Josh Susanto Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 >it won't get your stuff re listed. Have you seen all my stuff? Even if half of it got permanently delisted, I'd be making some kind of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madeliefste Oh Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Josh Susanto wrote: What's less clear, although I've discussed it a lot elsewhere, is what happens to copyright when the work becomes distributed, especially without any kind of copyright notice. Nothing happens to copyright when the work is distributed without any kind of copyright notice. The copyright stays where it is: in the hands of the copyright owner. Unless the copyright owner has given explicit permission for you to use, copy or share the material, your safest course of action is to avoid even downloading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Josh Susanto wrote: >it won't get your stuff re listed. Have you seen all my stuff? Even if half of it got permanently delisted, I'd be making some kind of money. Thats really not the point is it? I am not going to continue in this debate further, both you and Randall are playing at lawyers, neither of you have the legal qualifications, knowledge or experience to make the arguments you are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Don't you think you're being a bit rude by accusing me of deliberately misquoting in order to win an argument? What is the passage from the document I "misquoted" in my second post? I think your count is off. I made some posts earlier in the thread. I did a copy and paste from the actual statute, and indicated it was a partial quote by stating "in pertinent part". What is your concern with 17 USC 106A(a)? I didn't believe it was pertinent, so I didn't quote it. Now let's quote a sentence from you: "There is absolutely no need to 'register' something for copyright, if you created it you own it, it's as simple as that, if someone files DMCA against you, your stuff will be removed and YOU will have to prove you are not infinginging the complainants copyright in your counter claim, so you can demand anything you like, it won't get your stuff re listed." You know what that's called? A conclusionary statement made without citation to supporting legal authority. What precisely does the DMCA provide? Does it actually provide that "YOU will have to prove you are not infinginging the complainants copyright in your counter claim" as you assert? One more sentence to quote from you: "Read the above and you will see there is absolutley no mention of any opportunity for you to...demand proof of the registration, certified by the Registrar of Copyrights and bearing the original seal." The problem with that sentence is that you overlooked in message #23, where I stated, first sentence (emphasis added): "If they do sue, make sure you demand proof of ownership of the asserted copyrights." If a lawsuit is filed, there will certainly be opportunities in the form of motions to demand proof of ownership of the asserted copyrights and challenge the authenticity of documents. I'm not interested in arguing with you. I post here because I'm bored and for entertainment. Someone that's rude to me gets de-rendered, muted, and added to my ignore and ban lists. I don't need the aggravation. Goodbye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Randall Ahren wrote: I did a copy and paste from the actual statute, and indicated it was a partial quote by stating "in pertinent part". What is your concern with 17 USC 106A(a)? I didn't believe it was pertinent, so I didn't quote it.... What legal training have you had, to enable you to decide which bits of law may or may not be pertinent? I believe it's pertinent because the quote that you gave said (paraphrased) - in order to claim copyright you have to register, the passage you quoted from said - You dont have to register unless you intend to take this specific legal route. The two results are practically opposite of each other. And NO I don't think I was rude at all, I merely stated a fact - you misquoted. Oh and please don't De render me, It hurts so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergie Finesmith Posted December 6, 2011 Author Share Posted December 6, 2011 Well, today is the 10th day and I have no notice of the claimant taking this to the court. What it means this? Will LL restore all my items? when??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 According to 17 USC 512(g)(2)©, they have up to 14 business days. For the future or should your counter-notice be found defective, there is a good sample counter notice letter here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergie Finesmith Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 God! according to LL they have 10 business days to start a legal process on the court.... now I'm confused, do I have to wait for 4 more days??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Susanto Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 >Thats really not the point is it? That's one of the possible points. OTOH, as I've said, the only thing of mine that's been taken down for IP issues actually had a texture that I had personally produced by draping pork ribs over a scanner. The rest of the item was the problem, and I had received that data in good faith, in-world. >I am not going to continue in this debate further, both you and Randall are playing at lawyers, neither of you have the legal qualifications, knowledge or experience to make the arguments you are making. I haven't claimed to be a lawyer. I have claimed to understand what risks I take when (for example) I don't officially verify that people have copyrights registered for works before asking for permission to use them under the assumption that a person asserting copyright to me also actually holds the copyright. I also claim that "if" I've taken a bark texture, produced a seamless version, run it negative, switched blue and red layers, enlarged the image 4x, added a fictive layer of resolution, turned the grain sideways and wrapped the thing around a 3D model of a tree trunk, what I end up selling doesn't require a law degree to understand to be fair use, even assuming that a photographer somewhere has an IBM mainframe working 24/7 to identify potentially derivative images, and that it somehow manages to spot the texture I'm using. OTOH, there will always be people who think they're the originators of practically anything you find on the internet. If such beliefs, alone, could constitute proof, then either no one would be able to produce anything, or Beatles royalties would be sliced so thin among schizophrenics that claimants wouldn't be able to use their settlements to buy one of my L$1 items. "When you go into a place of business, and see a security camera,you try and beam pleasant, innocuous thoughts at itYou make a feeble attempt to be nonchalant, until you are out of its rangeIf you see a book or magazine, it usually has a picture of yourself on the cover, one taken by such a camera.These pictures are skillfully retouched to look like someone else, in order to mock youYou never read books or magazines because they all contain secret messages,hidden in multiple layers of meaning, that make you do things you can't remember later" -MC 900 Ft. Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madeliefste Oh Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Josh Susanto wrote: I also claim that "if" I've taken a bark texture, produced a seamless version, run it negative, switched blue and red layers, enlarged the image 4x, added a fictive layer of resolution, turned the grain sideways and wrapped the thing around a 3D model of a tree trunk, what I end up selling doesn't require a law degree to understand to be fair use, even assuming that a photographer somewhere has an IBM mainframe working 24/7 to identify potentially derivative images, and that it somehow manages to spot the texture I'm using. It does not matter how you change a picture, what you add or what you paint over or take away for the origin, to be considered fair use. Fair use has to to with the purpose of use. Reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, in cases such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. But you have a commercial purpose with making these derivative works, that has nothing to do with fair use at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Josh Susanto wrote: I also claim that "if" I've taken a bark texture, produced a seamless version, run it negative, switched blue and red layers, enlarged the image 4x, added a fictive layer of resolution, turned the grain sideways and wrapped the thing around a 3D model of a tree trunk, what I end up selling doesn't require a law degree to understand to be fair use, even assuming that a photographer somewhere has an IBM mainframe working 24/7 to identify potentially derivative images, and that it somehow manages to spot the texture I'm using. I know I said I wouldn't debate this further but it really bothers me that you would put such misinformation here, it really is the most irresponsible foolishness. Under absolutely no circumstances could this ever be considered 'fair use'. As you say it doesn't take a law degree to know this. Fair Use covers using images in things like news reporting, reviews and education, it certainly does not allow for commercial use. I understand the points you made about Google, but unfortunately for you the Law is determined by the setting legal precendents, not by what Josh thinks it should be. Although you have done your best to give the impression that you are completely changing the image this again has no connection at all with 'Fair Use', but then I am sure you can't seriously believe that making an image larger and turning it sideways somehow absolves you of the need to comply with copyright law. I would agree you are unlikely to be caught but that is a different debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Susanto Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 >I know I said I wouldn't debate this further And yet you do. So you misrepresented your position, and that's wrong. > it really is the most irresponsible foolishness. Repeated disparagement, in and of itself, is not a viable argument. >Under absolutely no circumstances could this ever be considered 'fair use'. As you say it doesn't take a law degree to know this. Fair Use covers using images in things like news reporting, reviews and education, it certainly does not allow for commercial use. Incorrect. The item may be used commercially, but it must have other cultural merits. [7]American Geophysical Union, 60 F.3d at 921 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use > I understand the points you made about Google, but unfortunately for you the Law is determined by the setting legal precendents, Such as?... [3, 4, 5, 6,] ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use > I am sure you can't seriously believe that making an image larger and turning it sideways somehow absolves you of the need to comply with copyright law. 1) I actually described doing quite a bit more than that. 2) If the result is unactionable, how can you define it as noncompliant? >I would agree you are unlikely to be caught but that is a different debate. Maybe you'd like it to be a different debate. But if you should some day have reason to throw a similar example to a corporate legal team, I expect you'll find that it quickly becomes the same debate, and a very short one. I now offer a free product that meets your own personal criteria of infringement, and I offer L$10000 to the first person who can show me the source of the image. Once you've seen the images side by side, you'll see the relationship, except that I'm pretty sure that would never happen before any applicable copyright should expire. Please feel free to contact what you consider to be the infringed party and see how far that goes. When you've given up, you'll finally understand what the law is and what it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madeliefste Oh Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Josh Susanto wrote: I now offer a free product that meets your own personal criteria of infringement, and I offer L$10000 to the first person who can show me the source of the image. Once you've seen the images side by side, you'll see the relationship, except that I'm pretty sure that would never happen before any applicable copyright should expire. Please feel free to contact what you consider to be the infringed party and see how far that goes. When you've given up, you'll finally understand what the law is and what it isn't. Being cought or not being cought for breaking the law doesn't change anything about the law itself. When you have killed someone but you are not cought by the police for this, it still doesn't make murder legal. You just got away with it. When you infringe on someones copyright and get away with it, it still doesn't make your acts legal. The fact that the probability of detection is low doesn't change anything about the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Susanto Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I'm not merely arguing the probability of detection. I'm also arguing the probability of the image being determined to be an infringement of some other image in the event that anyone should make such a claim. I have, in fact, asked that if anyone sees a specific image that they believe infringes another specific image, they would let me know so that I can do something about it. Quite a few of the products you see in my SLM store are the result of special requests by other users who send me textures and ask me to make sculpts from them. If I have to check the copyright office to make sure that these users are the registered holders of copyright before I use the images, then I'm not going to be able to produce very much for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madeliefste Oh Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 By being a resident in SL you have agreed to the TOS that states "that you will not upload, publish, or submit to any part of the Service any Content that is protected by Intellectual Property Rights or otherwise subject to proprietary rights, including trade secret or privacy rights, unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from the rightful owner to upload, publish, or submit the Content and to grant Linden Lab and users of the Service all of the license rights granted in these Terms of Service." It is your responsibility to become permission from the rightful owner to produce derivative works and to spread those derivative works. When you don't know who the IPright owner of an image is, you cannot ask for permission, so you are simply not allowed to use it. Unless the image is part of the public domain, or comes with copyleft permissions. So indeed, you are not able to produce much for them in a legal manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Susanto Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Please don't let's conflate copyright infringement with noncompliance to the Linden TOU. They're both important, but they are not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Josh Susanto wrote: >I know I said I wouldn't debate this further And yet you do. So you misrepresented your position, and that's wrong. I changed my mind and gave reasons why, nothing wrong with that. Josh Susanto wrote: Repeated disparagement, in and of itself, is not a viable argument. I was hoping it might make you consider the consequences of stating things like this in a public forum which may be being read by young or inexperienced people. Josh Susanto wrote: >Under absolutely no circumstances could this ever be considered 'fair use'. As you say it doesn't take a law degree to know this. Fair Use covers using images in things like news reporting, reviews and education, it certainly does not allow for commercial use. Incorrect. The item may be used commercially, but it must have other cultural merits. No correct, the scenario you described did not offer 'other cultural merits' did it ? Josh Susanto wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use > I understand the points you made about Google, but unfortunately for you the Law is determined by the setting legal precendents, Such as?... [3, 4, 5, 6,] ? This Wikipedia page directly contradicts your argument, I have no idea why you included it. Josh Susanto wrote: 1) I actually described doing quite a bit more than that. No you desrcibed doing very slightly more than that, i.e making it negative and switching the red and blue channels. Josh Susanto wrote: 2) If the result is unactionable, how can you define it as noncompliant?. So if a guy robs a bank and leaves no evidence, no law was broken? Josh Susanto wrote: >I would agree you are unlikely to be caught but that is a different debate. Maybe you'd like it to be a different debate. But if you should some day have reason to throw a similar example to a corporate legal team, I expect you'll find that it quickly becomes the same debate, and a very short one. I now offer a free product that meets your own personal criteria of infringement, and I offer L$10000 to the first person who can show me the source of the image. Once you've seen the images side by side, you'll see the relationship, except that I'm pretty sure that would never happen before any applicable copyright should expire. Please feel free to contact what you consider to be the infringed party and see how far that goes. When you've given up, you'll finally understand what the law is and what it isn't. So you have no moral input on this whatsoever, if you can get away with it it's fine.? I wonder if you draw any lines at all on this, are your fellow merchants safe from your dishonest thievery , for instance.? Its a great shame you havent created anything worth stealing, I think you would see things very differently if you had. As for not understanding the law, your understanding seems to be, if no one has caught me, I havent done anything wrong, so lets see how far that goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Josh Susanto wrote: I'm not merely arguing the probability of detection. I'm also arguing the probability of the image being determined to be an infringement of some other image in the event that anyone should make such a claim. In other words - Detection. Josh Susanto wrote: If I have to check the copyright office to make sure that these users are the registered holders of copyright before I use the images, then I'm not going to be able to produce very much for them. Normal practice in circumstances like this would be to get the client to sign a form stating that they owned the copyright or had permission from the copyright holder. If you had any practical experience and knowledge of matters like this you would know that already. How quick Josh can make things is not considered in copyright law. I really am leaving this debate now, to other readers I would say, IMHO Josh has no idea what he is talking about, and is trying to find ways to justify his own underhand creation methods, believe what he says at your peril!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Susanto Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 >I was hoping it might make you consider the consequences of stating things like this in a public forum which may be being read by young or inexperienced people. That's possibly not a bad point. But making it by setting a clear bad example of your own is a bit ironic. >No correct, the scenario you described did not offer 'other cultural merits' did it ? Are you saying that because I'm not as recognized or respected as Jeff Koons or as other people cited in the fair use examples, my work is fundamentally different from theirs? >This Wikipedia page directly contradicts your argument, I have no idea why you included it. The point is that those are precedents. Some went one way, some went the other way. Understanding why they are different is key to understanding where some kind of line is crossed. >No you desrcibed doing very slightly more than that, i.e making it negative and switching the red and blue channels. Also creating a seamless version and adding a fictive layer of resolution, before wrapping it on a 3d object, which is ultimately the product. Continuing to misquote me in terms of the extent of what I described only falls short of lying here because one can easily check to see what I actually said. I might ask; if this does not decribe a transformative process as far as you are concerned, then what would? If you want to accuse me of describing a process that is not transformative enough, it's a not really fair to say that I described less than what I actually descibed, is it? >So if a guy robs a bank and leaves no evidence, no law was broken? If the law says he can't be convicted of robbing a bank, then the law says he didn't rob a bank. What about this is unclear to you? >So you have no moral input on this whatsoever, if you can get away with it it's fine.? Not exactly. Something can be morally objectionable to the point of inducing projectile vomit, but that doesn't necessarily make it illegal. I'm explaining the legal defensibility of things that are open to moral debate. >I wonder if you draw any lines at all on this, are your fellow merchants safe from your dishonest thievery , for instance. I would let fellow merchants know if I saw they had some kind of clear opportunity to better profit from their own work. That would include letting them know they're competing with someone who is copying them, fairly or unfairly. Whether the copying is fair or unfair would be up to the other parties to work out. It has happened that I was alerted to someone reselling my products, to which I really can have no legal objection. So I just subjected that person to very gentle public ridicule and lowered my own prices to a point where he probably regretted the effort of obtaining and relisting them. That worked well enough for me, but I'm a pretty good sport. >Its a great shame you havent created anything worth stealing, I think you would see things very differently if you had. People have been reported to me as believing that they had stolen my work, not realizing that I had not claimed to withhold any rights from them in the first place. Either way, though, you're changing the argument to ad hominem. Are you sure you want to go there? >As for not understanding the law, your understanding seems to be, if no one has caught me, I havent done anything wrong, so lets see how far that goes. More precisely, my understanding is that merely catching me doing something someone thinks is illegal would not necessarily mean that I had done anything illegal. If it should come up, please remind me to have you thrown off my jury for prejudicial bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Susanto Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 >In other words - Detection. Detection of something suspicious is not fairly equated with detection of something illegal. Do you make such an equation here, or do you not? >Normal practice in circumstances like this would be to get the client to sign a form stating that they owned the copyright or had permission from the copyright holder. If you had any practical experience and knowledge of matters like this you would know that already. That's not the normal practice in SL. That's the prescribed practice. LL removes itself from liability for deviations from the prescribed practice by getting users to agree to the Terms of Service. I respect LL's decision to do so. >How quick Josh can make things is not considered in copyright law. I never said that it was. OTOH, you might like to note that I am now at peak productivity since I began my experiment with explicitly public domain images. But it seems like I am just barely able to give away such products. If you share my recent suspicion that some people may be buying other products under the misguided belief that it's a good way to obtain unauthorized images, THAT might be the beginning of a decent argument for me to cut off all of my earlier products. The fact is that I have previously used MANY images which are 100% squeaky clean in terms of copyright questions, but that I simply haven't tried to use that as some kind of selling point. >I really am leaving this debate now, to other readers I would say, IMHO Josh has no idea what he is talking about, and is trying to find ways to justify his own underhand creation methods, believe what he says at your peril!. I can agree that people need to conduct their own informed and reasoned risk assessments rather than to try to blame me for any bad decisions they may happen to make. The total proactive and absolute compliance efforts you seem to advocate are something I imagine would provide readers with some additional degree of protection against legal action. But there are millions of nutjobs in cyberspace, and readers should be warned that at least a few of them have your number, no matter how undeniably innocent you may be of anything of which they may choose to accuse you. Even if you use your webcam to make an image of your own face and you upload that, there will be someone, somewhere, who, if they happen to see it, will consider it to be some kind of infringement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergie Finesmith Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 Well, LL just restored my items... what it means this? what's next?? I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Susanto Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Maybe it means suspicion doesn't equal guilt. Maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Ahren Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 It means LL received your counter notice and did not receive notice within 14 business days thereof from your accuser that the accuser had "filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network" as provided in 17 USC 512. Probably nothing further will happen now. You won a very important battle. Congratulations. Illegitimi non carborundum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Boyle Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 After reading this whole thread, my main observation is that politicians are masters of devising ways to cause problems. We have an enormous amount of material in circulation about which no one knows the copyright status. For a lot of material, there is no practical way to find out if anyone owns rights or identify an owner. It was crazy to create such a situation. We will never be able to be sure that material of unknown age and unknown origin is in the public domain. It is unreasonable to expect people to ask an author who fails to sign her work, not letting them know who to ask, for permission to use it. A much better law would be one that required work to be signed and to contain notice that rights were reserved (could be just a symbol) to be protected. Doing that would cost creators nothing. There also should be a registration requirement to give the public a place to check to see if an item of unknown origin was under copyright amd to find out how to contact the owner. With modern technology, this could be done electronically, and could be easy, quick, and very cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now