semi OT - homemadtools.net

[Black Forest]

OK - so some one has violated your personal and copyright rights.

So you know who did it - now what are you going to do about it?

If it comes to "legalities" can you afford to pursue a prosecution with all its inherent costs of money and time - or do you just not pursue it at all?

A costs-versus merit analysis (and a gut feeling - or professional advice) - and risk early in the peace may well cause you to "give it away". Or perhaps you may elect/choose to pursue legal action.

It may well be that you might well be licking your wounds and wonder "why this? - why me?" in any case.

So far as I am concerned all or any of my work that I might post or have posted here here is "wide open" and fair and square in the Public Domain.

Go ahead siffie and post all your work. But I think we are talking about work in actual metal not Google links. Google links is not really work and you shouldn't get confused

[Mcgyver]

So far as I am concerned all or any of my work that I might post or have posted here here is "wide open" and fair and square in the Public Domain.

I could almost hear the collective sigh of relief from the scores of internet pirates out there

[oldtiffie]

I am not seeking to justify anything like "pirating" - its just that it goes on and will keep going on - so just get used to it.

Like it or not, I cannot see the justification of getting all upset about it as that is more likely to cause or produce another problem closer to home without solving any of them.

Not liking it is understandable but thinking its wrong (which it probably is) sure won't have any positive effect that is significant in the wider scheme of things.

[JCHannum]

While it will not prevent pirating, it is easy enough to include a copyright statement in your signature line and on your photos and drawings as some have done. It means that the user must knowingly remove the information and is proof of guilt.

It is of little concern to me, but it is very unfair to contributors like Mike who put a large amount of effort and talent into their posts to share information only to have their posts stolen for other's benefit.

[Mcgyver]

While it will not prevent pirating, it is easy enough to include a copyright statement in your signature line and on your photos and drawings as some have done. It means that the user must knowingly remove the information and is proof of guilt.

It is of little concern to me, but it is very unfair to contributors like Mike who put a large amount of effort and talent into their posts to share information only to have their posts stolen for other's benefit.

Jim, don't get me wrong, I'm not really worried about it - if its up here its for all to see. The issues was more that I didn't like what was posted here taken for a commercial site's content without the courtesy of asking.

good idea on the sig line

[J Tiers]

I am not seeking to justify anything like "pirating" - its just that it goes on and will keep going on - so just get used to it.

Like it or not, I cannot see the justification of getting all upset about it as that is more likely to cause or produce another problem closer to home without solving any of them.

Not liking it is understandable but thinking its wrong (which it probably is) sure won't have any positive effect that is significant in the wider scheme of things.

All very well to say. Possibly quite damaging to DO.

If you DO have a copyright which you have any intention of retaining, you CAN NOT "just get used to it" and ignore infringement (in the US). If you were so foolish as to do that, you would soon find that others copied as well, and when you went to force them to stop, you would find that your work had passed into the public domain due to failure to diligently enforce copyright. It is only in force so long as you assert it, when you lose interest and fail to assert copyright, it lapses.

So your advice is misguided and damaging for any US copyright holders.

[JCHannum]

I understand Mike, but if someone is to use another's ideas or repost on another site, it is only fair that the original author should get credit. Reuse without proper credit being given is shabby.

[achtanelion]

Sorry Mr Tiers, you're off base there. Trademarks must be protected, or you'll lose them, copyrights don't. Trademarks have to be applied for, copyrights are automatic.

[flylo]

What I don't understand is why you posted your shop made tools if you didn't want people to see & of course copy them? There are lots of lookers on this site that aren't members. I believe the Home Made tool site does give you credit & sounds like they will take your tools down or sell your plans as you wish. We all use the net to find info on things we don't know & I think Home made tools is a good site with great ideas IMHO.
One more thought most here have wanted the Shop Made tool section to be more organized for finding a certain tool & Homemade tools I believe does a good job at being able to find what you're looking for.

[J Tiers]

Sorry Mr Tiers, you're off base there. Trademarks must be protected, or you'll lose them, copyrights don't. Trademarks have to be applied for, copyrights are automatic.

Trademarks, and patents are clearly possible to lose in that way if not defended.

I have been advised that copyrights are likewise. If it is not true, then I was incorrectly advised, or else I misunderstood the advice. Copyrights ARE, however, fairly easy to defend, unlike patents.

In Tiffie's own country, it apparently IS possible to lose copyright, .... for certain types of copyright, unless registered. And the infringement may apparently happen anywhere in the world, which is an odd situation.

http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/07_06_06_loss_of_copyright_protection/

And, it may depend on when the "work" was created. If at a time when a notice was required, then the absence of a notice, or presence of a "defective" notice (missing author, date, or the word copyright) can affect the validity. If before a certain date, and never registered, then it may not be copyrighted. if before a certain date and not renewed, it may not be copyrighted. Most of those will not affect anyone here, as the dates are prior to the internet.

But it serves to note that it HAS BEEN possible to lose copyright in the US through not asserting it.

http://chart.copyrightdata.com/OnePageGuide.html

[mattthemuppet]

I really fail to see what all the fuss is about. homemadetools.net is an aggregator, that's all. Like a Google images search, but more useful as it picks up things you hadn't even thought about (or don't know what they're called). Every tool that is from another site has a full clickable URL to the original post or thread, the name of the author and all of the accreditation that goes with the original thread/post. The money made by that site is from selling plans with the full cooperation and compensation of the tool maker, the ads I imagine are to pay for site running costs just like on this one. The pictures and threads are not being passed off as the site owner's work, they're not being sold, no copyright theft is going on.

All of this was very clearly explained by the site owner, yet still we have these wild accusations of piracy and copyright theft. Leave the hyperbole and fearmongering for politics please.

[mklotz]

I really fail to see what all the fuss is about. homemadetools.net is an aggregator, that's all. Like a Google images search, but more useful as it picks up things you hadn't even thought about (or don't know what they're called). Every tool that is from another site has a full clickable URL to the original post or thread, the name of the author and all of the accreditation that goes with the original thread/post. The money made by that site is from selling plans with the full cooperation and compensation of the tool maker, the ads I imagine are to pay for site running costs just like on this one. The pictures and threads are not being passed off as the site owner's work, they're not being sold, no copyright theft is going on.

All of this was very clearly explained by the site owner, yet still we have these wild accusations of piracy and copyright theft. Leave the hyperbole and fearmongering for politics please.

I couldn't have said it better myself, Matt!

[J Tiers]

I tend to agree, although I didn't really see that when I looked at the site. It does appear to be an aggregator. The question is really about the plans.

The "full co-operation" and the "we don't contact the author" seem to be in some conflict. Perhaps they do not, UNTIL they want to sell plans. I was not clear on that from the site info in the "about" etc. But I skimmed it and did not read through doggedly.

[oldtiffie]

While it will not prevent pirating, it is easy enough to include a copyright statement in your signature line and on your photos and drawings as some have done. It means that the user must knowingly remove the information and is proof of guilt.

It is of little concern to me, but it is very unfair to contributors like Mike who put a large amount of effort and talent into their posts to share information only to have their posts stolen for other's benefit.

Thanks Jim.

How do you copy a substantial copyright notice on your photos when given that it should be "readable" and that may degrade the image somewhat as it may require a fair bit of space.

As I understand it, the signature line is not copied when it is down-loaded and copied to another computer or disc.

I've seen quite a few (many?) attempts at inserting "text" into a pic - particularly on u-tube and the like - and they were neither helpful or "pretty". Even on a pic here it takes a lot of space and work by the author.

What if the pic is actually an image from a high resolution camera and is copied to here - by who knows?

[mattthemuppet]

I tend to agree, although I didn't really see that when I looked at the site. It does appear to be an aggregator. The question is really about the plans.

The "full co-operation" and the "we don't contact the author" seem to be in some conflict. Perhaps they do not, UNTIL they want to sell plans. I was not clear on that from the site info in the "about" etc. But I skimmed it and did not read through doggedly.

The "request plans" thing is automatic, probably just a survey button and doesn't mean anything from the standpoint of the original poster.

The plans for sale thing is very different. That's the site owner working with the original poster to format, publicise and sell the plans for his or her tool. The site owner takes a cut (30% or 40%?), the original poster/ plan maker gets the rest. Paul Alcatiore (sp?) from here has done so for his awesome QCTP. There's nothing underhand or sneaky about this as it obviously can't happen with the knowledge and consent of the poster/ plan maker. On the contrary, if that person is interested, they get some money for their efforts, the end user gets detailed plans instead of having to guess from pictures on the 'net and the site owner gets some money for site maintenance and coffee.