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'.
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**, page 7
privacy
reply posted on 10-10-2009 @ 10:24 PM by NOTurTypical
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.
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.
reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 06:29 AM by ArMaP
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.
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.
reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 07:47 AM by NOTurTypical
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.
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.
reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 09:13 AM by ArMaP
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]
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]
reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 10:10 AM 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.
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.
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.
reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 10:21 AM by whaaa
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]
reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 11:00 AM by ArMaP
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.
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.
reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 11:12 AM by ArMaP
Originally posted by whaaaI think so, after all it's also copyright infringement.
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?
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 whaaaAs 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.
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.
reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 12:05 PM by NOTurTypical
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.
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.
reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 01:38 PM by autowrench
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?
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?
