Posting Copyrighted Material

[Scatocephalus]

The recent spat over posting pics got me wondering what is and isn't legal. One argument was that if they are posted on the web they are fair game. Another was that without permission of the author it was wrong. After some quick reserach I came up with this:

"If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."

This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.
The correct form for a notice is:
"Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]"You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the "moral rights."

So, whether the picture or text has a copyright mark on it or not you should just assume that it is copyrighted.

"If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."

False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

I don't know if Li makes money by running this site but if he does, letting everyone copy and post pics here not of their own taking may put him at joepardy for a lawsuit. Apparently, even if no money is made he could still be held liable for copyright infringement.

"If it's posted to the internet it's in the public domain."

False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.Some argue that posting to the internet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that the internet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to the internet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.
Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.
[SIZE=-1](*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to material from the modern era, such as net postings.[/SIZE] Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it. You might want to look into Creative Commons style licences if you want to grant wide rights.

So just because it's on the internet it is not fair game to copy and post elsewhere.

For what it's worth...

 

[jcardona1]

this is getting beyond absurd. perhaps we should just disable all attachments. and disable copy/paste. hell, lets just disable posting all together. and while we're at it, lets get rid of this site

 

[Scatocephalus]

this is getting beyond absurd. perhaps we should just disable all attachments. and disable copy/paste. hell, lets just disable posting all together. and while we're at it, lets get rid of this site

I was simply posting legitimate information for educational purposes.

Not sure what you are trying to do...

 

[Omega007]

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Let me finish the later part of your source.

4) "My posting was just fair use!"See EFF notes on fair use and links from it for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind:The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.
These rules apply to content you pull from the internet as well. If you wanted to criticise the poker strategy advice on pokerlistings.com, you could reproduce sections of that advice in your criticism as fair use. Just copying it to make your own poker site would probably be plain old copyright infringement.This advice brought to you by Pokerlistings.comFair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon.
Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.
The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.
Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own wordsthough
See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law.

 

[Omega007]

As long as material used are not for profit, commercial purpose. I believe MFK is non profit website, people come here to learn from each other. Thus anything posted here are considered " Fair Use" .
I checked this with a friend of mine, who is a law professor @UCD.

 

[jdmjunkiemonkie]

to save you from any legal issues you guys are scared of. quote the place, for example - according to acuteangling.com blah blah blah about cichla's. using correct MLA format will save anybody for any legal issues that you are afraid of. this way it shows that you are giving information away that is not yours but belongs to acuteangling.com or the place of your information.

copyrighted information is just like plagiarism, just as long as your quote the place your fine, but if not then you are violating the copyrighted laws and codes because you are stealing their information to make it your own. in which the site or source of information has already made it a copyrighted material through all the legal process.

 

[jcardona1]

I was simply posting legitimate information for educational purposes.

Not sure what you are trying to do...

im trying to avoid this garbage and make the hobby fun again. remember that? when this used to be "fun"???

 

[High City Rida]

Great post Scat I was wondering about this very issue myself. Very informative and I hope it's taking seriously.

 

[High City Rida]

im trying to avoid this garbage and make the hobby fun again. remember that? when this used to be "fun"???

I feel ya JC but this is good information that needed to be shared and discussed. Especially with the way information is shared as of late. I have had site creators ask me for the use of my pictures which is the legal way to "share someone elses information" ie. Pictures. But I am also always on the look out for someone using any Pictures of anyone here that I know personally or my own personl picture's being used with out my or there permmision. JFYI and food for thought it could and does happen.

Again Scat great topic.

 

[Freshwater Tim]

We had this same issue over on my car club website regarding people posting other peoples pictures of cars....some people really got upset about it, as some of them were professional photographers, and that is how they made theit money.

For some people it is an issue....others...not so much!