Copyright questions
41 - 60 of 79 Posts
Ade - first thanks for inputing to the discussion.
The originator of the work, by default, owns the intellectual property. In this case its in the form of a copyright. The vertical scope rules are quite clear about what is not permitted in terms of copying and onward dissemination,
c
Joined
·
4,451 Posts
Anyone believing that rules, VS's are anyone else's, will prevent images being reproduced elsewhere is naive.
Surely by the same token, you should know better than to try to stir up trouble. Sounds more like attention seeking to me.
Joined
·
17,967 Posts
People who steal other people's work, especially in order to use that work in an effort to belittle or discredit them, certainly don't care about any rights being infringed upon. If anything, shedding light on their activities will only encourage them to continue, and to double-down on their efforts, because we already know that it won't slow them down, or stop them, from continuing to do it.
A case could be made for "fair use" in these instances, especially when they are specifically saying that the image is not of their own product. The fact that they are using it in a misleading or patently false way is especially grating.
Try and take it as a compliment that your work has been deemed to be a threat to their business enough that they feel the need to try to portray your work negatively. What else would be the point of their actions? If you were truly not a threat, then they would simply continue with their own work with the smug belief that theirs is superior in every way. All other interpretations of these actions are less complimentary of the perpetrators.
A case could be made for "fair use" in these instances, especially when they are specifically saying that the image is not of their own product. The fact that they are using it in a misleading or patently false way is especially grating.
Try and take it as a compliment that your work has been deemed to be a threat to their business enough that they feel the need to try to portray your work negatively. What else would be the point of their actions? If you were truly not a threat, then they would simply continue with their own work with the smug belief that theirs is superior in every way. All other interpretations of these actions are less complimentary of the perpetrators.
Joined
·
5,197 Posts
Have to agree there.
Have to disagree there....I have an aversion to one member telling another what they should do.
My questions and thoughts relate to the matter of technical infringement of copyright law - and a case where it may have taken place. I guess I am less interested in speculation and implied criticism… we are a small community so mutual respect should (hopefully) always prevail.
c
c
I think that may be true - but it would be good to see trends in active membership numbers and guest visits as a function of time before reaching that conclusion.
That said, misrepresentation by others of the work we choose share with each other via this forum is hardly likely to encourage a growing membership based on mutual trust… so maybe the rules are there for a reason?
c
Joined
·
5,197 Posts
Apologies to the OP for this dreadful part of the thread.....as Dopamine suggests I should have STFU. It seems to Dopamine I dont have the rights to make a comment on a thread but he does.
And as an extra, if I sent you (Dopamine) a PM warning you about your posts, it was for the sole reason that you were coming across as an egg.
And as an extra, if I sent you (Dopamine) a PM warning you about your posts, it was for the sole reason that you were coming across as an egg.
If someone asks a question about the copyright use of their original work being used by another entity to ridicule their work publicly on multiple platforms then I wouldn’t consider it attention seeking by the person asking the question but more likely seeking clarification and exploring their options.
Joined
·
4,870 Posts
A product review is not a copyright infringement is it? No one should expect all reviews to be positive all of the time.
However brilliant and cutting edge we might think our work is, it is just possible that other people might take a different view and think it is totally pants.
Isn't it the risk we all take by posting on a public forum?
Joel
Hi Joel, I think your comments touch on the point raised earlier by MrFlippant.
So looking further into criticism and review I found this which seeks to represent the UK legal position:
QUOTE:
1) The purpose is really for quotation, criticism or review
2) The material used is available to the public
3) The use of the material is fair
4) Where practical, the use is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement
However, it is important to note that, as well as the four criteria set out above, the exception for general quotation also depends on satisfying one additional requirement:
5) Your use of the quotation must extend no further than is required to achieve your purpose.
END OF QUOTE
Acknowledgments to the website below as visited on 13/9/21
www.copyrightuser.org
So this interestingly raises the question what is ‘fair’ and this must be fairly easy to argue strongly either way… so I wont go there.
It does however present the reader (and perhaps the owner of the forum where the copyrighted material is presented) with the question… is that fair? the answer maybe helps us establish which forums we trust and choose to visit.
Very interesting stuff. Oh yes and there is the adequate acknowledgment piece - perhaps a bit more black and white. But again this is very muddled in in terms of what, if any, acknowledgment is provided where my work is reported in the above cases. In fact the poster even declared on their thread that my first name is fake! So for me that pretty much defines ‘inadequate acknowledgment’.
Dr C (BTW my first name is Clive… hence the C)
So looking further into criticism and review I found this which seeks to represent the UK legal position:
QUOTE:
1) The purpose is really for quotation, criticism or review
2) The material used is available to the public
3) The use of the material is fair
4) Where practical, the use is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement
However, it is important to note that, as well as the four criteria set out above, the exception for general quotation also depends on satisfying one additional requirement:
5) Your use of the quotation must extend no further than is required to achieve your purpose.
END OF QUOTE
Acknowledgments to the website below as visited on 13/9/21
UK Copyright Law - CopyrightUser.org
CopyrightUser.org is an resource aimed at making UK Copyright Law accessible to creators, media professionals, entrepreneurs, students, and the public
www.copyrightuser.org
So this interestingly raises the question what is ‘fair’ and this must be fairly easy to argue strongly either way… so I wont go there.
It does however present the reader (and perhaps the owner of the forum where the copyrighted material is presented) with the question… is that fair? the answer maybe helps us establish which forums we trust and choose to visit.
Very interesting stuff. Oh yes and there is the adequate acknowledgment piece - perhaps a bit more black and white. But again this is very muddled in in terms of what, if any, acknowledgment is provided where my work is reported in the above cases. In fact the poster even declared on their thread that my first name is fake! So for me that pretty much defines ‘inadequate acknowledgment’.
Dr C (BTW my first name is Clive… hence the C)
41 - 60 of 79 Posts
