > the author under their fictitious name or, if I can ascertain it,
> > > their given name on my blog. I do this because I believe that we are
> > > all adults and prefer to use adult names. I'm glad to clear things up
> > > and hope for further clarification on the copyright issues.
>
> > > The issue of how far we need to go to control our words has indeed
> > > become an interesting topic. Neil's image of perusing the internet
> > > for info on Darwin to formulate a response to the Darwin thread is
> > > poignant. How many original ideas do we have? How deeply do other
> > > writers words effect us on levels that we don't recognize as our words
> > > are coming out of us? In my opinion, it isn't the words, but the
> > > logos that moves between us as we are exchanging the words that
> > > expands our awareness. Therein is the true treasure. Can we really
> > > control that on the internet and why would we want to? I think the
> > > more we try to hold on to control in these ways, the smaller our world
> > > becomes. There are lots of groups on the internet. This one is great
> > > because of the level of exchange between members. The internet is
> > > great because it gives us immediate access to information and ideas.
> > > It expands our world - in direct proportion to how we allow.
>
> > > On Jul 27, 5:55 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Google's terms and conditions are clear: you may not reproduce posts
> > > without
> > > > permission of the copyright holder (the author of the post). Legally
> > > there
> > > > is no discussion to be had on this point; neither in public nor private.
> > > > Philosophically, as Francis has alluded to, there's probably quite a lot
> > > to
> > > > discuss.
>
> > > > Where there is a legal discussion is on what the moderators do about the
> > > > fact that one of us has previously given Molly permission to reproduce
> > > posts
> > > > made to Mind's Eye on her blog. The question is what we do about this
> > > (given
> > > > that this permission was apparently not ours to give). This discussion
> > > only
> > > > relates to the indemnity of the Moderators and has nothing to do with
> > > > the
> > > > actual group. Ultimately Molly may choose to carry on reproducing posts
> > > on
> > > > her blog, but, in my opinion, the Moderators should not be complicit in
> > > > this.
>
> > > > As a writer I value the protection of copyright laws, even if others do
> > > not.
>
> > > > Ian- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
