The above citation was (as referenced parenthetically) from the last thread on the subject, and the words were gruff's, not mine, and I am not sure where he got the legal sitings.
I do not use any comments when a participant has requested that I do not. On Jan 16, 8:34 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > The unauthorized use of text content can be a form of copyright > infringement. It is common on the world wide web for text to be copied > from one site to another without consent of the author. Roberta Beach > Jacobson criticizes the misappropriation of writers' work by websites > in her article Copyrights and Wrongs. This article was added to > articlestree.com[8] on November 27, 2001; ironically, it has since > been copied to hundreds of websites,[9] many of them claiming > copyright over the work or charging money to access it. > > 8 ^ Jacobson, Roberta Beach (2001-11-27). "Copyrights and > Wrongs".www.articlestree.com.http://www.articlestree.com/copywriting/copyrights-and-wrongs-tx19720.... > Retrieved 2007-04-07. > 9 ^ "Results 1 - 10 of about 371 for "Roberta Beach Jacobson" > "Copyrights and > Wrongs"".www.google.com.http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Roberta+Beach+Jacobson%22+%22Copyri.... > Retrieved 2007-04-07. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Text > > It wasn't an intention to establish lawsuit but merely a cease and > desist declaration. "Potentially" a compilation of copied texts can > form a published work with all copyright reservations thereby > rendering it as having monetary value. You could easily compile (not > implying intent) the copied ME posts and put together any form of > marketable material. Establishing reserved rights to my personal work > gives me the opportunity to compile my own work for integration within > another body of material, therefore the work does have monetary value > when considering authorship aside from the what you have labeled as a > diminutive value of personal ego. The laws are complex and subject to > a myriad of interpretations adding to the difficulty of establishing > laws concerning electronic information and the copying and exchange of > such information. Who would buy books if they were just so easy to > copy from some Internet site? This is the crux of the matter. > > Consider YouTube's use of and distribution of material and the > implications. (scroll down for the article) > > http://www.articlestree.com/Legal/youtube-could-be-liable-for-copyrig... > > Again it is simply a cease and desist declaration not a prelude to > legal remedies for infringement nor is it a complaint as perceived by > Twirlip in the post above. I think you understand that. > > On Jan 16, 6:54 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > To be completely accurate, I began at Minds Eye asking individuals for > > permission, was told by the Mods that was not necessary because the > > posts here were public domain, so stopped. Sometime later, the public > > domain issue was challenged, and copyright/fair use laws concerning > > cross posting and copying the Minds Eye posts were discussed again. > > Truth is, there are many sites that pull these discussions with an rss > > feed and are used only for advertising. My blog is different than > > that, I make no money from it, and use it to create discussion and > > develop ideas. I change fictitious names to real names when I know > > them with permission and in respect because I think we are all adults > > with adult names in the discussions. > > > Thanks, Twirlip, for your permission. > > > Applicable fair use and copyright law (taken from our last discussion > > as referenced by the members here - thanks again) > > > 17 USC Sec. 102 holds your answer. TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS, CHAPTER 1 > > - > > SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT, Sec. 102. Subject matter of > > copyright: In general > > (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, > > in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of > > expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be > > perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly > > or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship > > include > > the following categories: > > (1) literary works; > > (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; > > (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; > > (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; > > (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; > > (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; > > (7) sound recordings; and > > (8) architectural works. > > This is the raw law. Let me point you > > tohttp://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C1.txt > > which along with the above law also has the historical and revision > > notes which describe what the law is intended to encompass and how it > > should be interpreted. > > n top of the above is what you can do if the copyright of something > > of which you have been the original author is violated -- about all > > you can do is send them a cease and desist order, which if they > > snubbed you could go to a court of equity to force them into > > compliance. But you couldn't sue them for monetary damages because > > there would be none. First of all, in posting on a forum such as > > this > > you have no expectation of profits so there is nothing to sue for. > > There are four elements to a lawsuit. There has to be a duty (such > > as > > not to steal someone else's work and represented it as your own), > > then > > there has to be a breach of that duty (such as that person taking > > your > > words and using them as their own), then that breach has to be the > > proximate cause (the most direct result) of damages which you > > suffered. Since you had no intention to reap a gain from your words > > here, there was no loss except to your ego which is not a compensable > > item. > > > Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107 (Limitations on Exclusive rights: Fair > > use) > > § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use > > Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use > > of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies > > or > > phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for > > purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching > > (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or > > research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether > > the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the > > factors to be considered shall include -- > > (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use > > is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; > > (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; > > (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to > > the copyrighted work as a whole; and > > (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of > > the copyrighted work. > > The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of > > fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above > > factors. > > > On Jan 16, 6:17 am, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > How do you find out the correct legal form of words to use in cases > > > like this? Again, just curious. I've always been mystified by > > > legalese.
-- 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.
