I’m not arguing with you Ralph. You still think Palin was a good choice. You are clearly not balanced and shouldn’t be allowed to drive. I’ll be over at seven with pudding.
I’m curious as to why you’ve never busted my balls about my avatar, Ralph. Obviously it’s a copyrighted image from Marvel.
Oh, wait, I forgot you were just taking low blows at Tom.
I second Jason Bugg.
Marvel can protect themselves… besides, I thought you really WERE Captain America?
Oh, I see, you’re a simple defender of the small man, the self-made man.
True, Marvel can protect themselves. But I’ll guarantee you there are a million other users with some Marvel character avatar. Why hasn’t Marvel gone after all of us for blatantly abusing their copyright?
Seriously Ralph, just admit you were attempting to goad Tom over this whole silly business and got carried away and be done with it.
I’m not arguing with you Ralph. You still think Palin was a good choice. You are clearly not balanced and shouldn’t be allowed to drive. I’ll be over at seven with pudding.
chocolate ... bring your latest manuscript and I’ll show you how to make it sing.
Oh, I see, you’re a simple defender of the small man, the self-made man.
True, Marvel can protect themselves. But I’ll guarantee you there are a million other users with some Marvel character avatar. Why hasn’t Marvel gone after all of us for blatantly abusing their copyright?
Seriously Ralph, just admit you were attempting to goad Tom over this whole silly business and got carried away and be done with it.
It is more onerous to rip off the small guy than the big corporation, but both acts still stink.
me… goad Tom? ... nah, he’s crazy enough sorting through his vast collection of emoticons in the wee hours and cackling loudly.
So, now you’re also using trademarked logos without permission? You omitted the R-in-the-circle.
I wrote a couple of books about Coca-Cola(r) and their attorneys were adamant about proper trademark depiction.
First, if there is something missing from the logo is it not a different logo? Second, you were making money from your book, or weren’t you? What I have done is give Comedy Central free advertising.
Perhaps not quite relevant but it does contain some interesting information “in red”
US courts have recognized, reasonably, that an image search engine like Google’s is not infringing on copyrights when it displays thumbnail images as a result of a search. However, it appears that German courts are not quite so understanding. Two new rulings in Germany say that thumbnail images are, in fact, copyright infringement. The German court’s reasoning was: “It doesn’t matter that thumbnails are much smaller than original pictures and are displayed in a lower resolution. By using photos in thumbnails, no new work is created.” While I’m certainly not as familiar with German copyright law as I am with American copyright law, this statement still doesn’t make that much sense.
The purpose of copyright law shouldn’t just be concerned with whether or not a new work is created, but the purpose of what’s being done. So it’s difficult to see, for example, how a thumbnail that links to the original can possibly do any harm. If the “artist” behind an image doesn’t want it found in Google, don’t put it online. If the complaint is that someone else put the image on Google allowing it to be indexed, that’s not Google’s fault, but whoever put it online. Suing Google makes little sense—and a judge finding against Google makes even less sense. Google has made it clear it intends to appeal, but it’s troubling that a court would rule this way in the first place. It suggests, at the very least, a less than complete understanding of how an image search engine works. It also should raise questions about whether or not this ruling effectively makes any sort of inline hotlinking of images copyright violations as well.
I would suggest that it is the responsibility of Mountain Express to determine if the posting of such images is a violation of copyright laws. They are hosting this forum and should know these things as opposed to simple minded uninformed folks like myself.
I would suggest that it is the responsibility of Mountain Express to determine if the posting of such images is a violation of copyright laws. They are hosting this forum and should know these things as opposed to simple minded uninformed folks like myself.
TomH - 26 October 2008 07:19 AM
If the complaint is that someone else put the image on Google allowing it to be indexed, that’s not Google’s fault, but whoever put it online.
And likewise, it isn’t the fault of MountainX to check that everything posted is copyright free, but the responsibility of the person who posted it.
And likewise, it isn’t the fault of MountainX to check that everything posted is copyright free, but the responsibility of the person who posted it.
Yes, I agree. It is specified in Terms of service, more or less. However, most of us rely on the good judgment of forum moderators to educate us in these matters. It is unreasonable to assume the vast majority of internet posters are versed in these matters.
I must say I have spent some time researching this topic but have failed to come up with any hard fast rule or law. Internet laws tend to be different and rather vague at best. I have found more than one comment supporting the right to post pictures.
Part of the trouble comes from the idea of “fair use,” which was intentionally defined in vague terms. I’m certainly no legal expert on this, but the prevailing view seems to be that if you aren’t making any money off of it and there’s no real damage to the holder of the copyright, it’s fair game to briefly quote or use something owned by someone else.
That doesn’t apply to image leeching, however, as that’s causing real damages to a person by taking their bandwidth. For something like the Xpress forums, this bandwidth drain is negligible. But, say, you posted that image on a comment of the MySpace profile of a popular band, one which gets hundreds of thousands of visits a day. That could be a significant amount of bandwidth—and therefore money—you’ve essentially stolen from someone.
As far as the Xpress’ role in this, as I understand it, we’re protected by the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Essentially, if someone posts copyrighted materials, we have an obligation to take it down only if we receive a complaint from a designated agent of the holder of the copyright. It’s one of the better-thought-out parts of the DMCA, in my opinion.
Your input is most appreciated Steve. It should pretty much put top rest this whole discussion. Of course there is still the issue of my emoticons which Ralph seems to be disturbed by. Difficult to say why but I consider them something of a signature and they ARE totally legal, a service of Firefox (add on).
an article i read today i liked and found interesting…
Copyright: metaphor and monopoly
William Patry argues that the guiding principle of copyright is not some fundamental right of an author but a utilitarian calculation of what is in the public interest
The key point, Patry asserts, is that the debate over copyright is essentially an economic debate over business models, and not over moral principles. The guiding principle of copyright is not some inherent fundamental right of an author – as the obfuscating metaphors suggest – but a purely utilitarian calculation of what is in the public interest. “Calls for strong copyright laws, like calls for weak copyright laws, miss the point entirely: the only proper goal is effective laws, with ‘effective’ being judged empirically by whether proposed legislation will lead to an increase in the public good, i.e., the promotion of learning.”
Never ending copyright is as anti-American as killing off inheritance taxes.
That is all. Thank you for your time. I look forward to being ignored by you while you allow some nimrod with half my education and a third of my skills to slowly eat your company alive from the inside.
I will be at the docks. At noon. Bring eggs. We shall feast.
