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

reply to post by autowrench

Yes, that's the closest you can come to showing that you are really you.

so to be clear, does this mean as long as the name of the original creator of a quote used- as a signature for example- is placed before or after the quote, thats acceptable?

reply to post by Springer


springer, have i violated anything with this thread? - here

if so, sorry, not my intent, and also, if so, if i were to put a disclaimer up, would that be ok then? i wanted to post additional threads linking off site to pdf's of several other works of literature by chris hyatt & robert anton wilson....is that a no go? as in, no don't do that? because i'd really like to if thats ok, they're excellent books, the hyatt ones are really hard to come by & I believe they'd do alot to benefit the ats community, especially when it comes to re-programming yourself to no longer be such a pawn of the bankers, which we all are on one level or another.

P.L.U.R.I
-B.M

reply to post by B.Morrison


Unless you have a license, in writing, from the copyright owner of the works you are not allowed to post them up on the internet for free. These authors write to earn a living, the only way they can earn that living is by the sales of their books. If you (or anyone else) posts their books up online, for free then nobody would buy them would they?

That's why copyright laws exist, to give the authors a legal basis to enforce the protection of their income.

Basically, there's nothing I can do about you posting the works on other sites (you really shouldn't and you very well might get in legal trouble) but I have to ask you not to post them or links to them here on ATS as we don't want to participate in the pirating of other people's intellectual property.

Springer...

I have to ask why the policy of requiring external quotes to be tagged and attributed to the source isn't being enforced?

This has become a huge problem on several of the swine flu threads and continues up to this very day. That policy is one of the reasons I prefer to discuss and debate issues here rather than elsewhere - it sets a higher standard and prevents dishonesty.

reply to post by ecoparity


We, as staff, can't possibly review each post made or be everywhere all the time. If you encounter a post containing external source content, which is not properly quoted and/or attributed, then Please make use of the Alert function to bring it to our attentions.


On a side note:
Thank you for voicing your concern, it's most appreciated.



[edit on 29-11-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by Springer


thanks for the reply springer, I've taken down the link & had a mod close the thread for me, asides from yourself i had another ATSer explain why my actions were still considered bootlegging and if for no other reason but legality issue, I decided to stop immediately

Kind regards
-B.M

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
reply to post by ecoparity

 

We, as staff, can't possibly review each post made or be everywhere all the time. If you encounter a post containing external source content, which is not properly quoted and/or attributed, then Please make use of the Alert function to bring it to our attentions.

On a side note:
Thank you for voicing your concern, it's most appreciated.



[edit on 29-11-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

I understand that but alerts have failed to solve the problem.

I've also noticed that certain threads will be tagged as being "moderated carefully" due to member demand yet we've had continuous problems with some threads, dozens of posters complaining about the off topic posting and nothing is done. I realize things get nutty around here and some topics just create raging debates (9/11 and now swine flu) but a large number of posters have asked for news and updates topics to be reserved just for news and updates given the myriad of other topics available for conspiracy theory debates and this too has proven impossible.

There are a few posters here who have been able to break news one to two weeks ahead of the media consistently and one by one they're giving up and going elsewhere. The entire thing is just depressing to watch.

Sorry for the brief rant.

reply to post by ecoparity


Regarding the unsourced articles, please continue to alert.
As 12m8ke said, we cannot be everywhere.

Because of one of your alerts about unsourced material, I bumped this thread to remind people...and to alert newer members.


[edit on Mon Nov 30 2009 by DontTreadOnMe]

I can understand the legal issue facing ATS, and as a fairly new member to the site, all I ask in the enforcement is a u2u chance to change the offending post. With instruction to do so and or simple remove the offending post temporarily until it can be fixed. Instead of just out right banning a person right off the bat. Since this seems to be something new on the horizon is it going to apply to post that predate today’s date?
I just want to make sure I don’t break any rules I like this place and would be saddened to learn I was ban for making a mistake. Without a chance to fix it.
If it becomes a constant problem and the same person is doing the same wrong thing over and over then I can see a ban.
There are so many rules here, and I understand the need for them, so I am constantly monitoring myself and carefully picking my words as to not offend only to evoke a debated response.

reply to post by drmeola


Rest assured that 9 times out of 10 the post will typically be edited to include the required EX tags and/or source link ... along with a "mod note" and/or follow up U2U addressing the same.

... the deletion or ban aspects only come into "play" for those habitual or spam-like "efforts", which often commence with multiple Copy-O-Pasteian "posts" ... one after the other - with No attribution, source tags or member contribution whatsoever.

Thanks for seeking further clarity, though it would seem there need not be any further concern - given the above.

reply to post by drmeola


YES, we will reach out to the member (unless as you indicated, they are a nototrious, many times warned offender) and offer a fix to the situation...

No worries, we don't seek to ban the Honest Agents, EVER...

Springer...

This brings up an issue of avatars. I don't have one yet because I really don't have the time, software, or skill to make a really cool piece of artwork that would be up to my particular standards.

After looking at so many of the avatars here I notice that a lot of people seem to have ones that contain obviously-made works of art or images of famous people, etc.

Is it legal or ethical for people to use a work of art or image that they obtained, when they have not obtained clear permission to do so? For example, if I'm not mistaken, Phage has an image of John Lithgow, perhaps playing some character from some movie (not sure about that), and so I'm wondering if their are any IP issues regarding avatars such as this?

Perhaps this issue has already been decided upon, in which case I would appreciate a link to the relevant documentation.


[edit on 27-12-2009 by downisreallyup]

I agree Mods, "Plagiarism is a serious and illegal offense."
The only question I would have for you is 'Why didn't you reply to my U2U that I had sent you over an article that I wanted to create a new thread with by way of a privy issue of the TIMES magazine?"
I waited for a response from some one in your clique to reply on my possible infringements of plagiarism on this particular request, but your response was Nil.
I, for one, always respect the intellectual prowess of higher thinking individuals such as the article author of the TIMES story that was an early release, especially when trying to research and come to validating conclusions. When I had a question, you did not answer. That being said, there are probably those of us out there that have attempted to act responsible and respectful to the ATS forums, just never got a "Yea or Ney" from the very people that could of answered such a request to keep everything on the up and up as far as plagiarism goes.

Though I know you have no control over another individuals irresponsible acts of such thing's, I have notice to be an issue myself. I can understand the hard line measures you are taking and respect them fully, can you just maybe have a knocking of the heads of all the MODS that are the answerer's to such inquiring individuals and have them give their take on the ramification's of what can and can't be reproduced as a thread with a bit more of an expedited response to such inquiries?

Good plan, great explanation of the 0-tolerance and most of all, I don't want to see anything happen to this website, legally or other wise, it has been a place of mind expansion and intellectual awakenings for me and many others that are member's and even the lurker's end up signing on because they see the higher qualities of the serious individuals that truly look, listen and learn expectation's.

"Thanks to the Three Amigo's, we are not alone!!!"

reply to post by downisreallyup
If the image isn't copyrighted, it's fair game... at least, that is my understanding. Should be very obvious if the image is copyrighted or not, it's generally stamped right on the piece of art.

Please correct if I am wrong...



[edit on 27-12-2009 by LadySkadi]

Thanks for bumping this, I have been noticing alot more unsourced work. Its getting to the point that I dont wont to be whinger alerting all the time

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

If the image isn't copyrighted, it's fair game... at least, that is my understanding. Should be very obvious if the image is copyrighted or not, it's generally stamped right on the piece of art.

Please correct if I am wrong...



[edit on 27-12-2009 by LadySkadi]

There is no need to put a copyright notice onto a work in order for it to be copyrighted. Any work you create is automatically copyrighted for the term allocated to that particular work.

Here are some quotes from the copyright.gov website:

When is my work protected?

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?

Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed.

In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights. Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.

Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.

What people don't understand is that a copyright holder has EXCLUSIVE rights to reproduction, and that includes the easy reproduction enabled by "copy and paste."

Folks who create web images tend to be pretty easy going about the free exchange of image files over the internet ... after all many of them post them willingly on sites such as deviantart and the thousands of tumblr and other image blogs.

Perhaps we should encourage what many of them already do, which is to include the source or "via" element in our signatures out of courtesy. As one who uses a lot of such images I'll try to remember to do that henceforth.

Plus, I'm sure if someone wanted their image taken down for copyright issues both ATS staff and the member using it would be happy to indulge.

What ever happened to putting something in your own words and then linking. I dont know about anyone else but to read something and show your own interpretation shows a bit of imagination and an understanding of what one just read, if nothings else, I mean, referring to an original document is not the same as taking the entire thing, where as copy past shows no imagination nor intellect for that matter. At least putting things in ones own words shows a little of that persons character as well as what they are trying to convey both at the same time.

Famous quotes and famous quotes from unknowns?
I might have missed this. If I have never recieved a warning then I........
lil help?

[edit on 6-1-2010 by randyvs]