Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

page: 7
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Makes you feel pretty stupid when you look up to someone that you think is a free thinking genius level member only to find that the real free thinking genius's have the uncanny ability to sniff out and bust the offending rule breakers.

This is the one thing that separates us from the other sites.
And it always amazes me when our people somehow 'know'.




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by antar
Makes you feel pretty stupid when you look up to someone that you think is a free thinking genius level member


Who dat be?

As fas as I know, only Arthur C. Clark fits that category, snork, LOL, out loud.

Semi-seriously(*), though, IMO, one should be cautious in one's admirations on the 'net, b/c it's pretty easy to read a few Wiki pages and then babble semi-coherently and sound like a freakin' genius level member.

Just a thought.





(*) A 'Seriously' with 18 wheels.


edit: that was not a 'laugh' at the venerable Mr Clarke, whom I greatly admire, but a tip of the hat to his obvious genius.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
As fas as I know, only Arthur C. Clark fits that category, snork, LOL, out loud.


And he will be missed...

May your new Journey be as successful as this one was

RIP Sir Arthur



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
my humble apologies for not quoting correctly. when these many buttons are involved in a website i overlook a button or 2. won't happen again...



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Hi,
I recieved this warning but thought I added the source to each item discussed. Can a Mod plese send me a U2U or post on here, as to what I did wrong?
Thank you, I didnt see any previous mention of my original post about Anti-globalization and Democracy? Yet the name was changed on my thread to Protests and Political tensions Mar meeting?? I thinkl I put the links in the wrong order?
Thank you,



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I've received a warning as well, and I've sourced a personal email. I hope that the mod will accept a copy of the email I have sent in a U2U, I'd rather not disclose my personal information, especially on ATS..

A post ban would be unfortunate for all of us..



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Sorry, wrong button.


[edit on 10/10/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Yarcofin
Isn't plagiarism considered posting anything that isn't considered "general widespread knowledge?"

No.

Using what has been contributed to the generally available knowledge base, and expanding upon that, is the normal process of advancement and learning.

Taking what someone else did (writing, art, video, photo, etc.), removing reference to that person, using it verbatim (or with only minor changes), and calling it your own is plagiarism.




Does the above apply to avatars? I see plenty of animation screen shots used as avatars with no reference to the artist. Even some photos of political figures or pop culture figures, with just snotty phrases added with no credit to the photographer. I also see plenty of pictures added to posts to make a point or added for the humorous effect; no credit to the artist or photographer. So is using an image and not giving credit to the artist in a post/thread/avatar [a post/thread/avatar is an original creation]plagiarism???

Should I press the "alert" button every time I see what I feel is a plagiarism infraction?

If this T&C is to be enforced as it should; this will be big job!!!

I confess that I was the recipient of a warning, reprimand, point loss, for plagiarism of a paragraph from a www. site. that I used in a short story.

Is there a blurred line or double standard when it comes to graphic material?




[edit on 10-10-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


it is prudent to note that things published before 1978, the copyrights expire 70 years after the author's death.

Case in point: You can freely copy Charles Darwin's Origin of Species without giving credit to him.

But to be safe, source material if you are in the dark as to the death of the author.

Just pointing out this fact.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


From a legal point that is correct, but from a moral point we should always make it noticeable what is our own work and what is not, the fact that the copyright expired doesn't mean that we can present it as our how.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


This I know, I said to source your material, I only posted the law for the purpose of precision.

It's kinda how my brain operates.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Another thing to remember is that the law may be different in other countries, so what is legal in one country may be illegal in a different country.

They always stress that point on the Project Gutenberg.


Edited to make it clearer: because of the difference between countries we should always use the largest time frame, so if in the US, for example, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author and the EU it expires 75 years after we should use the 75 years limit because the access to ATS is not limited to the US.

[edit on 11/10/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 

Yes, copyright laws also apply to images, so posting a copy of a copyrighted image is also against copyright laws.

And I know personally a someone that copyrighted a work made for wine bottles' labels, the company purchased only the rights to use that image on the labels so if they use the image for anything else they are breaking the law. In that case, digitising the image and using it as an avatar (besides strange) would be illegal.

The same happens with videos, and I find it a little strange that so many copyrighted videos are allowed on YouTube and other sites, including ATS.

In same cases, even if the person using the image wants to know if there is any copyright it's hard to know, because digital copies are so easy to make that any image that enters the Internet will probably be found some time later in many sites, making it impossible to find the source.

That is one of the reasons I am making an image search engine, to try to find the source of images that I think I have seen before.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I have a question here...what about those who post endless Bible quotes in a thread? Isn't this plagiarism of the ones who actually wrote the words in the first place? I never see quote tags, or a link to source. I have seen these quotes go for pages long. If you are going to make a rule, it should apply to all members, right?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by whaaa
 

Yes, copyright laws also apply to images, so posting a copy of a copyrighted image is also against copyright laws.




Thanks for the response ArMaP!!!

But in regards to my other question; would it be appropriate for members to report graphic T&C copyright infractions to the MODs the same as if it were printed plagiarism from other sites or even quotes from posts in an ATS/BTS thread that are not correctly quoted and given credit to the person being quoted?

How about signatures at the bottom of a post where proper credit isn't given?

Many time I have been quoted in threads with just this "..........."or




No recognition whatsoever. I am guilty of doing this also. What is the official ruling.

Are all www. posts and threads considered copyright material??
And what exactly is "public Domain??"


Can o Worms??












[edit on 11-10-2009 by whaaa]

[edit on 11-10-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 

Legally, anyone can post anything that is public domain, and the case of the bible I think we can assume that the authors are dead for more than 75 years, so there is no problem there.


But, as I said before, morally, everybody should make it noticeable when he/she is using something that is not from his/her mind, so I think that they should identify it as someone else's work.

Being only a moral problem (in my view), it's less of a problem than if it was really a copyrighted work, those can bring problems to ATS.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
But in regards to my other question; would it be appropriate for members to report graphic T&C copyright infractions to the MODs the same as if it were printed plagiarism from other sites or even quotes from posts in an ATS/BTS thread that are not correctly quoted and given credit to the person being quoted?
I think so, after all it's also copyright infringement.

From the ABOUT ATS: Avatar and Signature Guidelines:

Copyrighted Imagery:

Many of our members select images that may have certain copyright restrictions. Thus far, Internet case law related to the use of such images or artwork as avatars by individuals is somewhat of a "gray area" as it straddles the boundaries of personal fair use. However, to respect the possibilities of potential intellectual property conflict, your avatars will only be visible to logged-in members of AboveTopSecret.com. Additionally, if we receive a request from a copyright holder to remove your avatar, we expect that you will cooperate when we remove your avatar.




Originally posted by whaaa
How about signatures at the bottom of a post where proper credit isn't given?

No recognition whatsoever. I am guilty of doing this also. What is the official ruling.
As far as I understand it (and I am not a lawyer), what we write can be used by anyone, they just have to give credit to the original poster, as explained in the Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works page, the license used on ATS.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by whaaa
But in regards to my other question; would it be appropriate for members to report graphic T&C copyright infractions to the MODs the same as if it were printed plagiarism from other sites or even quotes from posts in an ATS/BTS thread that are not correctly quoted and given credit to the person being quoted?
I think so, after all it's also copyright infringement.



Thanks ArMaP

Not that I plan on being the self appointed copyright infringement snitch here at ATS/BTS but perhaps the MODs could pay a little more attention to flagrant violations, both in the areas of print and graphics; Just like the rules that were applied to me for my plagiarism.


Just like autowrench said ..........




If you are going to make a rule, it should apply to all members, right?






[edit on 11-10-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


This is true, I was using the 70 years number because I'm in Indiana, it does vary by nation states, but if I remember correctly the most is 90 years.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thanks for the reply. I have posted thousands of posts in different forums over the past 10 years, and sometimes wish to use my own writings as a part of a new post. This is my own work, so I see no real need to make quote tags and post a source, however, in a case where I was using another username, this becomes necessary for obvious reasons. Agreed?





new topics
top topics
 
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join