Gruesome Gaboon

[Hognose_311]

better?

 

[Ken Harbart]

You are aware that it's not kosher to post other people's pics without their permission and without crediting them for the pic, right?

 

[Gregg M]

Hey now!!!!!!!!!
Whats with posting MY pic????
I normaly would not have a problem if someone likes my pic enough to post it on a forum, but atleast credit my name to it....

 

[Hognose_311]

Actually the URL is on there, and i have some info that maybe you should have known, right??

 

[Hognose_311]

ISSUE OF COPYRIGHTS
Based on the following Supreme Court decision (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Internet Service Co., 499 US 340, 349(1991), an article can be electronically printed or copied, in its entirety, if complete attribution is included: author, date, publication and that its copyrighted, and published by a non-profit organization that receives no money for its publication. This means that herp societies, that dont charge membership fees, have to summarize an article since both parties tacitly agree that by no payment of membership dues, they're not paying for certain services, such as receipt of the graphic image.

 

[Seamus Haley]

Kind of testing something here... Determining if posts can be edited by users in the photo forums and what, if any message is displayed when they are.

In that I personally don't remember Gregg's URL being up there before and frankly I doubt it would have caused the stir that it did.

Beyond which... In addition to pissing everyone off with your lies on the thread which has turned into a venomoid debate- regardless of the legalities of posting credited photos online, it's not POLITE and is NOT a good way to behave on a public and widely used herp board. The owner of the photo, while a fairly laid back guy, obviously didn't appreciate it, obviously wasn't asked for permission and is very much so a respected individual in the hobby. Think long and hard about the toes you're stepping on and what they might tell their friends.

Edit: Yes, users can edit their own post in these sections.

Second Edit: And there is no message on the post indicating if it was edited, when or by who... So I'm going to go ahead and say that Gregg's URL was edited in after this kid got in trouble. Seriously now... just how many lies do you want to be caught in and how much back peddling will you have to do before you realize that you can't get away with BSing on a site like this?

 

[robin d.]

im sure if we really wanted to know we could ask the webslave to check his record tracker or soemthing to refresh little mikeys memory that the link was not there originally until brought up.

 

[beakgeek]

an <b>article</b> can be electronically printed

As a photographer I know for a fact that the <b>Photograph</b> can't be printed or used in any form without the consent of the photographer. If you look at the text you posted it say <b>ARTICLE</b> not photograph.

I have had nature images stolen and I can tell you from my personal experience that Gregg could get you for copyright infringement if he felt like it Especially since he has the following clearly printed at the bottom of his index page:

"Copyright © 2004. All rights reserved!!"

Regards,

Terry

 

[robin d.]

Terry i love you man :sniff sniff: brinmgs a slight tear to my eye to see such knowledge posted... poor kid... wait naw at 15 you should know better. At 15 i knew what plagiarism was and what a copyright was soooooooo there is no excuse

(julie i dont "love" him in that way, its in the "you da man" sorta way.... wait... its like in the " terry knows his photography and copyright laws shizzle way")

 

[Hognose_311]

I dont feel like having all of this crap start again so ill delete it, hopefully that will make everyone happy.

 

[Mark and Aimee]

As a photographer I know for a fact that the Photograph can't be printed or used in any form without the consent of the photographer.

Use of a photo for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

(http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107)

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Mark

 

[beakgeek]

You left out one important part of the law:

"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

Determination of fair use is the stickler. "The nature of the copyrighted work" is vague enough to allow for enforcement of the copyright.

The original owner can enforce copyright because the intial post made no reference what so ever about the original owner of the work which is the violation of copyright:

"§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity37

the author of a work of visual art shall have the right to claim authorship of that work."

Everything else goes out the window once the work is presented without mention of the person who owns said copyrighted material.

I love this stuff.

Regards,

Terry

 

[Mark and Aimee]

Everything else goes out the window once the work is presented without mention of the person who owns said copyrighted material.

Right on... I knew there was something I was missing .

So, do you agree that if he had posted the source, there would not have been a copyright violation?

 

[Gregg M]

If he would have credited my name or website to the picture I would not have given 2 craps that he posted the pic....... Terry, You are full of good info...... I cant wait to see what you post next.... Anyway, Thanks for looking out guys and girls......

 

[Bringerofdoom]

ISSUE OF COPYRIGHTS
Based on the following Supreme Court decision (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Internet Service Co., 499 US 340, 349(1991), an article can be electronically printed or copied, in its entirety, if complete attribution is included: author, date, publication and that its copyrighted, and published by a non-profit organization that receives no money for its publication. This means that herp societies, that dont charge membership fees, have to summarize an article since both parties tacitly agree that by no payment of membership dues, they're not paying for certain services, such as receipt of the graphic image.

did u even bother reading what you posted?, or did it fly over your head? either way it dont apply to you stealing other images from people and posting them.

here lemme get you a real quote

A copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license his work. See § 106 of the act. The owner also receives the exclusive right to produce or license derivatives of his or her work. See § 201(d) of the act. Limited exceptions to this exclusivity exist for types of "fair use", such as book reviews. See § 107 of the act. To be covered by copyright a work must be original and in a concrete "medium of expression." See § 102 of the act. Under current law, works are covered whether or not a copyright notice is attached and whether or not the work is registered.

as quoted from http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html