Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

semi OT - homemadtools.net

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • J Tiers
    replied
    US.

    But if ou follow many of the links, you will find that a lot of countries have an agreement to respect each other's copyrights, presumably whatever is valid in the originating country's legal system.

    Leave a comment:


  • loose nut
    replied
    Originally posted by J Tiers View Post

    The main problem with the RIAA and the movie industry is that their product has no physical manifestation to be sent. A file is transferred, and the deed is done. Not like a book, or painting, that are physical items, which is the sort of thing the copyright laws have been aimed at.


    you no longer "apply for" copyright, it is inherent. At one time you had to register in the US, and mark the copyrighted item with the three required pieces of info, but you no longer must do that, IIRC since 1978 for part of it, and since 1989 for the rest.

    .
    In these days of the internet there isn't much material that uses a copyright that has a physical form. Art, yes. Books, movies, music, software, construction plans or other CAD output etc are mostly digital these days, no physical form for customs to stop. It can also be simply and cheaply replicated in such large quantities that finding it all is impossible.
    Once it is out there it is lost.

    Not having to apply for a copyright, is that US or the whole world???

    Leave a comment:


  • Mcgyver
    replied
    Originally posted by oldtiffie View Post
    I am not at all sure here but I do recall that sometime ago here it was said that if an item is on the net and is not copyrighted - or application made for it to be copyrighted within or by one calendar year?? - it becomes an item on/in the "Public Domain" item so far as copyright is concerned.

    https://www.google.com.au/search?q=g...sl#q=copyright

    Comments/advice please.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=help...with+copyright

    Leave a comment:


  • pinstripe
    replied
    If you want to retain some control over the images you post online, then you should look into steganography. It allows you to hide a message inside an image file. A program takes your image file and changes some of the pixels in a way that is not be detectable by the eye. Depending on the program and options, the data can survive cropping and also some image manipulation. Other people cannot see the message, even if they use the same software unless they know your password. I would do this in addition to a visible copyright notice in the image file.

    If you ever need to contact a web site to have your image removed, you can always use the encoded data as proof of ownership. They can still choose to ignore you, but at least they will know that you are serious about your IP. Sometimes that is enough if they are in a country where copyright is taken seriously.

    Leave a comment:


  • oldtiffie
    replied
    I suspect most here and else-where will just carry on as before/always and the status quo will remain as it was and is and is to remain.


    Or in other words - the more things change the more it/they stay the same.

    I'm all for the status quo.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Alciatore
    replied
    I'll look into that. Thanks. But I suspect that things will still happen when you export it from Word as a pdf file.



    Originally posted by mattthemuppet View Post
    Paul, a bit of a tangent here, but if you're using Word and perhaps other word processing programs, you can prevent that from happening most of the time. Right click on the picture, go to "more layout options" and tick the "lock anchor" box. That will pin it in place on the page. Sometimes ticking "allow overlap" helps prevent pictures interacting with each other and shooting all over the place. Reduces alot of the frustration in using pictures in Word

    hth!

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Alciatore
    replied
    Oh. OK.



    Originally posted by Mcgyver View Post
    this and several other posts - wtf?

    who has made a big deal about it? I asked about it and said I think it a bit sneaky copying your content onto a commercial site without the courtesy of asking first. to what mind is that making a big deal? No one seems to be ranting, Jerry went off on a side bar discussion and I said "collective sigh of relief from the scores of internet pirates" making fun of OT, but neither was directed at the thread topic.

    The only big deal I see is those you making a big deal about a phantom making of a big deal

    Leave a comment:


  • J Tiers
    replied
    As the copyright owner, it's your problem to find infringers and notify them to stop. YOU are the interested party.

    However, the customs service WILL stop importation of infringing items if they know about them, and have time.

    The main problem with the RIAA and the movie industry is that their product has no physical manifestation to be sent. A file is transferred, and the deed is done. Not like a book, or painting, that are physical items, which is the sort of thing the copyright laws have been aimed at.

    Originally posted by oldtiffie View Post
    I am not at all sure here but I do recall that sometime ago here it was said that if an item is on the net and is not copyrighted - or application made for it to be copyrighted within or by one calendar year?? - it becomes an item on/in the "Public Domain" item so far as copyright is concerned.

    https://www.google.com.au/search?q=g...sl#q=copyright

    Comments/advice please.
    You no longer "apply for" copyright, it is inherent. At one time you had to register in the US, and mark the copyrighted item with the three required pieces of info, but you no longer must do that, IIRC since 1978 for part of it, and since 1989 for the rest.

    Go back and look at the legal guide link I posted.

    Leave a comment:


  • dave_r
    replied
    Originally posted by oldtiffie View Post
    I am not at all sure here but I do recall that sometime ago here it was said that if an item is on the net and is not copyrighted - or application made for it to be copyrighted within or by one calendar year?? - it becomes an item on/in the "Public Domain" item so far as copyright is concerned.

    https://www.google.com.au/search?q=g...sl#q=copyright

    Comments/advice please.
    It probably varies a bit with which country the poster and 'downloader' are in, but in general, copyright automatically is attached to "something" once it is created, be it some text, a picture, or a drawing of a part. Then the copyright for that 'something' may be partially/fully assigned to another party when it is posted on the web, depending on the TOS of whatever website it is posted to. But the DEFAULT is that the creator retains the full copyright of the 'something' and must actively do something to assign the copyright to someone else, including into the public domain.

    Leave a comment:


  • loose nut
    replied
    [QUOTE=J Tiers;1074899]It matters as soon as it is in the US, or sold to US customers, etc (and of course if it matters to you).

    And how is that known.

    As I already posted the MIAA and RIAA can't stem the piracy flood that is happening in the US, just like every other country, how will you track something that belongs to yourself that may or may not be in the US. All the laws in the universe don't mean anything if they can't be enforced or enforced economically. It is practically impossible to tell if something has be downloaded from another country into the US unless it is so important that someone is willing to spend the money to track it IE: the government or big business. The little guy just doesn't have the resources to do that. If your copyrighted piece is downloaded by a torrent client then the source files could come out of dozens of countries simultaneously. If it hosted on a website that is in your country then you may have a chance if its worth the cost to you. Lawyers/legal fees aren't cheap.
    Last edited by loose nut; 10-18-2016, 08:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • oldtiffie
    replied
    I am not at all sure here but I do recall that sometime ago here it was said that if an item is on the net and is not copyrighted - or application made for it to be copyrighted within or by one calendar year?? - it becomes an item on/in the "Public Domain" item so far as copyright is concerned.

    https://www.google.com.au/search?q=g...sl#q=copyright

    Comments/advice please.
    Last edited by oldtiffie; 10-18-2016, 08:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • J Tiers
    replied
    Originally posted by loose nut View Post
    This is part of the reason that copyright on the web is mostly useless. Unless the item that has been "stolen" is of great enough value for the aggrieved party to take legal action then copyrighting something has no meaning.

    The other part is that once on the web it can be anywhere, in any country or even "in the cloud". Many countries don't honor copyrights (or patents) from other countries so there is no legal avenue to take anyway, unless you have the juice to get your governments foreign affairs dept. to try and take action. Lots of luck on that. How do you think pirate's keep on going, they literally exist outside the law, American law anyway.

    There are over 95,000,000 illegal downloads per day (as of a couple of years ago, may be more now) around the world and the Movie and recording artist industry (main targets) is basically helpless against it. They can't even sow it down, how is Joe Blow going to stop theft of his copyrighted material.
    It matters as soon as it is in the US, or sold to US customers, etc (and of course if it matters to you). A lawyer's letter is all it takes to make it known to the infringers, no "legal action" beyond that may be necessary. And, if one IS sent, then any further infringement is "wilful" with potentially a higher level of fine if sued.

    If it is in china, forget about it, the chinese enforce what the officials are bribed to enforce, basically. There is apparently an international agreement on copyrights, which the US was one of the most recent signatories of. I am not certain of all the details, but reciprocal recognition of copyright is part of it, but may be an option to which not all have agreed..

    Leave a comment:


  • loose nut
    replied
    Originally posted by oldtiffie View Post

    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?

    .
    This is part of the reason that copyright on the web is mostly useless. Unless the item that has been "stolen" is of great enough value for the aggrieved party to take legal action then copyrighting something has no meaning.

    The other part is that once on the web it can be anywhere, in any country or even "in the cloud". Many countries don't honor copyrights (or patents) from other countries so there is no legal avenue to take anyway, unless you have the juice to get your governments foreign affairs dept. to try and take action. Lots of luck on that. How do you think pirate's keep on going, they literally exist outside the law, American law anyway.

    There are over 95,000,000 illegal downloads per day (as of a couple of years ago, may be more now) around the world and the Movie and recording artist industry (main targets) is basically helpless against it. They can't even sow it down, how is Joe Blow going to stop theft of his copyrighted material.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mcgyver
    replied
    Originally posted by dan s View Post
    Some have gotten their panties in a bunch about it.
    .
    So say who if you're going to "sigh" at people because what they write is just so trying for you. What post is so over the top it sits in your mind as ones panties are in a knot?

    Every thing legal is one big grey area, and open to interpretation.
    The point being it is not a legal issue, at least to me. I doubt everything in your world is right/wrong base on legality - manners and ethics should be the primary drivers of social behaviour. I didn't see anyone "with their panties in a bunch" over whether it was legal or not - but you must have....... so who?
    Last edited by Mcgyver; 10-18-2016, 12:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dan s
    replied
    Originally posted by Mcgyver View Post
    sigh, whats the point of that? Do you see someone saying anyone's broken a law?
    Some have gotten their panties in a bunch about it.



    Originally posted by Mcgyver View Post
    some quick reading on fair use suggests crediting work can help a defense however does not make the use fair use.
    Every thing legal is one big grey area, and open to interpretation.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X