photography documentaries
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 24 Jun 2010 08:11 Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > >The form of the notice is important. If Barney adds the notice (c) B >Rubble it informs the reader that Barney hasn't bothered to take the >first step in protecting his work and it's very unlikely that Barney >will be able to defend his rights. > >http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p03_copyright_notices You should have read the material you cited, because it is 1) correct, and 2) contradicts what you say. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Pete on 24 Jun 2010 08:26 On 2010-06-24 13:11:53 +0100, Floyd L. Davidson said: > Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >> >> The form of the notice is important. If Barney adds the notice (c) B >> Rubble it informs the reader that Barney hasn't bothered to take the >> first step in protecting his work and it's very unlikely that Barney >> will be able to defend his rights. >> >> http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p03_copyright_notices > > You should have read the material you cited, because it > is 1) correct, and 2) contradicts what you say. I fail to see the contradiction because (c) is not a recognized symbol and Barney did not put a date on his notice. -- Pete
From: tony cooper on 24 Jun 2010 08:38 On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:04:11 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >People who are paranoid about sharing have failed to grasp the >significance of information technology and they would be better off >staying off the internet and are probably even wasting their time with >digital photography because they only have dollar signs in front of >their eyes and can't figure out the value of sharing information and >the benefit of having a huge pool of shared collective culture >available to benefit from in ways that don't necessarily translate to >a short-term financial gain. You have an odd view of what "sharing" is. I post links of my photographs to this newsgroup. I'm quite willing for you to share by viewing that photo. What you seem to want to be able to do, though, is to download that photograph, keep it in file, use it any which way you please, and treat it as if it's your own. That, to me, is not sharing. It's conversion. ("Conversion", in US law, is the unlawful appropriation of someone else's property. It's different from "theft" in that theft requires an action by one party to take away another party's property.) -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: whisky-dave on 24 Jun 2010 08:55 "sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4f60acee-4cd5-4dbf-a48f-8b254fe10e7d(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On 23 jun, 14:55, "Tim Conway" <tconway_...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:88615a68-5ef9-4477-8761-507099246983(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On 23 jun, 08:22, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > > Isn't that what we've been saying all along? I don't want anyone taking my > photos without my permission. Nor do I yours. >Then you have to keep your photos of the internet. So how do you manage that then. I';ve seen anything from van goth to rolf harris on the internet. How would van goth keep his pictures of the internet considering he wasn;t alive when they were put on it. >If you scatter your >valuable possessions out on the streets wherever you go, Yep, true but we aren't talking aboput peolpe that do that. I haven;t seen any software vender just throw their software out on the street. I've seen BP empty millions of barrels of oil in to the gulf but no ones rushing to take it home. >you can't >expect the police to help protect your possessions. > Same goes for >photos. If you don't want anyone taking your photos without your >permission then you shouldn't allow them to end up in the hands of >others. What if someone comes in to your home and takes your photos. > If you simply keep your photos to yourself, nobody will break >into your house to obtain a copy of your photos to share with others. They would if they thought they were worth anything, have you ever been broken in to ?
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 24 Jun 2010 09:17
Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-06-24 13:11:53 +0100, Floyd L. Davidson said: > >> Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>> The form of the notice is important. If Barney adds >>> the notice (c) B >>> Rubble it informs the reader that Barney hasn't bothered to take the >>> first step in protecting his work and it's very unlikely that Barney >>> will be able to defend his rights. >>> http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p03_copyright_notices >> You should have read the material you cited, because it >> is 1) correct, and 2) contradicts what you say. > >I fail to see the contradiction because (c) is not a recognized symbol >and Barney did not put a date on his notice. You said: "The form of the notice is important." And then claim that the wrong form has legal implications because, "it informs the reader that Barney hasn't bothered to take the first step in protecting his work and it's very unlikely that Barney will be able to defend his rights." The cited URL says (right up at the top): " Do I need a notice? There is no legal requirement to include a copyright notice. Whether a notice is used or not will not change the fact that copyright exists in the work. It is however strongly recommended that you include one on your work if all all possible to deter copyright infringement. The aim of copyright notice is to: * Make it clear that the work is subject to copyright. * Provide a means of identifying the copyright owner. * Deter infringement or plagiarism." Clearly not applying a legal notice that is not required will not have the effect you suggest; never mind just eliminating the date which isn't even listed as part of the "aim" of applying the notice. Clearly the notice is just a message for anyone who might be thinking of ignoring copyright law, and has not legal status at all in most countries. The example you cited is simply incorrect. (There are some variations, and phrases such as "All rights reserved" do have legal status and meaning in some situations on an international basis.) -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com |