photography documentaries
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: George Kerby on 24 Jun 2010 09:51 On 6/23/10 10:48 PM, in article 037bb58c-c9ff-4887-aa49-c25af704f3c7(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, "sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 24 jun, 05:30, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On 23 jun, 08:22, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >>>>>> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> But you're only prepared to share other peoples information and >>>>>>> intellectual >>>>>>> property you never share your own, probably because it's worthless, but >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> yet I've not seen you share your bank details or anything of any use >>>>>>> unless >>>>>>> it comes from someone else. >>>>>>> I also share my own information.. I have many pictures and videos >>>>>>> online >> >>>>>> Where ? >> >>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/thcganja/ >> >>>> And what's under each photo? >> >>>> "Some rights reserved" >> >>>> Hypocrite. >> >>> You simply can't put your pictures on flickr with "No rights >>> reserved". >> >> What a pathetic excuse, hypocrite. >> >> -- >> Ray Fischer � � � � >> rfisc...(a)sonic.net � > > typical nazi cockroach <http://tinypic.com/r/fxqmh/6>
From: George Kerby on 24 Jun 2010 09:52 On 6/24/10 5:05 AM, in article 396ca6b5-1725-41ed-8843-275686cf787f(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, "sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 24 jun, 08:47, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On 24 jun, 05:30, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On 23 jun, 08:22, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>>>> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >>>>>>>> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> But you're only prepared to share other peoples information and >>>>>>>>> intellectual >>>>>>>>> property you never share your own, probably because it's worthless, >>>>>>>>> but as >>>>>>>>> yet I've not seen you share your bank details or anything of any use >>>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>>> it comes from someone else. >>>>>>>>> I also share my own information.. I have many pictures and videos >>>>>>>>> online >> >>>>>>>> Where ? >> >>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/thcganja/ >> >>>>>> And what's under each photo? >> >>>>>> "Some rights reserved" >> >>>>>> Hypocrite. >> >>>>> You simply can't put your pictures on flickr with "No rights >>>>> reserved". >> >>>> What a pathetic excuse, hypocrite. >> >>> Ok, so show me a picture >> >> So that you can steal it, thief? >> >> -- >> Ray Fischer � � � � >> rfisc...(a)sonic.net � > nazi cockroach <http://tinypic.com/r/fxqmh/6>
From: Peter on 24 Jun 2010 09:55 "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message news:2010062412471515403-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... > On 2010-06-24 05:14:31 +0100, Peter said: > >> "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message >> news:2010062400012543107-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... >> >>> >>> It can be very difficult to protect work with a copyright notice. From >>> what I have read, both the (c) and the copyright symbol are meaningless >>> in many countries, as is the phrase "all rights reserved". I got the >>> impression that "Copyright <year> by <author>" is the most widely >>> accepted, but the slightest error renders it meaningless. >> >> The purpose of the copyright notice is just what the words mean. To put >> the world on notice that you claim rights to the work. The instant your >> work is created you have a common law copyright. The generally accepted >> short form simply takes away a defense of accidental unauthorized use. >> the notice also makes it clear that the work has not been placed in the >> public domain. If you do not take some reasonable step to protect your >> rights, you can lose them. the notice serves that function. The form is >> not really important, as long as it is clear and unambiguous. >> Intellectual property litigation is expensive. Usually the guy with the >> deepest pocket wins. > > 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 > Aparantly you have been involved in drafting protection agreements and litigation more than I. BTW your citaton is not mandatory law and if you read it carefully, you will see what it says. Since you obviously have so much knowledge, I doubt that I can contribute anything further to help you. >> In a prior posting I mentioned that prior to posting any image I thought >> might have commercial value, I would only do so on a site with right >> click disabled. > > The right-click disabling is frequently performed via javascript, making > the feature useless. Any image that can be viewed can also be saved. It's > probably been saved automatically in the browser cache (not all browsers > honour the no-cache meta tags, when present). > I know that. The purpose for right click disabled is: that is a reasonable step to protect your work. -- Peter
From: John McWilliams on 24 Jun 2010 11:37 Could you, GK, and Ray (no) knock it off? I am sure sobriquet cannot, but you can.
From: Pete on 24 Jun 2010 11:40
On 2010-06-24 14:17:41 +0100, Floyd L. Davidson said: > 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.) Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour? -- Pete |