hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: copyright?? on library photos

Andrew, I would really like to end this discussion and declare myself
the winner, but you keep saying dumb things and I just can't stop.

andrewl wrote:

> Good discussion!
> #1.  You've missed the paradigm shift, but there is still time to
> catch up.  Someday, all of the best software will be available for
> free, or for only the cost for distributing it.  This is nearly the
> case for all commodity products.  80% of the cost is for
> distribution.  Go to your grocery store and verify this through
> observing every product on the shelf.  Even pharmaceuticals eventually
> go through this pricing life cycle.  Cars would too, if we weren't so
> vain and needed to have a different model every year.  Vain creatures
> that we are...

Nothing is free.  Go the your local free grocery store and look in the
commodity isle.  Even salt costs money. And it may not cost much, but it
costs enough to pay the people who go down in the salt mines with their
picks and shovels, and if you make salt free, nobody will spend much
time in the mines.  Where the hell did you go to school?  Even the slow
learners in Russia finally realized that people don't work for free.  If
people won't pay you for providing something, your wife and kids will
quickly convince you to provide something they will pay you for.

Have you just discovered Karl Marx or something?   Everything will be
available for the cost of distribution?  No offense Andrew, but that's
just stupid.  The best software will be written by people who have an
incentive to write it.  And in our crass and materialistic society, that
incentive is money.  Know why all the movies are crap these days?
Because people won't pay to see good movies.  When software becomes free
you'll be bitching that nobody makes good software anymore.

But we are not talking about the price of things, we are talking about
the right to take things that are not offered for free.  And we are not
talking about Harry Hostalover wanting a tatoo of one of my hostas on
his butt, we are talking about people selling hostas and using my
pictures without permission to do it.  That's where the discussion
started, with Bob saying that he didn't think people in business would
take pictures off the library because they knew it wasn't acceptable,
and me telling him that they do exactly that, and then you telling me
that if I put something on the web I should expect and accept that it
would be taken because that's the beauty of the web.

> #2. Any thing you don't want people to see, you would password
> protect, right?  Well, copyrighting a photo is just like password
> protecting a directory.  It's just good common sense.

There is a copyright notice on every page of my web site.  I have good
common sense.  I wonder about you.

> RE:>>But I get to decide what of mine I want to give away, not you.
> I think you would find that neither you nor I would get to decide.
> That is a matter of law, not a matter of what is "mine".  Private
> property law in this country is quite complex.  And if you are really
> intent on protecting your personal, private property, you will need to
> protect it.

I don't claim to be a lawyer, but I can read.  And I read the pertinent
section copyright law long before you started advising me.  For your
information, here it is:
Sec. 401. Notice of copyright:

Visually perceptible copies

     (a) General Provisions. - Whenever a work protected under this
title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority
     of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this
section may be placed on publicly distributed copies from
     which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with
the aid of a machine or device.

     (b) Form of Notice. - If a notice appears on the copies, it shall
consist of the following three elements:
          (1) the symbol (AF) (the letter C in a circle), or the word
          ''Copyright'', or the abbreviation ''Copr.''; and
          (2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of
          compilations, or derivative works incorporating previously
          published material, the year date of first publication of the
          compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date
          be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work,
          accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on
          cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any
          articles; and
          (3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an
          abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a
          known alternative designation of the owner.

     (c) Position of Notice. - The notice shall be affixed to the copies
in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the
     claim of copyright. The Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by
regulation, as examples, specific methods of affixation and
     positions of the notice on various types of works that will satisfy
this requirement, but these specifications shall not be
     considered exhaustive.

     (d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. - If a notice of copyright in the
form and position specified by this section appears on the
     published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright
infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such
     a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent
infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as
     provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2).

And you will find such notice, in compliance with section 401 (a) and
(b) at the bottom of every page of my web site.  Now, I will admit that
there may be a way for a good lawyer to find that I did not comply with
all of the requirements of this complicated law, but I doubt that anyone
who wishes to use my pictures on their web site has any difficulty
figuring out that they have no implied right to do so.  I'm not talking
about whether I have a right to sue somebody and whether I would win in
court, I'm talking about what is right and ethical.

> BTW, while we're busy being so protective of what is "mine", maybe we
> should spend a little time talking about the land that you're house is
> sitting on.  In lots of ways, the American Indian's were much more
> respectful of the earth than we are, with all of our private property
> and civilized ways.  Private property laws can also work against man
> and on the internet is one of those areas where that is true.  Ever
> "borrowed" logic from someone else's HTML source code?  Even though it
> was "copyrighted"?

You're talking bullshit.  Either you're just being silly, or your high
school debate teacher was working for free.

No, I can't think of any time I "borrowed" logic from someone else's
source code.  I went out and bought a copy of Frontpage and built a
website.   And I'm not sure that logic is protected under the copyright
laws.  I'm not making any claims to sainthood, or claiming that I've
never done anything wrong.  A well paid and competent debate teacher
would have told you that the fact that you or I may have done something
unethical does not alter the fact that it is unethical.

> Much better to share when you can.  BTW, you are welcome to all photos
> that I have taken that are posted at my website.

More bullshit.  Your generosity has nothing to do with the issue and I
don't want anything from you except my beer.  The issue was a very
simple one until you decided the Indians owned my house.  The issue is:
is it legal or ethical to take something that doesn't belong to you when
you know damn well that the person you are taking it from has not given
you permission and probably would not give it if you asked and that's
why you didn't ask before you did it.

> Free enterprise is great.  Sharing and even getting out of "self" is
> even better.  I wish I could do it more often.  Unfortunately, I have
> to agree that it's money and sex that make the world go round, not
> necessarily in that order.

More bullshit.  This isn't about sharing, it's about stealing.  Sharing
involves offering something to someone, not taking what you want.  You
can give your house back to the Indians if you like.  And when you do,
I'll be the first to say "Now that Andrew, he's a generous soul.  Not
the brightest person, but generous to a fault."


To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index