HTML Templates

[Neredbojias]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias


As with everything else, it's burden of proof. If I have a doodad
that I created on January 1, 1998 and you make a copy of it and
publish it on June 9, 2008, if I can prove that I created the work
before you published it, then I'm good to go.

No, you're not "good to go" if you haven't registered it. As a matter
of fact, you're totally helpless unless and until you put the ol'
thinking cap on and do something that's actually constructive in
protecting your property.

That's why people put written works in an envelope and mail it to
themselves, because the postmark would provide proof of date.

Like what good does that do? Hmm, did some judge in Cauliflower,
California or somewhere equally "quaint" rule in such a manner?
Supposed I mailed an unsealed envelope in 1984 and then sealed
something in it later? Or steamed one open, etc. How do you prove
that the envelope and contents were intact as a package? CSI? Yeah,
right.

 

[William Gill]

Every week I mail an almost empty envelope to myself to provide a cover
for any miracles that might happen in the future (like that I make
something I jealously want to guard). Inside, an extra feature in my
technique, I leave a blank folded A4. This is very faintly -
forensically extractable - impressed with the brutal date stamping on
the outside during its travels.

I had heard many, many years ago, about mailing yourself a copy of your
written work to establish a proof of date, and wondered how a date stamp
(even an official government stamp) on an envelope was in any way proof
of the envelope's content. However, my father who was a postal
superintendent, was aware of and believed in the validity of the practice.

On the other hand, I have had works rejected unread, because I put a
copyright notice on them. I hear many (most?) publishers find copyright
notices insulting and unprofessional.

 

[William Gill]

Sorry, but you don't get to pick your own definitions, especially for terms
that have well-established and internationally recognized meanings.

And exactly how long have you believed that little things like facts or
"well-established and internationally recognized meanings" have had any
bearing whatsoever on what Neredbojias choses to believe is reality?

 

[rf]

Okay, that *could* happen.

And it does.

But what are the chances? And if the
so-called copywrighted material ain't been registered,

"Registering" copyright only has any meaning in the U S of A where, when it
is "registered", one can gain monetory compensation for the misuse of the
copyrighted material. If it is not "registered" in the U S of A then one can
only issue the offender with a take-down notice, in the U S of A.

there is nothing
to force the intrepid designer to capitulate besides pure bluff,

Yes there is. The law. If the intrepid designer does not heed a court order
to capitulate then the intrepid designer is in contempt of court and could
very well wind up in jail. Does that sound like "bluff"?

anyway. However, I do admit that that probably does work in the
majority of cases.

Yes. It does. That is why it is there. That is why the Berne Convention has
been ratified by most countries in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works

Scroll down about two thirds where it tells you about the U S of A and its
idea of "registered works". And note the words used there: "Copyright under
the Berne Convention must be automatic". I publish a peice of work (say a
web page). I automatically have copyright over that page. If you take that
page and use it as your own then you are breaking the law.

How bout you give it a go? Steal the design from microsoft.com, use it as
your own, tell them you have, and then see what happens.

 

[dorayme]

I had heard many, many years ago, about mailing yourself a copy of your
written work to establish a proof of date, and wondered how a date stamp
(even an official government stamp) on an envelope was in any way proof
of the envelope's content. However, my father who was a postal
superintendent, was aware of and believed in the validity of the practice.

It is as valid as it can be proved what was in the envelope.

 

[dorayme]

And exactly how long have you believed that little things like facts or
"well-established and internationally recognized meanings" have had any
bearing whatsoever on what Neredbojias choses to believe is reality?

He point blank refused to send me a sample of his brain that I
repeatedly requested years ago. Perhaps you might persuade him. The key
to how this guy relates opinion to fact will be in that sample. I have
the lab all fitted out to resolve this issue.

 

[David Segall]

Okay, that *could* happen. But what are the chances? And if the
so-called copywrighted material ain't been registered, there is nothing
to force the intrepid designer to capitulate besides pure bluff,
anyway.

Why do you persist in giving really bad legal advice? This flyer from
the Australian Copyright Council
<http://www.copyright.org.au/G084.pdf> explains that in most
countries, including Australia, there is no way to register your work.
In the United States you only need to register immediately before you
commence legal action. The flyer also explains how to prove it is your
work if the "intrepid designer" is stupid enough to steal your work
and then risk paying legal fees pretending that it is his own.

I suspect that your motive is justifying the copyright material that
you have on your web site. Accept that you are infringing copyright
then relax! Your web site does not attract enough traffic to justify
attention from the heavies like Digimark
<https://www.digimarc.com/solutions/enterprise_tracking.asp> and I
doubt if it has made you rich enough to sue. Just remove anything if
you are told to do so. I have added some "fine print" to my site
<http://www.profectus.com.au/> in the hope that it will pacify any
visiting lawyers but it is probably useless.

 

[David Segall]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias


As with everything else, it's burden of proof. If I have a doodad that
I created on January 1, 1998 and you make a copy of it and publish it on
June 9, 2008, if I can prove that I created the work before you
published it, then I'm good to go.

If you can prove that you created the work you are "good to go"
regardless of the date of publication.

That's why people put written works in an envelope and mail it to
themselves, because the postmark would provide proof of date.

Using "poor man's copyright" might help if, for some obscure reason,
you need to prove that the work _existed_ on a certain date. It does
nothing to prove that you created the work.

 

[Doug Miller]

Ultimately, any definition is defined by myself as it relates to me so
actually I do get to pick, so to speak.

If you really believe that, then I think you have some serious mental health
issues.

I would truly enjoy being a spectator in civil court as you attempt to use
that principle while defending yourself against a copyright infringement suit.

 

[Doug Miller]

I may have nothing to say about the legal definition of the word but
the practical definition lies well within the realm of my deductive
reasoning.

The "practical definition" is the *same* as the legal definition. And you
don't get to pick what it is.

 

[Doug Miller]

And exactly how long have you believed that little things like facts or
"well-established and internationally recognized meanings" have had any
bearing whatsoever on what Neredbojias choses to believe is reality?

I haven't been participating in this newsgroup long enough to have formed any
opinions regarding the degree to which he or any of the other participants are
in contact with reality.

It looks as though that will change soon.

 

[William Gill]

He point blank refused to send me a sample of his brain that I
repeatedly requested years ago. Perhaps you might persuade him. The key
to how this guy relates opinion to fact will be in that sample. I have
the lab all fitted out to resolve this issue.

Don't take it personally dorayme. I believe he once gave someone a
piece of his mind, but failed to retain a fully working share.

 

[William Gill]

He point blank refused to send me a sample of his brain that I
repeatedly requested years ago. Perhaps you might persuade him. The key
to how this guy relates opinion to fact will be in that sample. I have
the lab all fitted out to resolve this issue.

Don't take it personally dorayme. I believe he once gave someone a
piece of his mind, but failed to retain a working share.

 

[William Gill]

He point blank refused to send me a sample of his brain that I
repeatedly requested years ago. Perhaps you might persuade him. The key
to how this guy relates opinion to fact will be in that sample. I have
the lab all fitted out to resolve this issue.

Don't take it personally dorayme. I believe he once gave someone a
piece of his mind, but failed to retain a working share.

 

[William Gill]

He point blank refused to send me a sample of his brain that I
repeatedly requested years ago. Perhaps you might persuade him. The key
to how this guy relates opinion to fact will be in that sample. I have
the lab all fitted out to resolve this issue.

Don't take it personally dorayme. I believe he once gave someone a
piece of his mind, but failed to retain an adequate share.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register

See 7th paragraph titled:

"I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?

Agreed, and when someone I knew a long time ago wanted to do this, I
said, it's called Poor Man's Copyright for a reason. If you are really
serious, you need to register it. The postmark will only show proof
that the envelope existed on that date, although it might be enough in
some cases.

 

[William Gill]

He point blank refused to send me a sample of his brain that I
repeatedly requested years ago. Perhaps you might persuade him. The key
to how this guy relates opinion to fact will be in that sample. I have
the lab all fitted out to resolve this issue.

Don't take it personally dorayme. I believe he once gave someone a
piece of his mind, but failed to retain an adequate share.

 

[Neredbojias]

And it does.

What percentage of the time? 0.000003%?

"Registering" copyright only has any meaning in the U S of A where,
when it is "registered", one can gain monetory compensation for the
misuse of the copyrighted material. If it is not "registered" in the
U S of A then one can only issue the offender with a take-down
notice, in the U S of A.

I'm in the U S of A and am talking about the U S of A. What they do in
Pango Pango is so many ping pong balls to me.

Yes there is. The law. If the intrepid designer does not heed a court
order to capitulate then the intrepid designer is in contempt of
court and could very well wind up in jail. Does that sound like
"bluff"?

Yes, it does. What are the chances? 0.000003%?

Yes. It does. That is why it is there. That is why the Berne
Convention has been ratified by most countries in the world.

A non-sequitir regardless of the facts, but, yes, bluff does work many
times, especially in a dogmatic environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Li
terary_and_Artistic_Works

Scroll down about two thirds where it tells you about the U S of A
and its idea of "registered works". And note the words used there:
"Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic". I publish a
peice of work (say a web page). I automatically have copyright over
that page. If you take that page and use it as your own then you are
breaking the law.

No argument with that; I never said one wasn't "breaking the law".
However, one is bound to get away with it, noneheless.

How bout you give it a go? Steal the design from microsoft.com, use
it as your own, tell them you have, and then see what happens.

Come on, you know that's an illogical test case, and if I *did* happen
to "inadvertantly" publish copywrighted stuff, wouldn't it be rather
stupid to advertise the fact?

 

[Neredbojias]

Why do you persist in giving really bad legal advice? This flyer from
the Australian Copyright Council
<http://www.copyright.org.au/G084.pdf> explains that in most
countries, including Australia, there is no way to register your
work. In the United States you only need to register immediately
before you commence legal action. The flyer also explains how to
prove it is your work if the "intrepid designer" is stupid enough to
steal your work and then risk paying legal fees pretending that it is
his own.

I suspect that your motive is justifying the copyright material that
you have on your web site. Accept that you are infringing copyright
then relax! Your web site does not attract enough traffic to justify
attention from the heavies like Digimark
<https://www.digimarc.com/solutions/enterprise_tracking.asp> and I
doubt if it has made you rich enough to sue. Just remove anything if
you are told to do so. I have added some "fine print" to my site
<http://www.profectus.com.au/> in the hope that it will pacify any
visiting lawyers but it is probably useless.

My only motive is to clarify the reality of the situation. I certainly
do not advocate publishing others' copyrighted material and would be
aghast if I'd found that I had accidentally done so myself.

 

[Neredbojias]

Sigh. You're simply wrong as regards the law.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register

From the above link, and I quote:

"You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for
infringement of a U.S. work."

So, if you can't bring a lawsuit, what can you do? Report it to the
"proper authorities"? And what'll they do, whoever they are?
Remember, I'm talking about typical websites here, not Google or
something like that.