To protect yourself in the future of people who might snag an image or
an article it would be a good idea to attach a copyright By Line on
everything you do. And/Or a copyright disclaimer at the end. Even
contact information. Then if someone does want to use your material
you can be paid for it. You don't need to sell the article outright
but sell a use license based on number of printings, number of years
it can be used, etc.
If the material does not have a copyright attached to it the snag-or
has a out if caught.
Roy
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> Be forewarned that nothing on earth brings more self-styled expert
>> opinion into the fray than the phrase "copyright" ... a phenomenon
>> noted, on networks like Fido, long before most Googlectuals alive
>> today could spell "www".
>
> OTOH, you can download "Circular 92 - Copyright Law of the United States
> and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code" (dated
> October 2009) in full from
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf (1.6MB)
>
> At 350 pages, it's not a quick read, but might make meaningful dialog
> with a capable attorney possible.
>
> Found with a Google search. ;-)
In keeping with my original post, and before you forget how you did it,
quickly Google and post a link to the NEC and we'll surely have all
bases covered, eh? :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> If you're the creator of the work and you have not sold the copyright
> >> then it remains yours whether you stick a © symbol on it or not.
> >
> > How would you prove that you yourself did not steal the "what ever" and
> > claim it your's if you don't legally register it?
>
> As I said, if it's valuable enough for someone to steal then registering the
> work would make sense.
>
> If you're the one with the photographic negative, or the server logs showing
> you uploaded the work to your website before anyone else, or you mailed a
> registered letter to yourself with a copy of the manuscript sealed inside
> and so on and so forth then you're probably going to prevail in court. But
> again, how much trouble is it worth to protect a photo of the birdhouse you
> built or a short article on how much your wife hates it when you track
> sawdust into the house? Serious copyright protection is available to those
> willing pay to pay their lawyers to provide it, the rest of us can write a
> letter of complaint but if that doesn't work then we probably have to chalk
> it up to experience.
The posts at techdirt.com offer some perspective on copyright...
In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
<[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > You might want to consider steganographically signing your images--unlike
> > EXIF data there's no way for anybody to tell that the signature is there
> > without extensive analysis, and if done right then it's hard to remove too.
>
> I had to look up steganography to know what you were saying - and it
> looks like pretty neat stuff! I think I'm going to have to write some
> code to try it out. :)
>
> From a practical standpoint, wouldn't having a dated original (higher
> resolution) copy of an image would be sufficient to establish origination?
Not in a court. Applications exist to alter EXIF and other information.
Having another photo of the same scene with a date-proving item
(newspaper front page, for instance) may be effective.
But it's SO easy to manipulate an image these ays, that proving
anything is going to be a battle of the expert witnesses. It better be
worth your time and money.
On Dec 27, 3:15=A0pm, ROYNEU <[email protected]> wrote:
> To protect yourself in the future of people who might snag an image or
> an article it would be a good idea to attach a copyright By Line on
> everything you do. And/Or a copyright disclaimer at the end. Even
> contact information. Then if someone does want to use your material
> you can be paid for it. You don't need to sell the article outright
> but sell a use license based on number of printings, number of years
> it can be used, etc.
>
> If the material does not have a copyright attached to it the snag-or
> has a out if caught.
>
> Roy
It is just good publication practice to post notice of who the
copyright holder is of any work. It the piece is not taken maliciously
and the copyright information deleted you still get credit of the
work. Also, if a researcher does find it on the internet it makes it
possible for them to contact you to arrange for a license. You will
find that publishers still respect the copyright information of
creators of works and do place copyright information in the back of
the book. But it is possible for the creator to affix a requirement of
placing the copyright information along with the creation on the same
page if stated in the licensing requirements. If someone removes the
copyright information it shows they are maliciously stealing the work.
For those who would like to read a layman=92s writing of the Berne
Convention on copyrights here is a link for that purpose:
www.arsny.com/basics.html
Roy
Roy
DGDevin wrote:
> Serious copyright protection is available to those willing pay to pay
> their lawyers to provide it,
No lawyer needed. Registering a copyright is just a matter of sending off
the refistration fee - $45 IIRC - and a copy of the item along with the
proper form. Note that items can be ganged; i.e., many can be registered
with one fee.
The advantage of registration is that it provides recovery of statutory
damages of up to $100,000 plus lawyer's fees plus actual damages (money lost
by infringement); actual damages need not be proved, merely the
infringement. Registration must be done before the infringement and within
3(?) months of publication.
One can also recover for use of unregistered material; however, one must
register the item before bringing suit and - unless the time constraints
mentioned above are met - recovery is limited to actual out of pocket
damages. No lawyer's fees automatically awarded either.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> A question or two. Is just indicating that the material is
>> copyrighted legally binding? Or does it really need to have a
>> copyright license? Or is indicating that it is copyrighted like
>> putting a "large dog sign" on your fence when all you have is a cat?
>
> Under US law you don't have to do _anything_ for a work to be
> copyrighted--your kid's scribblings are copyrighted the instant she
> touches
> crayon to paper.
As you indicated in the part I snipped but also what needs to be
considered.... If you buy a widget and leave it out and it gets stolen, you
also are the actual owner of that widget but with out proper registration
there may be no way to prove ownership.
If one is complaining about carelessly not protecting something of value to
themselves they pretty much get what they receive. If you lay a baseball
cap down on a park bench and leave it there for a week and don't find it
when you come back you cannot really blame the person that picks it up and
makes it his. I would also suggest that if you post pictures on the
internet you should expect the same. THAT IS NOT RIGHT, BUT you have to
take responsibility for yourself and your property if you value them and
quit expecting others to watch over you.
There are thousands of laws that are not and will not ever be enforced,
those laws are esentially moral suggestions for those that don't know any
better. A moral law however is not going to actually guarantee protection
for you or your property.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If you're the creator of the work and you have not sold the copyright then
> it remains yours whether you stick a © symbol on it or not.
How would you prove that you yourself did not steal the "what ever" and
claim it your's if you don't legally register it?
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In keeping with my original post, and before you forget how you did it,
>> quickly Google and post a link to the NEC and we'll surely have all
>> bases covered, eh? :)
>>
> http://nfpaweb3.gvpi.net/rrserver/browser?title=/NFPASTD/7008SB
Thanks, and thank goodness ... no more long threads arguing copyright
and electrical issues. What a relief! :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Leon wrote:
> A question or two. Is just indicating that the material is copyrighted
> legally binding? Or does it really need to have a copyright license? Or is
> indicating that it is copyrighted like putting a "large dog sign" on your
> fence when all you have is a cat?
LOL.
Be forewarned that nothing on earth brings more self-styled expert
opinion into the fray than the phrase "copyright" ... a phenomenon
noted, on networks like Fido, long before most Googlectuals alive today
could spell "www".
... and even more likely to be misleading than the proverbial
"electrical" question on the wRec! :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:03:53 -0600, the infamous Morris Dovey
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Swingman wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Be forewarned that nothing on earth brings more self-styled expert
>>>> opinion into the fray than the phrase "copyright" ... a phenomenon
>>>> noted, on networks like Fido, long before most Googlectuals alive
>>>> today could spell "www".
>>>
>>> OTOH, you can download "Circular 92 - Copyright Law of the United
>>> States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States
>>> Code" (dated October 2009) in full from
>>>
>>> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf (1.6MB)
>>>
>>> At 350 pages, it's not a quick read, but might make meaningful dialog
>>> with a capable attorney possible.
>>>
>>> Found with a Google search. ;-)
>>
>> In keeping with my original post, and before you forget how you did it,
>> quickly Google and post a link to the NEC and we'll surely have all
>> bases covered, eh? :)
>
>I just downloaded (and am about to delete) "NFPA 70 - National
>Electrical Code - 2008 Edition" (840 pages, 7MB) from
>
> http://w17.easy-share.com/1700614255.html
I got a 60 second delay, the download button which then presented me
with the maze popup, and then I got the background discussion about
buying Christmas trees, coupled with no download.
Wut up wi dat, homey?
Never mind. [removing Google Chrome from my system now]
>I'm not sure if that's what you're after or not. As long as I have the
>Yellow Pages handy, /I/ don't need it. :)
--
"I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, natural, wholesome things
that money can buy." --Tom Clancy
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:00:31 -0600, the infamous Morris Dovey
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:03:53 -0600, the infamous Morris Dovey
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>> I just downloaded (and am about to delete) "NFPA 70 - National
>>> Electrical Code - 2008 Edition" (840 pages, 7MB) from
>>>
>>> http://w17.easy-share.com/1700614255.html
>>
>> I got a 60 second delay, the download button which then presented me
>> with the maze popup, and then I got the background discussion about
>> buying Christmas trees, coupled with no download.
>>
>> Wut up wi dat, homey?
>>
>> Never mind. [removing Google Chrome from my system now]
>
>Oops! Firefox blocked the popup (I did have to wait through the delay)
>and I hit the download button. I just noticed that I still have the RAR
>archive on my machine, so let me know if you'd like my copy.
Thanks anyway. I got it via Firefox and there was no ad popup. Chrome
is history, though. I will miss it for watching movies. It brought up
Netflix queue in 3 seconds flat, vs 25-60 for FF or MSIE. <sigh> The
ads were just too much. www.Accuweather.com had popups and half a page
of ads, too, but only with Chrome. It's normal with FF, my usual. I
tried Chrome because of the problems with FF. I'd open up several
windows (all the movies from emails during the morning) and some of
them would hide, sometimes while playing sounds. Not good.
--
"I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, natural, wholesome things
that money can buy." --Tom Clancy
Leon wrote:
> "ROYNEU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:e078192f-62a7-47af-b32a-c36b1abfc4bd@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> To protect yourself in the future of people who might snag an image
>> or an article it would be a good idea to attach a copyright By Line
>> on everything you do. And/Or a copyright disclaimer at the end. Even
>> contact information. Then if someone does want to use your material
>> you can be paid for it. You don't need to sell the article outright
>> but sell a use license based on number of printings, number of years
>> it can be used, etc.
>>
>> If the material does not have a copyright attached to it the snag-or
>> has a out if caught.
>>
>> Roy
>
> A question or two. Is just indicating that the material is
> copyrighted legally binding? Or does it really need to have a
> copyright license? Or is indicating that it is copyrighted like
> putting a "large dog sign" on your fence when all you have is a cat?
Under US law you don't have to do _anything_ for a work to be
copyrighted--your kid's scribblings are copyrighted the instant she touches
crayon to paper.
The difficulty comes in proving that you were the originator of the work.
With your kids' scribbled crayon drawings it's not a problem--possession of
the paper with the drawing will generally do it--but with digital proving
that you were the originator is more difficult--this is where registration
of the copyright helps (it also confers some other benefits, like you can
collect both punitive and actual damages and violation of a _registered_
copyright is a criminal offense as well so the government in principle will
take care of it without you having to go out of pocket for a lawyer). The
trouble is that registration costs 45 bucks (but you can register a whole
bunch of stuff for that 45 bucks--it's not per item, it's per form filed.
You might want to consider steganographically signing your images--unlike
EXIF data there's no way for anybody to tell that the signature is there
without extensive analysis, and if done right then it's hard to remove too.
Swingman wrote:
> Be forewarned that nothing on earth brings more self-styled expert
> opinion into the fray than the phrase "copyright" ... a phenomenon
> noted, on networks like Fido, long before most Googlectuals alive today
> could spell "www".
OTOH, you can download "Circular 92 - Copyright Law of the United States
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code" (dated
October 2009) in full from
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf (1.6MB)
At 350 pages, it's not a quick read, but might make meaningful dialog
with a capable attorney possible.
Found with a Google search. ;-)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
J. Clarke wrote:
> You might want to consider steganographically signing your images--unlike
> EXIF data there's no way for anybody to tell that the signature is there
> without extensive analysis, and if done right then it's hard to remove too.
I had to look up steganography to know what you were saying - and it
looks like pretty neat stuff! I think I'm going to have to write some
code to try it out. :)
From a practical standpoint, wouldn't having a dated original (higher
resolution) copy of an image would be sufficient to establish origination?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Swingman wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> Be forewarned that nothing on earth brings more self-styled expert
>>> opinion into the fray than the phrase "copyright" ... a phenomenon
>>> noted, on networks like Fido, long before most Googlectuals alive
>>> today could spell "www".
>>
>> OTOH, you can download "Circular 92 - Copyright Law of the United
>> States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States
>> Code" (dated October 2009) in full from
>>
>> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf (1.6MB)
>>
>> At 350 pages, it's not a quick read, but might make meaningful dialog
>> with a capable attorney possible.
>>
>> Found with a Google search. ;-)
>
> In keeping with my original post, and before you forget how you did it,
> quickly Google and post a link to the NEC and we'll surely have all
> bases covered, eh? :)
I just downloaded (and am about to delete) "NFPA 70 - National
Electrical Code - 2008 Edition" (840 pages, 7MB) from
http://w17.easy-share.com/1700614255.html
I'm not sure if that's what you're after or not. As long as I have the
Yellow Pages handy, /I/ don't need it. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> You might want to consider steganographically signing your
>> images--unlike EXIF data there's no way for anybody to tell that the
>> signature is there without extensive analysis, and if done right
>> then it's hard to remove too.
>
> I had to look up steganography to know what you were saying - and it
> looks like pretty neat stuff! I think I'm going to have to write some
> code to try it out. :)
That's actually a good idea--if you use commercial stego then someone with
the same software may be able to detect that there's something there--if you
roll your own it's going to be pretty much undetectable.
> From a practical standpoint, wouldn't having a dated original (higher
> resolution) copy of an image would be sufficient to establish
> origination?
That should do it.
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>In keeping with my original post, and before you forget how you did it,
>quickly Google and post a link to the NEC and we'll surely have all
>bases covered, eh? :)
>
http://nfpaweb3.gvpi.net/rrserver/browser?title=/NFPASTD/7008SB
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:03:53 -0600, the infamous Morris Dovey
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>> I just downloaded (and am about to delete) "NFPA 70 - National
>> Electrical Code - 2008 Edition" (840 pages, 7MB) from
>>
>> http://w17.easy-share.com/1700614255.html
>
> I got a 60 second delay, the download button which then presented me
> with the maze popup, and then I got the background discussion about
> buying Christmas trees, coupled with no download.
>
> Wut up wi dat, homey?
>
> Never mind. [removing Google Chrome from my system now]
Oops! Firefox blocked the popup (I did have to wait through the delay)
and I hit the download button. I just noticed that I still have the RAR
archive on my machine, so let me know if you'd like my copy.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A question or two. Is just indicating that the material is copyrighted
> legally binding? Or does it really need to have a copyright license? Or
> is indicating that it is copyrighted like putting a "large dog sign" on
> your fence when all you have is a cat?
If you're the creator of the work and you have not sold the copyright then
it remains yours whether you stick a © symbol on it or not. If the material
is valuable then registering it makes sense but how many woodworking photos
etc. would that apply to? *Enforcing* your right if someone swipes the
material is another issue. What it comes down is whether the material is
valuable enough to justify paying a lawyer to threaten to haul someone into
court--who is going to pay thousands of dollars to protect a photo or
whatever which is never going to generate enough revenue to justify the cost
of threatening to sue? Sometimes just complaining about unauthorized use of
such material is enough to get it taken down, especially if you've tagged it
in a way that identifies it as yours (I know that can be done although I
don't know the technical details). But beyond that it's a matter for the
lawyers, and that's going to cost you.
"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Serious copyright protection is available to those willing pay to pay
>> their lawyers to provide it,
>
> No lawyer needed. Registering a copyright is just a matter of sending off
> the refistration fee - $45 IIRC - and a copy of the item along with the
> proper form. Note that items can be ganged; i.e., many can be registered
> with one fee.
You can apply for your own patent too, that part is relatively easy. But in
both cases as soon as someone violates your patent or your copyright you
either let it go or start spending money to defend it. At that point you
have to ask yourself if spending umpteen thousands of dollars over a period
of years makes sense, will the work in question make such an expenditure
worthwhile? How many readers of rec.woodworking are in a position to invest
that kind of time and money over some web site using a photo or whatever
without permission?
A takedown notice might cause website operators to remove content you claim
violates copyright, but if they don't how much will you spend to pursue the
issue? Big companies send takedown notices all the time (the DCMA is a
corporate playground), but their notices have teeth in them because they can
afford to sue.
I've known people who obtained patents and instantly sold them to big
companies because they knew the idea would be ripped off and they'd be
unable to spend the money to defend the patent, unlike a big company which
has serious landsharks on retainer. A right you can't afford to defend is a
bit pointless, that's why I said that copyright protection is available to
those able to pay their lawyers to provide it.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:42:53 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"ROYNEU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:e078192f-62a7-47af-b32a-c36b1abfc4bd@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> To protect yourself in the future of people who might snag an image or
>> an article it would be a good idea to attach a copyright By Line on
>> everything you do. And/Or a copyright disclaimer at the end. Even
>> contact information. Then if someone does want to use your material
>> you can be paid for it. You don't need to sell the article outright
>> but sell a use license based on number of printings, number of years
>> it can be used, etc.
>>
>> If the material does not have a copyright attached to it the snag-or
>> has a out if caught.
>>
>> Roy
>
>A question or two. Is just indicating that the material is copyrighted
>legally binding? Or does it really need to have a copyright license? Or is
>indicating that it is copyrighted like putting a "large dog sign" on your
>fence when all you have is a cat?
Every work is copyrighted, just by the act of creating it. A
"license" (registration) may entitle you to monetary damages, whether
or not any "profit" was made. A copyright statement, without
registration, simply names the owner of the work, perhaps making it
easier for anyone who want to use it to either license it or beg
forgiveness. ;-)
A "large dog" sign may just be an invitation to a suit should your cat
maul someone. ;-)
In article <e078192f-62a7-47af-b32a-c36b1abfc4bd@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
ROYNEU <[email protected]> wrote:
>To protect yourself in the future of people who might snag an image or
>an article it would be a good idea to attach a copyright By Line on
>everything you do. And/Or a copyright disclaimer at the end. Even
>contact information. Then if someone does want to use your material
>you can be paid for it. You don't need to sell the article outright
>but sell a use license based on number of printings, number of years
>it can be used, etc.
>
>If the material does not have a copyright attached to it the snag-or
>has a out if caught.
No they do -not-. At least if they live in a country which has adopted
the 'Berne Convention' (of 1986) on copyright.
Copyright is _automatic_ when the work is created, regardless of whether or
not there is any claim attached to it.
Google on 'Berne convention' to find out who has signed on to it -- it *IS*
virtually every developed, and semi-developed, country in the world.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> If you're the creator of the work and you have not sold the copyright
>> then it remains yours whether you stick a © symbol on it or not.
>
> How would you prove that you yourself did not steal the "what ever" and
> claim it your's if you don't legally register it?
As I said, if it's valuable enough for someone to steal then registering the
work would make sense.
If you're the one with the photographic negative, or the server logs showing
you uploaded the work to your website before anyone else, or you mailed a
registered letter to yourself with a copy of the manuscript sealed inside
and so on and so forth then you're probably going to prevail in court. But
again, how much trouble is it worth to protect a photo of the birdhouse you
built or a short article on how much your wife hates it when you track
sawdust into the house? Serious copyright protection is available to those
willing pay to pay their lawyers to provide it, the rest of us can write a
letter of complaint but if that doesn't work then we probably have to chalk
it up to experience.
"ROYNEU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e078192f-62a7-47af-b32a-c36b1abfc4bd@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> To protect yourself in the future of people who might snag an image or
> an article it would be a good idea to attach a copyright By Line on
> everything you do. And/Or a copyright disclaimer at the end. Even
> contact information. Then if someone does want to use your material
> you can be paid for it. You don't need to sell the article outright
> but sell a use license based on number of printings, number of years
> it can be used, etc.
>
> If the material does not have a copyright attached to it the snag-or
> has a out if caught.
>
> Roy
A question or two. Is just indicating that the material is copyrighted
legally binding? Or does it really need to have a copyright license? Or is
indicating that it is copyrighted like putting a "large dog sign" on your
fence when all you have is a cat?