DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Copyrights - do they apply to your posts here?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 15 of 15, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/19/2005 01:06:25 PM · #1
I am active in many forums. I posted on a Yahoo goups forum and the complete text, along with several of the responses, were copied (without anyone's permission) and posted to another unrelated yahoo group. Not in answer to a question, but just to, well, stir the pot i suppose.

I am not battling the mod of the second group - i saw the 'unauthorized use' of my post (and the replies) is a copywright vioilation - either of the authors of the posts or the yahoo group owners.

i see no distinction between a post (like this one) and a photo that could be posted here.

Am i off base on my logic?
 09/19/2005 01:17:31 PM · #2
*

Message edited by author 2005-09-19 13:43:38.
 09/19/2005 01:12:16 PM · #3
It depends how it's used, like all other copyright questions. If it is truly for "educational" purposes, then it probably falls under the "fair use" doctrine, though attribution and context should be provided.

If it is used for commercial purposes, for example quoting you in an ad, of for purposes of fraud, extortion, libel, or other illegal activites, then it would be a violation.

I think you pretty much have to figure that everything you post on the internet is subject to being copied, archived, indexed, linked-to, emailed, or otherwise disseminated -- it will be gobbled by Google and devoured by Carnivore (FBI) if nothing else.
 09/19/2005 01:25:28 PM · #4
this is an interesting subject, chris, and i will look into it. it is a very gray area, as that to a large degree, forum post seem to be more of a conversation than articles for publication. it might be governed under a site's TOS. one thing you could do would be to put a copyright notice in each post, stating all rights reserved, blah, blah, blah. however, i don't think you'd be able to go after someone simply for quoting a post of yours, authorized or not. on the other hand, if you wrote and published articles for your own website, those would most certainly be protected.
 09/19/2005 01:27:36 PM · #5
* ... guess they worked ;0)

Message edited by author 2005-09-19 13:44:13.
 09/19/2005 01:42:48 PM · #6
I think that even a radio or TV show can read from a book legally- it's all about how it's being used. bear_music posted a great exerpt not too long ago about that very issue.
Seeing as the search function is working now, maybe you should check it out! :0)
But of course this is my third try at posting so you might just want to wait a bit!!!
 09/20/2005 12:40:11 AM · #7
Originally posted by skiprow:
this is an interesting subject, chris, and i will look into it. it is a very gray area, as that to a large degree, forum post seem to be more of a conversation than articles for publication. it might be governed under a site's TOS. one thing you could do would be to put a copyright notice in each post, stating all rights reserved, blah, blah, blah. however, i don't think you'd be able to go after someone simply for quoting a post of yours, authorized or not. on the other hand, if you wrote and published articles for your own website, those would most certainly be protected.


Alright, let us assume that posts here fall under the 'conversation' type of thing. One can eavesdrop here (aka LURK). One can listen to a conversation we have in public( like at a bus stop or at dinner). No problem. However, if that conversation is recorded without our knowledge or permission (aka wire tap) then there is a problem, legally. I don't think wiretap laws consider the use the recording is put to, just that recording is illegal.

Since this post and all posts are 'recorded' anyway, but with our permission, that may not apply. However, the intended use we have for this posting must have some merit. What is my intent, or target audience for this posting? Can I make any assumption?

If you and I are talking in public and it is overheard, that person can 'steal' the idea, or paraphrase our conversation (with or without credit to us). Here, the entire (or part there of) conversation can be quoted or reposted verbatim, anyplace at all without our consent or knowledge - so is this a new area of law or what area of current law might be applicable? this is not email, so any case law pertaining to that or IM conversations (both of which are more like regular mail or a phone conversation) would not necessarily apply to forum posts. Some law must, right?
 09/20/2005 12:48:37 AM · #8
If you are talking in public, someone with a microphone and recorder can record you and use it with exactly the same restrictions as would apply to a photo they snapped of you, that is, they can use it for private or educational purposes, but not for commercial or illegal purposes.

This is in no way a "wiretap", where the eavesdropper must enter your private property -- the wire conecting you to the other person is analogous to a hallway with each of you at one end. There is nothing illegal about recording sounds in public places.
 09/20/2005 01:00:28 AM · #9
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is nothing illegal about recording sounds in public places.


I am not too familiar with the laws governing conversations in the USA, but one would think that it is not the recording of sounds in public that is they key issue, but rather one's expectation of privacy.

In Canada the recording of conversations in some instances is not at all illegal.... however, revealing the contents of the conversation IS...

On a personal note... I really cannot envisage that any tidbit of information I might disclose in this forum would have such an earth shattering impact that I would seek copyright protection.... because if I remember correctly.... copyright in this type of scenario deals with "Intellectual Property"... and well.....

Ray
 09/20/2005 01:44:44 AM · #10
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It depends how it's used, like all other copyright questions.... ...it will be gobbled by Google and devoured by Carnivore (FBI) if nothing else.


Hey, watch it bub. The FBI will be feeding me and paying my bills soon... Besides, the FBI doesn't use Carnivore anymore. There are public programs that work even better. =)

Message edited by author 2005-09-20 01:48:22.
 09/20/2005 04:40:05 AM · #11
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Alright, let us assume that posts here fall under the 'conversation' type of thing. One can eavesdrop here (aka LURK). One can listen to a conversation we have in public( like at a bus stop or at dinner). No problem. However, if that conversation is recorded without our knowledge or permission (aka wire tap) then there is a problem, legally. I don't think wiretap laws consider the use the recording is put to, just that recording is illegal.

generale is right in the difference between public recordings and wiretappings.

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Since this post and all posts are 'recorded' anyway, but with our permission, that may not apply. However, the intended use we have for this posting must have some merit. What is my intent, or target audience for this posting? Can I make any assumption?

i'm thinking not. a digital forum is no different than a physical forum where numerous conversations can be taking place. in the physical forum, if someone steps up on a soapbox, asks to be heard, and then delivers a canned speech, there is no control over who repeats what to whom. if someone where to reprint the speech without giving credit to the source, the original orator would probably have action against the plaguerist, depending on the nature of the reprint (educational/editorial vs commercial). it would also be a bit different if the speaker got up and stated at the outset that he was reading from a published/printed piece as opposed to speeking off the top of his/her head. otherwise, i think the assumption would be that the speaker was simply trying to rise above the public din.

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
If you and I are talking in public and it is overheard, that person can 'steal' the idea, or paraphrase our conversation (with or without credit to us). Here, the entire (or part there of) conversation can be quoted or reposted verbatim, anyplace at all without our consent or knowledge - so is this a new area of law or what area of current law might be applicable? this is not email, so any case law pertaining to that or IM conversations (both of which are more like regular mail or a phone conversation) would not necessarily apply to forum posts. Some law must, right?

i haven't had time to research this, but as stated above, i'm thinking not.

so, if somebody quotes you or misquotes you, i think you probably don't have any law on your side from a copyright standpoint, and that you have to decide whether or not you want to join that conversation, or to let it go.

however, if it is done in a way to intentionally slander your character, that is something completely different. i had a friend that made an offhand comment, jokingly, in a forum, to which the person he commented about was offended enough to sue him. and my friend spent thousands of dollars on legal fees before finally settling. the comment was not far off from calling the guy a 'perve'... just another reason why people should pay a little more attention to what they post in these public forums...
 09/20/2005 05:37:10 AM · #12
If you read the Terms and Conditions at Yahoo, it probably states somewhere that all forum content is copyright and THEY own it, so if someone uses your content, its actually Yahoo's copyright being violated. On the same subject, I believe Hotmail do the same with email, so anything being sent from/to a Hotmail account is copyright Hotmail....
 09/20/2005 08:01:22 AM · #13
Originally posted by cbonsall:
If you read the Terms and Conditions at Yahoo, it probably states somewhere that all forum content is copyright and THEY own it, so if someone uses your content, its actually Yahoo's copyright being violated.

actually this would probably only be true if the content was taken to a non-yahoo site, and then it would probably depend on how and where it was used. one thing a lot of people overlook is what is called 'derivative works.' this concept allows other copyright-protected works to be incorporated into new works without violating the original copyright. for example, if you take a picture of people looking at a statue, you have created a derivative work that doesn't violate the copyright of the statue. or, if you take a picture of a page of a book, you haven't necessarily violated the copyright of the book.

this concept is one of the primary things that allow us to photography anything. think of what would happen if you shot a sporting event that had 20 billboards in the background--and you had to chase down each billboard owner for a release! this pretty much applies across the board. there are a number of other factors that come into play, and it does make for some interesting reading...
 09/20/2005 09:16:04 AM · #14
Originally posted by skiprow:
... actually this would probably only be true if the content was taken to a non-yahoo site, and then it would probably depend on how and where it was used. one thing a lot of people overlook is what is called 'derivative works.' this concept allows other copyright-protected works to be incorporated into new works without violating the original copyright. for example, if you take a picture of people looking at a statue, you have created a derivative work that doesn't violate the copyright of the statue.

Actually that situation is probably not a derivative work, which is still covered by copyright. But the difference is in the context; what you describe is a photo of "people looking at" a statue, not an artistic representation of th statue itself. Derivative works are one of the most confusing ans contentious areas of copyright law.
 09/20/2005 09:24:56 AM · #15
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Actually that situation is probably not a derivative work, which is still covered by copyright. But the difference is in the context; what you describe is a photo of "people looking at" a statue, not an artistic representation of th statue itself. Derivative works are one of the most confusing ans contentious areas of copyright law.

the rub is in the context of how the quote is used. all the same, if the TOS says that yahoo owns everything and something is copied from one yahoo group to another, i don't think that would violate a copyright (but, at the moment, i don't have time to delve into it, and since i didn't stay at a holiday inn express last night, the quality of my guessing is suffering).
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:51:43 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:51:43 PM EDT.