Notes from Spain and Spanish Forum

Notes from Spain and Spanish Forum (http://www.notesfromspain.com/forums/index.php)
-   Forum Admin and News (http://www.notesfromspain.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Use of copyright text and images in forum: FAQ (http://www.notesfromspain.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3877)

Ben 7th November 2007 08:25 AM

Use of copyright text and images in forum: FAQ
 
Hi,

We were recently advised by a lawyer than the posting of text or images in the forum where the copyright is not owned by the person who makes the post, could land us in serious trouble, and lead to Notes from Spain being shut down.

This basically means that you can only post an image in the forum if you own the copyright: if you took the photo, or drew the image or cartoon. The same goes for text: you may not copy text from another source and paste it here - a link to the original source will do.

If you want to show people an image that you do not own, but have found elsewhere on the net, please link to it. People can follow the link, then come back to the forum to comment on it. Of course we fully encourage you to keep posting your own great photos here.

When I wrote to moderators this week about the issue, a few questions came up, which I'll answer here for the benefit of all of us:

Quote:

for clarification - deep linking photos so they appear as though they are on the forum is not permitted, but an ordinary clickable link that opens the pic in a new window is okay.. is this right?
Yes, quite right

Quote:

Do you want mods to pick up these pictures and remove/change link status?
Just remove the offending image and leave a note saying why, you don't have to go hunting for the original image if it is too much hard work!

Quote:

Can anyone provide a little clarification, please? If I had a toy Top Cat, for example, and photographed it, would I be able to show that as my avatar?
Yes

Quote:

On the copyright pictures. Does this include links to pictures on other sites? How do we tell with some, such as uploaded files, where they come from unless they have a watermark / copyright in them. Should we PM the poster first and ask?
It's usually obvious if someone did not take a picture - from the forum post you will know they haven't been somewhere, or met the famous actor in question. If in doubt mods can always PM the person to check and explain the situation.

Quote:

What about creative commons photos and text?
If the text or photo is in the public domain/has a creative commons licence, you may post it in the forum if you link back to the original source. All text and images on wikipedia, for example, are creative commons, so you could use an image or quote from there as long as you link back to the original wikipedia entry.

Quote:

Why do we have to worry about this?
Unfortunately there are photographers, editors and agents out there that are very aggressive about protecting copyright and will sue anyone they can find using their text or pictures.

Many thanks for your cooperation with this matter, it's all about making sure the NfS forum is around for a long time to come!

omeyas 7th November 2007 08:46 AM

[quote=Ben;36514

Unfortunately there are photographers, editors and agents out there that are very aggressive about protecting copyright and will sue anyone they can find using their text or pictures.

[/quote]

Yes, I agree with the "agressive" bit :), I have found photographs of mine being used on other web sites, and as they certainly haven't asked permission or bought them, they have stolen them. I must admit to getting a bit more than aggresive, and contacted them and told them in no uncertains terms, to either remove them or pay me for them. I recently found a local caravan site using 5 of my photos, I wonder how he would feel if someone staying on his site just helped themselves to some of his property. Unfortunately, it's impossible to prevent photos being stolen( I do add watermarks, but that's not foolproof) I visit photography forums, and the amount of people having their photos stolen is incredible. Most photographers spend a lot of money on kit, a lot of time and effort to get photos, so you can understand them getting angry when they find their work stolen. I have been surprised by the photos reproduced on this site, clearly without permission, so it doesn't surprise me that you have been advised to clamp down on it.

gtappend 7th November 2007 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben (Post 36514)
Q: my avatar [is] a picture of an actor. Is that allowed?
A: Only if you took the photo.

I'm not so sure about that, I think that very much depends on the country where the photo was taken, the person lives, etc. as copyright law is so different from country to country.

German copyright law has a thing called "Recht am eigenen Bild" - ie. your rights to your own image. This means that even if you photograph a person and own the photograph, you cannot publish it as you please. You need the permission of the person on the photograph. Exceptions are when they are not the main subject (ie. person against a landscape backdrop), a historical photograph (they just happened to be on the Berlin Wall on the day if fell) or if they are part of a group (eg. you and your friends are photographed with a celeb.) I don't think using such an image as an avatar would fall under these exceptions (although I'm no lawyer...)

Of course, different countries have different laws and there is even an EU-copyright law/directive now (which is based in part on the German one).

NFS has the additional problem of not really being attached to one particular country, so which national law would apply?

Spain? because Ben and Marina live there
USA? because that's the administrative proxy address of the Domain
UK? because that's (presumably still) the real address behind the proxy
Netherlands? because that's where the domain registrar is according to WHOIS
Germany? because the Dutch registrar is using a German IP-address according to WHOIS
EU? because 4 of the 5 fall in that area
Other? such as the country of the poster concerned

OK, maybe that list is a bit OTT, but I wanted to point out that just because you took a photo doesn't mean that you can use it!

Very important disclaimer:
This post is my own personal opinion and based on personal experience. It is not intended to be legal advice.

Elvis 7th November 2007 10:03 AM

Possibly some useful information here, American, of course:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/copyright-internet.htm

More links to internet copyright laws than you can wave a mouse at:
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue5/copyright/

Ben 7th November 2007 03:49 PM

Thanks for the comments. It is such a tricky issue that the easiest thing is just to say 'no copyright images'. Which is a shame, images do liven up a forum. That's why I hope people will continue to post their own photos from Spain and beyond.

ValenciaSon 7th November 2007 04:16 PM

Now I'm just gonna have to go to Spain.

richardksa 7th November 2007 05:12 PM

Or beyond!!

ValenciaSon 7th November 2007 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richardksa (Post 36540)
Or beyond!!

Those beyond images are public domain as with any images released by NASA to the public.

gtappend 8th November 2007 12:19 AM

On the very day we talk about the subject, look what came up on BBC News!

The big question in this case is, if you take pictures at a concert and thus own the copyright to the picture, can you publish it on the web?

It all reminds me about my "music in podcasts" thread.

gtappend 8th November 2007 12:26 AM

Something else I forgot to mention... removing images doesn't, of course, immediately remove them from every cache or archive.

eg. if you search for "eldeano" in Google picture search, then you still get the TC picture on #3, even though it's no longer live

The site archive.org stores snapshots of sites for years! Here is how the forum used to look...

ValenciaSon 8th November 2007 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtappend (Post 36599)
Something else I forgot to mention... removing images doesn't, of course, immediately remove them from every cache or archive.

eg. if you search for "eldeano" in Google picture search, then you still get the TC picture on #3, even though it's no longer live

The site archive.org stores snapshots of sites for years! Here is how the forum used to look...

If you demonstrate a pattern of diminishing use, won't that suffice?

deecree 8th November 2007 04:40 AM

As far as I am aware, in various countries there are precedents and exemptions to various parts of copyright law.

For example, in the USA and UK, NFS wouldn't be responsible for the copyright infringement by users on its public forum. I don't even believe NFS has a duty to search for such infringements, but merely remove them at owners request. This thread alone shows intent by NFS to prevent copyright violations and an active willingness to seek them out.

In the USA and UK, I could happily post a McDonalds logo here whilst voicing my dislike of the company. Use of trademarks when critising a company is considered legal as proven in ___-sucks.com cases.


Preventing acts of copyright infringement on the forum is something you should definitely commit to, especially now you are incorporating NFS. But I think you should ask your lawyer again if you are liable for infringement by users of your service, rather than by yourself. Having your business dissolved if you didn't clear an infringement fast enough doesn't make sense - your websites host would have to be closed down too. "Landing NFS in trouble" is also unlikely, you'd be sent a rather unfriendly Cease and Desist notice at the very worst I'd expect.

Just my opinion(s).

Jules 8th November 2007 08:43 AM

Like so many issues of this kind it is possible to take these examples "to the far end of a f--t" (quaint English expression), while common sense flies out the window.

The British have always disadvantage themselves by over-interpreting laws & coming down hard on perceived violations that are an affront to common sense.

I think Decree is correct in his interpretation. It is the violator, not the medium that is used, who carries responsibility. Lawyers grow fat on giving 'advice' about possible 'risks' (often untested by precedent) to their clients.

Take for example the paranoia that people commonly hold regarding the UK data protection act. (e.g. an infamous double murder case highlighted a perceived risk of one police force sharing data with another - this turned out to be an incorrect fear of worrying about violating the DP act.)

gtappend 8th November 2007 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecree (Post 36604)
As far as I am aware, in various countries there are precedents and exemptions to various parts of copyright law.

For example, in the USA and UK, NFS wouldn't be responsible for the copyright infringement by users on its public forum. I don't even believe NFS has a duty to search for such infringements, but merely remove them at owners request. This thread alone shows intent by NFS to prevent copyright violations and an active willingness to seek them out.

In the USA and UK, I could happily post a McDonalds logo here whilst voicing my dislike of the company. Use of trademarks when critising a company is considered legal as proven in ___-sucks.com cases.

Which sort of proves my point "which national copyright law is valid for NFS?"

For these two examples, German courts have conflicting decisions forums. Sometimes they decide that you have to "regularly" check what is being posted and take the necessary action, others say that you must react within a specified time if someone complains about a post (eg. because it is insulting or infringes on copyright). [LG Hamburg Az. 308 O 245/07 24.08.2007 & OLG Koblenz Az.: 2 U 862/06 12.07.2007]

In the case of logos it's probably a case of where you get it from - did you take it from the company's homepage? Did you go out and take the photo yourself? Do you need permission to use it on not?

In Germany, for example, you are not allowed to use a company name in your blog unless it instantly recognisable that it is not a publication of the company itself. At the same time you are not allowed to be defamatory.

So companyname-blog.de is not allowed, companyname-unsatisfied-customers.de could be allowed, and companyname-sucks.de would not be allowed.
[OLG Hamburg AZ 3 W 110/07 31.05.2007 & LG Düsseldorf Az.: 2a O 245/01 30.01.2002]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecree (Post 36604)
Having your business dissolved if you didn't clear an infringement fast enough doesn't make sense

I don't think the business would be dissolved, but the fine might be large enough to bankrupt it.

@Ben: I would suggest writing down some examples of what could happen in the forum and asking your lawyer how you should react to them and what could happen (a) when you react (b) if you are too slow (c) you don't do anything. If he/she's up on internet topics then they should also be able to tell you which national law applies.

Unfortunately, lawyers sometimes disagree with each other, so even if yours tells you that eg. Spanish laws apply, a lawyer in the U.S. may take a different view.

Jules 8th November 2007 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtappend (Post 36617)

Unfortunately, lawyers sometimes disagree with each other, so even if yours tells you that eg. Spanish laws apply, a lawyer in the U.S. may take a different view.

Keeps the lawyers fat & ensures that however daft is the perceived risk you will always find a lawyer who will 'agree' with you

greytop 8th November 2007 01:56 PM

By coincidence today a Gooogle ad on this page had one for a site offering low cost, royalty free photos. Look here if it is not available now, although there are probably many more available. Maybe that is the answer for those who need an illustration for their Blog etc. without losing sleep over who is about to descend on them with a lawyer in tow.

tad 8th November 2007 02:04 PM

My LOST avatars have been deemed unsuitable even though they are publicly posted by the TV company that owns the rights to them, for use by the public.

Of course there is a need for copyright, as omeyas has indicated. Images from a sydicated TV series are in my opinion a whole different kettle of fish.

The trouble is how are we supposed to know what is and isn't legal? I think common sense should guide us on this matter.
Look at any TV site forum and something like 95% of the people have an avatar that represents a character from the show.

gtappend 8th November 2007 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greytop (Post 36633)
By coincidence today a Gooogle ad on this page had one for a site offering low cost, royalty free photos. Look here if it is not available now, although there are probably many more available. Maybe that is the answer for those who need an illustration for their Blog etc. without losing sleep over who is about to descend on them with a lawyer in tow.

A word of warning - that site likes serious enough (having read the T&C), but there are others that are not.

A couple of years ago there was a case here where a student used pictures from such a site (based in the UK I believe) on his homepage, only be sent a lawyer's letter because a German agency held the exclusive usage rights to the photos within Germany (and therefore on German websites). I think they had obtained them directly from the photographer.

In the end there was so much PR, that the last I heard was that he didn't have to pay the 6000EUR fine (the court agreed with this but left room for an appeal), but he still had the hassle of it all. (German readers, see here).

deecree 8th November 2007 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tad (Post 36635)
My LOST avatars have been deemed unsuitable even though they are publicly posted by the TV company that owns the rights to them, for use by the public.

Of course there is a need for copyright, as omeyas has indicated. Images from a sydicated TV series are in my opinion a whole different kettle of fish.

The trouble is how are we supposed to know what is and isn't legal? I think common sense should guide us on this matter.
Look at any TV site forum and something like 95% of the people have an avatar that represents a character from the show.

I think if a TV network such as ABC gives out a bunch of images from the show for fans to use on the web, in places such as.. uhm... forums, so that the show is promoted amoung various circles.... use of these images could not be considered violation of copyright as there is implied permission. Perhaps the ABC Lost banners and buttons were posted on a page that explicitly said fans are not allowed to use them for any purpose other than private use, I don't know. I was surprised when you were forced to take them down.

As with the avatars, NFS is probably the strictest forum on the web, and probably the only one that removes peoples avatars.

ribeirasacra 8th November 2007 03:39 PM

It is a shame that legal matters have to spoil our fun, but at the same time we understand it.
It seems that some lawyers like to aim for the easier targets. There are plenty of copyright infringements happing all over the web. Other forums and Youtube are just tow examples.
And as omeyas has said about another web site using ones own photos. We now have added a logo to ours so that others cannot use them.
There are plenty of free avatars on the web, hopefully of TC…can we use the full name or is that an infringement?;)

Dave_K 8th November 2007 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tad (Post 36635)
My LOST avatars have been deemed unsuitable even though they are publicly posted by the TV company that owns the rights to them, for use by the public.

Of course there is a need for copyright, as omeyas has indicated. Images from a sydicated TV series are in my opinion a whole different kettle of fish.

The trouble is how are we supposed to know what is and isn't legal? I think common sense should guide us on this matter.
Look at any TV site forum and something like 95% of the people have an avatar that represents a character from the show.

I can't see any American "image owner" suing anybody unless they think someone else's use of their image is costing them money. Professional photographers, OK, I can see that. Posting whole songs/videos on YouTube, OK, I can see that.

A TV show character in an avatar? How does ABC lose money there? If anything, it's free advertising for their show. If Tad was streaming whole episodes with the commercials cut out and profiting from people visiting his site, then ABC might be interested.

eldeano 9th November 2007 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ribeirasacra (Post 36644)
There are plenty of free avatars on the web, hopefully of TC…can we use the full name or is that an infringement?;)

If you find one, let me know. In the meantime I'm SC - Sad Cat. :'(

Jules 9th November 2007 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eldeano (Post 36702)
If you find one, let me know. In the meantime I'm SC - Sad Cat. :'(

Well I've got to say it. I think this business with avatars and copyright issues (mostly based on hearsay) is a load of baloney. We have aired all the theoretical and imagined risks. Lets get back to reality. Has anyone made a valid copyright complaint about users's avators?

If not, live and let live!

Posted by the campaign to restore the avator of Tip Top Cat

PattyN 9th November 2007 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eldeano (Post 36702)
If you find one, let me know. In the meantime I'm SC - Sad Cat. :'(

My cat says you can use his pic if you want, although he's not exactly TC. He goes by Thunder Cat, so they may be related.

http://by124w.bay124.mail.live.com/a...9F16BE29B7960|

eldeano 9th November 2007 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PattyN (Post 36712)
My cat says you can use his pic if you want, although he's not exactly TC. He goes by Thunder Cat, so they may be related.

http://by124w.bay124.mail.live.com/a...16BE29B7960%7C

Bless you, Patty. If you can let me have it, (together with sworn affidavit from both Thunder Cat and you - as his guardian - giving me permission to use it), I will happily use it until I get a reply to my copyright enquiry sent to Hanna Barbera.

deecree 9th November 2007 09:42 PM

I think we should remove the ability to quote previous posts from the forum software on account that NFS might be republishing other people's intellectual property without permission.

There have been dozens of times where my work, to which I own the copyright, has been transcribed WORD FOR WORD by others, here, 100% facilitated and encouraged by Ben and Marina via their forum. :(

Before we discuss potential lawsuits filed by me and others against this newly incorporated venture of our favourite podcasters, perhaps we should first discuss how far this lunacy should go? :rolleyes:

So far, I've seen a few examples where things have been removed from the forum despite having permission from the IP owners to be posted.

:confused::rolleyes:

eldeano 9th November 2007 10:05 PM

Deecree. I share your pain and yes, all of this leaves me completely baffled. However, Graham's posts just indicate what a complex subject this is. This is Ben's site and he has just taken advice and he's acting upon that advice. Although I'm disappointed, I can't blame him for that. I can live with it.

I'm struggling, however, to live without quipping.

deecree 10th November 2007 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eldeano (Post 36719)
***Removed to avoid infringements of various kinds***

I was only being 50-60% serious. Perhaps it needed one or two more little smiley face things. Definitely not three though.

deecree 10th November 2007 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eldeano (Post 36719)
***To avoid a lengthy jail sentence to all involved, content has been removed***

Also, the solution to your problem would be to find a poster, DVD, or something of a promotional nature with the image of TC on it. Take a photo and crop it a little. You'll have a safe to use avatar according to the new strict rules.

gary 10th November 2007 10:50 AM

My long term plan has been to transfer the copyright of my Avatar to Gill and to take B & M for all they've got....

Today NFS tomorrow Berlin....

Alternatively we'll just have a beer with them next time we're in Madrid.

Ben 10th November 2007 12:24 PM

OK, wow, I never thought that things would go so far!

I'll try and explain things again as they happened.

1. In the past we have been warned by a couple of forum members to be very careful with letting people post copyright images. One forum member even told us about a forum that had been closed down as a result of an angry photographer taking legal action after finding his images in said forum. At the time my reaction was 'That will never happen to us'.

2. Two weeks ago our lawyer, who is drawing up various must-have legal documents for Notes from Spain S.L. (the company we have had to form in order to properly process income from the sites, 99% from the worksheets), told us that we should not allow people to post copyright images on the forum, or we could end up with big legal problems. This obviously made us think again about point 1 above - we don't want to risk the forums being shut down, no matter how tiny a risk that may be.

3. So, we thought that it was both in our interests (this business pays our mortgage, we don't want to risk problems) and yours (we don't want to see the forum taken down), to pay attention to what the lawyer said.

Therefore we simply ask that you don't post copyright images directly in posts unless you own the copyright. There are of course many copyright free images on the web to which this would not apply.

4. I don't see how this will affect the forum too much as a) copyright images were very infrequently posted anyway and b) it is easy to link to an image outside the forum - people can follow the link, look at the image, and come back and comment on it.

5. Avatars. Due to the fact that just about every forum in existence has avatars that use all sorts of images from all sorts of places, one can only imagine that nothing much happens as a result. In points 1 to 4 above I have only mentioned images in posts. Obviously I can't officially tell you it's OK to use any images in avatars as that would be legally inconsistent. Let's just say that if forum members were to restore their former avatars at this point they would be responsible for their actions, if you see what I mean.

We really just need to make sure that copyright pictures and cartoons stay out of posts and user signatures.

6. With text, a small excerpt (up to around 50 words) with a link to the original source (e.g. 'Read the full article here') should be fine.

What a nightmare all this copyright nonsense is. Believe me, bringing up all this stuff gives me zero joy. My copyright images and text from Notes from Spain are constantly being ripped off by spam blogs and posted around the internet and although it is annoying, I certainly don't waste my time trying to do much about it. Unfortunately, as mentioned, there are very aggressive people out there who will think nothing of trying to shut down small guys like us to put a few more bucks in their pocket. By now being a real 'business' (no matter how small scale we actually are), we open ourselves up to all sorts of attacks, and we are just trying to protect ourselves from that, that really is all there is to it.

Hope this helps to explain things a bit. Ben.

Edith 10th November 2007 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben (Post 36731)
What a nightmare all this copyright nonsense is. Believe me, bringing up all this stuff gives me zero joy. My copyright images and text from Notes from Spain are constantly being ripped off by spam blogs and posted around the internet and although it is annoying, I certainly don't waste my time trying to do much about it. Unfortunately, as mentioned, there are very aggressive people out there who will think nothing of trying to shut down small guys like us to put a few more bucks in their pocket. By now being a real 'business' (no matter how small scale we actually are), we open ourselves up to all sorts of attacks, and we are just trying to protect ourselves from that, that really is all there is to it.

Hope this helps to explain things a bit. Ben.

Hi Ben,

I understand what you're saying and I wholeheartedly agree. You are simply bringing the bad news and you are not trying to be a party pooper.

Society is becoming way too litiginous, and there appear to be many sharks out there - greedy people with big egos and lots of time on their hands. There are many things I really like about the States, sometimes even passionately, but this obsession with the concept of property is definitely not one of them.

It would be a real shame if some copyright 'gestapo' guy (or gal) went on the rampage, bringing about the downfall of this forum, so I agree we should be very careful from now on. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. :thumbs-up:

ValenciaSon 10th November 2007 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edith (Post 36740)
There are many things I really like about the States, sometimes even passionately, but this obsession with the concept of property is definitely not one of them.

We don't exactly have a monopoly on the concept or practice of property. Europe is just as litigious if not more when it comes to matters of property. Look at all the examples provided from Germany. Look at the fact that you still can't purchase a Beatles song from iTunes. Be careful not to perceive from popular yet false assumption.

Edith 10th November 2007 02:31 PM

Point taken. ;) But generally speaking, ordinary citizens in western Europe are still a bit less likely to sue someone over these matters. I remember we used to copy whole textbooks at university to save money and nobody seemed to give a toss. Copyshops near university campuses even became thriving businesses.

Then I went to Arizona for a while and I assumed I could do the same there, i.e. copy some hard-to-come-by secondary sources I needed for my MA research. You could say I was in for a surprise!

ValenciaSon 10th November 2007 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edith (Post 36745)
Point taken. ;) But generally speaking, ordinary citizens in western Europe are still a bit less likely to sue someone over these matters. I remember we used to copy whole textbooks at university to save money and nobody seemed to give a toss. Copyshops near university campuses even became thriving businesses.

Then I went to Arizona for a while and I assumed I could do the same there, i.e. copy some hard-to-come-by secondary sources I needed for my MA research. You could say I was in for a surprise!

So who is in the right, a grad student wanting to copy an entire text or a book publisher who wants to make sure they get what they have earned?

Edith 10th November 2007 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ValenciaSon (Post 36747)
So who is in the right, a grad student wanting to copy an entire text or a book publisher who wants to make sure they get what they have earned?

Some of these publications had gone out of print decades ago. And doing historical research often means you have to read and re-read your sources, scribbling down notes in the margins and highlingting important paragraphs with a yellow felt marker. I finished my thesis at home so I needed the sources. In my spare time I still do some occasional research, and I still work in this way, borrowing books from the library and copying parts of them for further use at home. I simply haven't got the time to go back to the library every time I want to re-read a source. The world should focus on real problems like terrorism and drugs instead of hounding people who are simply interested in knowledge. :rolleyes:

Jules 10th November 2007 04:44 PM

At last, thanks to Edith, we are getting some sense talked in this debate.
I would also suggest that for every 1000 "You could be sued if..." stories - most of which are apocryphal - there might be one instance of an actual successful law suit.

In the NHS where I work, I hear this sort of thing regularly and most fears are based on hypothesis rather than precedent.

Quote:

One forum member even told us about a forum that had been closed down as a result of an angry photographer taking legal action after finding his images in said forum. At the time my reaction was 'That will never happen to us'.
Did the forum member identify the forum involved, the court case, the reason for the judgment, etc.?

greytop 10th November 2007 05:04 PM

Wikipedia has a long list of copyright legal cases, not that many internet specific but I guess the principles apply to all distribution media. One in particular dealt with "thumbnails" displayed on one site that linked to the authors original site and the author lost his case of copyright infringment. That's one case in one country but seems a reasonable outcome.
Ben has to take steps to safeguard his business - and our forum! Neither he nor the moderators can be expected to make judgments that would tax the US Supreme court - so all we can do is take out anything remotely suspicious - or at least ask you where it came from.

Incidentally Edith there was one case that found against a copy shop near a university that produced course material for students. You'd better delete your confession now ;D;D

Edith 10th November 2007 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greytop (Post 36754)
Incidentally Edith there was one case that found against a copy shop near a university that produced course material for students. You'd better delete your confession now ;D;D

:D

By the way, many researchers are not into money-making at all because they earn a living by working for a research institute, but they do want to be cited in footnotes and references! That's what counts in the end. If someone wants to copy my MA thesis for reseach purposes, that's perfectly fine with me! As long as they cite me as a source!

In the world of research, plagiarism is the real sin, not using copied sources to scribble notes on.

Ben 10th November 2007 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jules (Post 36752)
I would also suggest that for every 1000 "You could be sued if..." stories - most of which are apocryphal - there might be one instance of an actual successful law suit.

Jules, one of the reasons why we have been a bit low on the Spanish podcast output recently is the fact that we are so overwhelmed by the paperwork involved in setting up Notes from Spain S.L., steps that are highly necessary for this whole enterprise, forum included, to carry on existing. If there is even a one in a million chance, let alone a one in 1000 chance, that by leaving an image in a post on the forum we could end up with more legal nonsense or paperwork to deal with, let alone more serious consequences, then for us it is just not worth it.

I get the impression from the tone of some of the posts in this thread that we am being held responsible for curtailing everyone's civil liberties here on the forum by asking for the simple courtesy of not posting copyright images in posts. I'm happy to join in a debate about the ridiculousness of worldwide copyright law and it's occasional application, but I'm not very interested in joining in further debate over whether or not we have the right to apply it here as we deem sensible, cautious, and appropriate.

Other than that, my earlier refined thoughts on this (9 posts above this one) still stand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jules (Post 36752)
Did the forum member identify the forum involved, the court case, the reason for the judgment, etc.?

:confused: Does it really matter? I take what I'm told here on trust!

Quote:

Originally Posted by greytop (Post 36754)
Ben has to take steps to safeguard his business - and our forum! Neither he nor the moderators can be expected to make judgments that would tax the US Supreme court

Greytop, you are very wise.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.