Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 04:57:53 -1000 From: crowell@teleport.com (Carl Crowell) Message-Id: Organization: Kites By Carl Crowell Subject: Illegal Use of Images and Text I have been made aware of another case of illegal re-publishing of items off of my web page. You may argue about it all you want, but: It is illegal to republish images and or text from email, postings, or WWW sites without the express permission from the artist or writer. I will pursue ALL known cases. ___________________________________________________ email: crowell@kite.com FTP: ftp.teleport.com/pub/users/crowell WWW: http://www.teleport.com/~crowell Kites By Carl Crowell - O.S.F.M. World Headquarters = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 22:03:55 -1000 From: Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) Message-Id: <3s5vdb$ag3@southern.co.nz> Organization: Southern InterNet Services Subject: Re: Illegal Use of Images and Text Carl Crowell (crowell@teleport.com) wrote: : I have been made aware of another case of illegal re-publishing of items off : of my web page. : : You may argue about it all you want, but: : : It is illegal to republish images and or text from email, postings, or WWW : sites without the express permission from the artist or writer. : : I will pursue ALL known cases. I'm not very certain whether you are serious or not in what you have said. I don't have web pages or WWW, Mosaic, Netscape and all the other fancy Net toys that are all the rage these days. My limit is ascii monochrome so here is an ascii picture, all my own work, of Yvonne de Mille's award winning kite " Sea Spirit ". It is free to do what you like with. I did a simple black and white dot matrix printout for Des Pitfi = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 03:59:35 -1000 From: mr.nasty@ix.netcom.com (Frank Kenisky ) Message-Id: <3s6k87$elr@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Netcom Subject: Re: Illegal Use of Images and Text In <46015710wnr@natwide.co.uk> Andrew writes: > >If you can take it he is. I think you can also take it that his head is stuck >firmly up his own rear end. [stuff deleted] >This is not a limit my friend, it's a real talent. One I don't have but >never the less appreciate. Most people (I assume:-) are happy to have there >work shown and copied as long as they get some credit for it. In fact some >people seem happy to have there orignal work improved or incorporated into >other works. When the orignal artist is unkown, again most people say this. > >All in all I think we a happy bunch who like to use and look at art in this >quite difficult medium. > >Getting back to Carl Crowell. (Oh must you I hear you cry). If he has had >*his* work ripped off then I'm sorry but I doubt he can do much about it. Well well well, William Shakespere, I fear yours is not but what yours should be so well put that it is none other than for you to be yours. So be it well that when said you have put a mouthful of it into yours. I love these lines of pros. Hey next time you want to dig at someone do some of us a favor... (others may enjoy this) Make some sense, or don't respond to posts at least 48 hours after doing drugs. Just a quick question which puzzles me, but is there an army of dolts with the name "andrew"? Carl has addressed a very good point. David Gomberg stated that someone who violated his copyright provided a nice BMW in his garage, (hotwheels beamer) therefore I think it serious business if others feel the need to "ripoff" someone elses work. Especially, if you can just URL to the page. Any copyright attorneys out there? I have read that a web page is considered published information and is considered the property of the publisher. If someone takes this published information then it is against the law. How will he find out. Easy my narrow minded Casius, I would tell you but then I'm afraid it would be a waste of time. -- *************>>>>>>>>>>>>>MR.NASTY<<<<<<<<<<<<<************** Fiesta Kite Ideas http://www.tmn.com/kiteweb/home.htm 8302 Tiguex Mr.Nasty@ix.netcom.com Universal City, TX 78148 (210) 659-1803 or (512) 326-6221 ************************************************************* = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 00:36:59 -1000 From: Andrew Message-Id: <46015710wnr@natwide.co.uk> Organization: Nationwide Subject: Re: Illegal Use of Images and Text In article: <3s5vdb$ag3@southern.co.nz> Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes: cd> cd> Carl Crowell (crowell@teleport.com) wrote: cd> cc: I have been made aware of another case of illegal re-publishing of items off cd> cc: of my web page. How? cd> cc: You may argue about it all you want, but: cd> cc: It is illegal to republish images and or text from email, postings, or WWW cd> cc: sites without the express permission from the artist or writer. cd> cc: I will pursue ALL known cases. How? cd> I'm not very certain whether you are serious or not in what you have cd> said. I don't have web pages or WWW, Mosaic, Netscape and all the cd> other fancy Net toys that are all the rage these days. If you can take it he is. I think you can also take it that his head is stuck firmly up his own rear end. cd> My limit is ascii monochrome so here is an ascii picture, all my own cd> work, of Yvonne de Mille's award winning kite " Sea Spirit ". It is cd> free to do what you like with. I did a simple black and white dot cd> matrix printout for Des Pitfi This is not a limit my friend, it's a real talent. One I don't have but never the less appreciate. Most people (I assume:-) are happy to have there work shown and copied as long as they get some credit for it. In fact some people seem happy to have there orignal work improved or incorporated into other works. When the orignal artist is unkown, again most people say this. All in all I think we a happy bunch who like to use and look at art in this quite difficult medium. Getting back to Carl Crowell. (Oh must you I hear you cry). If he has had *his* work ripped off then I'm sorry but I doubt he can do much about it. -- __/ _/ _/_/ _/ ___/____/____/___/____/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/____/_/ __/ _/ _/ ___________________________________ andrew@natwide.co.uk Not an original .sig but the best I could do with talent available at the time(me:) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 11:00:20 -1000 From: salanne@convex.csc.FI (Simo Salanne) Message-Id: <3s7ct4$ldv@pobox.csc.fi> Organization: STACK Finland Subject: Re: Illegal Use of Images and Text In crowell@teleport.com (Carl Crowell) writes: >I have been made aware of another case of illegal re-publishing of items off >of my web page. >You may argue about it all you want, but: I don't argue with you, but... >It is illegal to republish images and or text from email, postings, or WWW >sites without the express permission from the artist or writer. Especially in WWW-world the concept of _republishing_ is not clear. - if I write a WWW-document, which includes an URL to an image on your server. Is that republishing? - if I use a WWW-browser, which by default prints all I browse on paper ( 1/100/1000 copies). Is that republishing? The HTML specification leaves the rendering (?) of the document open. - if I use a WWW-browser (e.g. Netscape), which will cache the stuff locally on disk. Is that republishing? What if the cache is on write once CD? What if I produce copies of the CD and sell them as "My 200 favourite WWW-sites". - if I create a WWW-browser, which broadcasts the stuff via TV network. Is that republishing? I have seen some TV-programs demonstrating WWW, is that republishing? Simo -- Simo.Salanne@csc.fi STACK Finland ==================================================================== Are you familiar with Kite Flyers Web Site? http://www.kfs.org/kites = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 06:16:52 -1000 From: bcr@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Bill C. Riemers) Message-Id: Organization: Physics Department, Purdue University Subject: Re: Illegal Use of Images and Text In article <3s5vdb$ag3@southern.co.nz>, Colin Douthwaite wrote: >Carl Crowell (crowell@teleport.com) wrote: >: I have been made aware of another case of illegal re-publishing of items off >: of my web page. >: >: You may argue about it all you want, but: >: >: It is illegal to republish images and or text from email, postings, or WWW >: sites without the express permission from the artist or writer. >: >: I will pursue ALL known cases. Well no, not actually. It is only illegal if you include a copyright notice stating so. Otherwise, it is considered fair use, until you explicitly state to the person you consider it copyrighted. US copyright law is based on intent, so if at that point, they don't stop, you can take the to court and sue. How- ever, you can't sue for damages or such, only to get a court order to force them to stop. Since you do have the copyright, then you can sue for normal types of damages and royalties. However, since most people redistributing things are doing so for free, and you aren't charging for access to your www page, there isn't much to sue for. You don't have a share of royalties to sue them for, and you don't have lost royalties you can sue them for. So again, the best you can hope for is an injunction to stop them. Now that said, I think I'll take a look at your www page and see if there is something I wish to redistribute... :-) I'm just kidding. While I don't have the ethics to stop me, I do value my reputation, and delibertly doing exactly what you are complaining about because you complained about it would dammage my reputation. Although, creat- ing a link to your homepage wouldn't be a violation, and I do love kites! Bill --

Dr. Bill C. Riemers, bcr@physics.purdue.edu

Department of Physics, Purdue University

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 10:40:04 -1000 From: dgoodin@Direct.CA (Denise Goodin) Message-Id: <3s7bn4$5kd@stud.Direct.CA> Organization: Internet Direct Inc. Subject: Re: Illegal Use of Images and Text >My limit is ascii monochrome so here is an ascii picture, all my own >work, of Yvonne de Mille's award winning kite " Sea Spirit ". It is >free to do what you like with. I did a simple black and white dot >matrix printout for Des Pitfi Sounds like you are doing an artistic representation, and doing that is NOT illegal...hell, if you wanna draw a coca-cola symbol and post it, feel free...Andy Warhol didn't get in shit when he did Campbell's Soup cans for the simple reason that artistic expression overrules copyright in most cases...You will only get in trouble if you copy someone else's _copywritten_ artwork...or if you copt tracts from published or copywritten literary works...check the sigs, if they don't have (c) or some other similar symbol, then feel free. And whoever complains can pay the lawyers :) And by the way, even a (c) doesn't protect you much. Kickstart = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 18:22:47 -1000 From: mauricio@tezcat.com (Mauricio Araujo) Message-Id: Organization: Tezcat.COM, Chicago Subject: Re: Illegal Use of Images and Text Denise Goodin wrote: > that artistic expression overrules copyright in most cases... > You will only get in trouble if you copy > someone else's _copywritten_ artwork...or if you copt tracts from > published or copywritten literary works...check the sigs, if they don't > have (c) or some other similar symbol, then feel free. Bill Riemers wrote: > Well no, not actually. It is only illegal if you include a copyright notice > stating so. Otherwise, it is considered fair use, until you explicitly state > to the person you consider it copyrighted. US copyright law is based on intent, > so if at that point, they don't stop, you can take the to court and sue. How- > ever, you can't sue for damages or such, only to get a court order to force > them to stop. Ok, these are the thrusts of the arguements: copyrighted works need a copyright symbol, fair use is allowed, there are no consequences if you do not make a profit. Well, these arguements are wrong. A symbol does not bestow greater or lesser protection. You have a copyright on the material when the original work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Fair Use is an affirmative defense to a finding of infringment. Will it protect you, who knows it would be a case by case analysis. The Copyright Act provides of statutory damages and attorney fees. Therefore there are consequences. In article <3s7ct4$ldv@pobox.csc.fi>, salanne@convex.csc.FI (Simo Salanne) wrote: > - if I write a WWW-document, which includes an URL to an image on > your server. Is that republishing? I do not think so because you are not copying the work. You are providing a way to view the actual work. > - if I use a WWW-browser, which by default prints all I browse on > paper ( 1/100/1000 copies). Is that republishing? The HTML > specification leaves the rendering (?) of the document > open. > > - if I use a WWW-browser (e.g. Netscape), which will cache the > stuff locally on disk. Is that republishing? What if the cache > is on write once CD? What if I produce copies of the CD and sell > them as "My 200 favourite WWW-sites". These two hypotheticals are the most interesting. This would be a fact based question. > - if I create a WWW-browser, which broadcasts the stuff via TV > network. Is that republishing? I have seen some TV-programs > demonstrating WWW, is that republishing? I assume that the television programs were demonstrating /news broad cast. This would probably come under the Fair Use exception. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =