If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. Nowhere in that paragraph does it deal with possession, or retaining ("keeping") a file. Something must done in violation of the copyright law with that photograph by someone other than the owner, without permission by the owner, for there to be any type of copyright infringement. and that something includes making a copy. Your statement that "the *moment* you keep a copy, you've broken the law" is flat-out wrong. nope. it's exactly correct. You are hopelessly ignorant of the copyright laws. that would be you. i know you won't benefit, but maybe others will learn something from these: https://davidsontm.wordpress.com/201...tes-copyright- infringement-and-how-is-it-decided/ Stated briefly, U.S. copyright law provides a copyright owner with a bundle of rights in a work: he/she has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license his or her work, and to authorize others to do any or all of these things. The copyright owner also has the exclusive right to create or authorize the creation of derivatives of that work. So, since the copyright owner has the exclusive right to do all of those things (or to permit others to do them), infringement can happen when someone does any of them without the copyright owner¹s permission. From a practical standpoint, however, the majority of copyright infringement suits involve reproduction (as in copying a work) and/or distributing (as in unauthorized copies of the work). .... So a finding of copyright infringement requires both of these elements: substantial similarity and access/copying. .... There are times when ³substantial similarity² is not an issue.* Think, for example, of a case involving the reproduction of a digital image or a recording in digital format.* A digital copy is about as identical as something can get, so in those cases the only real issue is whether the defendant had access to the original work so that copying could occur. the issue of access can easily be proven with web logs. https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ug...nt-litigation- faq What are the elements of a copyright infringement claim? A copyright infringement action requires a plaintiff to prove (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) actionable copying by the defendant of constituent elements of the work that are original. To establish ownership of a valid copyright a plaintiff must show that the material is "original," which in copyright parlance simply means (i) that the work was independently created by the author, and (ii) that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate compliance with the statutory formalities, e.g. timely obtaining a registration. To prove legally actionable copying, a plaintiff must prove (i) that the defendant did, in fact, actually copy from the plaintiff's work (often referred to as "factual copying"), and (ii) that the works, "when compared as a whole, are adequately similar to establish appropriation." tl;dr - your words You are hopelessly ignorant of the copyright laws. describes you. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: You introduced music downloading into the discussion to cover up your inability to defend or explain your ridiculous position that retaining, keeping, a downloaded image is a problem. there's nothing ridiculous about it and the law agrees with me, not you. There is no law that determines the length of time a copyrighted item can be retained by a person in possession of that item. The laws pertain only to acquisition of the item and what can be done with it after acquisition. The length of time it is retained is not covered by law. Terms of use may determine the time, though. time isn't and never was the issue. what were you saying about deviating? the *moment* you keep a copy, you've broken the law, unless the owner of the content permits you to do so. You've changed your argument, but your new argument is as bogus as the last one. It is not a violation of copyright to download someone else's photograph. The fact that you "keep" or retain that downloaded image is not a violation of the copyright. it can be. again, as i said long ago, the owner gets to decide, not you. The ultimate decision lies in the hands of a judge. so what? that doesn't change anything. yet another argument just to argue. as i said, the owner gets to decide. obviously, if the owner permits copying, he isn't going to sue anyone when they copy it and a judge will never hear about it. duh. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: My comments have nothing to do with music in any way. yes they do. photos are copyrighted material, as is music, video, software, books and more. I've been involved in a number of copyright cases, involving entities ranging from rotary clothes lines to portable saw mills. then you should understand the issues, but it appears that you do not. One of us doesn't. yep, and that would be you. But we were discussing photographs. Please explain your point in terms of photographs. photos are copyrighted. if you make an illicit copy, you've broken the law. very simple. How have you affected the owner's rights by keeping a copy? the mere fact you even ask that shows you don't understand the issues. if you aren't authorized to make copies, you've infringed his copyright. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: It's not at all obvious to me. What is wrong with keeping a copy of a downloaded image? ask the owner. they get to decide, not you or anyone else. If I upload an image it is because I want it to be viewed. I have no idea of how it is going to be viewed without being downloaded. I do not believe that people will post images to the Internet without the intention and expectation that others will download them for viewing. viewing isn't the issue. The what the **** is the issue? keeping copies, and you can say **** on the internet. What is wrong with keeping copies? that depends on a number of factors. if you don't have permission, you've infringed. if you've cracked a copy protection mechanism to do so (and many web sites block copying, even though it's usually easy to circumvent), add a dmca violation to the mix. it's also unethical. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
Tony Cooper:
You have a reading comprehension problem. The full sentence continues that the reproduction must be distributed, performed, publicly displayed or made into a derivative work to be an infringement. Bill W: I have to disagree on this one. When a list is followed by "or", that means that any one of those things alone counts. You're quibbling over sentence structure that is not germane. Mr. Cooper is correct on the subject of fair use. Downloading and viewing or downloading and printing an image is not a violation of the fair-use doctrine. It has sometimes been held that wider distribution by educational institutions, e.g., does not violate the doctrine, but this has to be decided on a case-by-case basis and institutions with legal departments (that's virtually every college and university) generally prohibit faculty and students from using material where rights are in question. The courts are flooded with copyright cases and I promise you that they will not entertain a case against a person who uses a copyrighted work as a desktop picture or who prints it and hangs it on his wall. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:42:26 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: My comments have nothing to do with music in any way. yes they do. photos are copyrighted material, as is music, video, software, books and more. I've been involved in a number of copyright cases, involving entities ranging from rotary clothes lines to portable saw mills. then you should understand the issues, but it appears that you do not. But we were discussing photographs. Please explain your point in terms of photographs. photos are copyrighted. if you make an illicit copy, you've broken the law. very simple. First of all, define what you mean as 'illicit'. Second, be aware that copying for certain purposes is permitted by the doctrine of 'fair use'. nospam's premise is completely erroneous. Once the image is downloaded, the length of time it remains on the downloader's computer is the computer owner's decision to make. There is no deadline for removal. also wrong. And you can't provide a reason that it's wrong. i can and have. I knew you would do that and explicitly asked you not to! You can't and you haven't. If you want to prove me wrong please post a link to the appropriate article. start he https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. See again the doctrine of fair use. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:03:55 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Ken Hart wrote: You can't and you haven't. If you want to prove me wrong please post a link to the appropriate article. start he https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. That cite only provides for sharing a copyrighted work: reproduced, distributed, etc. It says nothing about simply keeping and storing a copyrighted work that was made available to you in a public forum. read it again, especially this part: copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced reproduced = keeping a copy. But if it has been given to you ... ? If you put a photograph online and post a link to it in this (public) forum, anyone can go to your link and download your photograph. the issue is not downloading, but keeping a copy without permission. How long do you need to keep it to infringe the copyright? 10mSec? No. How about 10 sec? What about 10 minutes? If 10 minutes is OK, what about 10 hours, or even 10 days? If an artist uploads an image for viewing how long can it be retained before copyright is infringed? What is the rule? How do you decide? How do I decide? The legal problem starts if they make copies to distribute or display. nope. the legal problem starts when someone keeps a copy without having permission to do so. if they have permission, then there's no issue. when a site or an app takes steps to block saving a copy (disabling contextual menus, adding shadow images, etc.), then it's clear that you *don't* have permission to keep a copy. Based on your argument that it is illegal to retain the image, many people could be arrested for the contents of their cache directory! that's a good example of how the law hasn't caught up with technology. what's in the cache is technically a copy and violates the letter of the law. however, that's how browsers work and it's just a temporary copy, one which the user more than likely doesn't even know is there, so it doesn't violate the intent of the law. See the doctrine of fair use. and if there's something incriminating in the cache or browser history, even if you never made a separate copy, your day will suddenly become quite a bit worse than it otherwise would have been. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:36:52 -0700, Bill W
wrote: On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 21:22:07 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote: You have a reading comprehension problem. The full sentence continues that the reproduction must be distributed, performed, publicly displayed or made into a derivative work to be an infringement. I have to disagree on this one. When a list is followed by "or", that means that any one of those things alone counts. I think that sentence needs an Oxford comma. http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2...-oxford-comma/ -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:42:26 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: what's wrong with keeping a copy of a song you downloaded. the riaa has sued people who did that. I don;t think they can do that unless you've obtained it illegally. If you obtain it legally then share it against the owners/publishers constent then that's when the problems start. keeping something for which you aren't authorized to keep can result in possible legal action. Please explain why it is that a person who downloads a legal copy of an image is not allowed to keep it on their computer. i just did. read it again. what part of not authorized to keep isn't clear? What is it that makes it not authorised? (Please just don't say the copyright act. Refer to the relevant part and explain how it applies). -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:09:04 -0400, Davoud wrote:
Tony Cooper: You have a reading comprehension problem. The full sentence continues that the reproduction must be distributed, performed, publicly displayed or made into a derivative work to be an infringement. Bill W: I have to disagree on this one. When a list is followed by "or", that means that any one of those things alone counts. You're quibbling over sentence structure that is not germane. I'm quibbling over sentence structure, and nothing else. The copyright issue of this thread is of little interest to me. Mr. Cooper is correct on the subject of fair use. Downloading and viewing or downloading and printing an image is not a violation of the fair-use doctrine. It has sometimes been held that wider distribution by educational institutions, e.g., does not violate the doctrine, but this has to be decided on a case-by-case basis and institutions with legal departments (that's virtually every college and university) generally prohibit faculty and students from using material where rights are in question. The courts are flooded with copyright cases and I promise you that they will not entertain a case against a person who uses a copyrighted work as a desktop picture or who prints it and hangs it on his wall. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dropbox Traffic Limits | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 1 | April 25th 15 10:05 PM |
Dropbox issue | PeterN[_4_] | Digital Photography | 3 | July 23rd 13 03:10 AM |
Curious - who uses Dropbox? | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 42 | February 27th 12 09:31 AM |
Curious - who uses Dropbox? | Dennis Boone | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | February 25th 12 07:18 PM |