Stolen textures

[Guest]

Mike; OK; you made me go look it up. Definitions from Black's Law Dictionary as follows:Theft: Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprieve the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of his property: (a) obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property; or (:( obtaining by deception control over property; or © obtaining by threat control over property; or (d) obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another. (I don't think the alleged act falls within this definition)Copyright: The right of literary property as recognized and sanctioned by positive law. An intangible, incorporeal right granted by statute to the author or originator of certain literary or artistic productions, whereby he is invested, for a limited period, with the sole and exclusive privilege of multiplying copies of the same and publishing and selling them. Fair Use Doctrine: Fair use is privilege in other than owner of copyright to use copyrighted material in reasonable manner without consent, notwithstanding monopoly granted to owner.The Supreme Court has said: The court when evaluating fair use analyzes four separate factors to determine whether the fair use defense applies in the specific case. These factors are the following: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." The court said that (4) was the most important factor. http://www.publaw.com/fairuse.html I haven't done any other research into whether "free stuff" would fall under the Fair Use Doctrine" or not; but it seems to me at first glance that it would, but I wouldn't want to be held to that opinion. Reason I say that is because in order to enforce or prosecute an unregistered copyright claim, actual damages must be shown under most statutes. I haven't read any statutes that don't require a showing of actual damages in order to get relief in the case of unregistered claims. It seems to me that a person would have to profit monetarily from his dirty deed before he could be prosecuted. But, I may be wrong. Have been before.

[Wolfko 0]

Anniette,What the guy did was wrong, that absolutely no question.But waht I also do not like is, that you go public with this issue before you have contacted the guy personally. This is very bad style and makes the whole matter worse!Regards,Wolfgang

[Guest]

I am not going to take this rubbish from mgdbottled :"If someone walks into my living room and breaths some of my air, I don't give a rip. It's just some paint drawn on a bmp. Geez!!!!!!!! If you don't want someone using your stuff, don't publish it. Just keep it to yourself. If your ego has got a problem with someone who didn't give you proper credit, email him privately." I put mgdbottled in the file search in the library and Nothing show up ,what did he ever make ?how does this person have so much to say where he knows nothing about anything?I copyright all my files they are registered as i make them and upload the serial from my copyright ,I mark the files to warn this and thought I was doing everything right.I paint pictures for my living and as soon as i start painting it it is mine and my copyright and registered through the GAllery who take my paintings.I just hope any of my files he has he will delete from his Hard drive and he will keep away from me as he is the type of person who makes me worry about people "MicroSoft has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down" it is not microsoft I worry about ,it is people like you mgdbottled you speak but do not listen.Anniette

[Guest]

Alpha; sorry that a discussion of this matter upsets you. But we're all entitled to an opinion here. Me included. Just because a person disagrees with you from time to time doesn't mean they don't appreciate your contributions to the FS community. BTW; I don't have any of your stuff on my harddrive. Just haven't had time to download everything. It's looks good though. Been too busy working and reading these forums, I guess. If I remember right you did some textures for the DC3. One of my favorite airplanes. I'll be sure to check it out.

[Jayjay 62]

Anniette, he probably went too hard on the bottle :-) Un verre

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Mgdbottled, I don't doubt that you've invested a lot of money in your legal education, so if at any time you find yourself short of greenbacks you might revisit university and claim the dosh back. It's mainly nonsense, and misleading nonsense to boot, that you are airing here.It's very basic. 1: Copyright is the exclusive right to copy. 2: The owner of the copyright OWNS the exclusive right to copy. 3: Other people do not own this right, but they can either buy it, receive it with permission as a gift, or steal it. In Anniette's case the copyright (Anniette's property) was not bought, it was not given: it was stolen. A person who steals another persons property is a thief. There is no actual need to register copyright in order to make it exist: the very moment a "work" as meant in international copyright legislation is produced, it is automatically copyrighted - it doesn't even have to be published in order to be protected by copyright. I hold a dim view of stealing, and an equally dim view of people who, in the enthousiastic process of abusing the grey area of a new medium like internet, try to bend existing legislation like a pretzel in order to defend thieves. Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest]

jaapv et al; OK, I'll quit. It's clear the answer won't be found unless a court rules on the facts on a case by case basis. I do enjoy these kinds of debates though, but certainly don't want to upset anyone. The forum has a very good rule. When in doubt they simply delete the download which is the way it should be!!

[Guest]

I hope you are right Jayjay because it will explain alot !I always thought a opinion should have some Knowledge behind it and He does not even know what I paint or do not ,As for the Making it private not public argument ,that is really Dumb ,People who take your things and erase your name from them do not leave address for you to follow and I will not go out of my way to hide these people who think like that.With People like Beechcomer around there is always hope for us But other people Really need to Keep quiet when they do not know what they talk about ,because they do not help anybodyAnniette (Going to Tahiti)

[Guest]

Wow, I'm not sure I know how to respond to this. Let me see if I got this right. Someone takes Anniette's property, which was clearly marked as such, and uses it without her permission. So now the guy that took it is portrayed as a poor innocent bystander, who was within his legal rights, and is being wrongly accused while Anniette is viewed as a scoundrel because she had the audacity to object? If there was even the slightest chance that this was an innocent accident you might have a point. But this was as blatent an act as can be. Look at Anniette's original post again. Look at the pictures. Tell me there was any chance whatsoever that this person could be mistaken into believing that he had the right to use those textures.Mike Stone

[Guest]

Take me along Anniette, please!Mike Stone

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Jeff,>What good has this thread brought to our hobby? >The bottom line is Anniette used somebody else's design (pan >Am) on the texture. I may have been cut and pasted or drawn >in paintshop it is still Pan Am's Logo and design. Another >did the the same to Anniette but it is considered stealing. >What is right and what is wrong?Discussing the topic is always good, and brings more attention to the laws and, as you say, double standard. And as long as no one is flaming, and it's all a good debate, then it's fine and deserves a place in these forums. IMOHO of course. ;-)I don't argue that everyone painting liveries is in violation of the copyrights, but it's the intent here that matters. The guy who we're talking about who started this, just DL'ed Anniette's work and posted it as his own.I myself violate no copyright laws on textures since I have my own GuardRail livery. I own the trademarks and copyright to that logo so no problems there. ;-) My panels are another story.The biggest good to our hobby is if these discussions can go on forever without flaming! Then THAT's a good topic and good for the hobby! :-lol

[Guest]

Really Wolfgang?And how do you feel about this person contacting Anniette, to ask for permission? He could have done that a lot easier, since had her email, and didn't give his email out.Why do you try to make him look like a victim? This is really hard to understand. A person takes something that doesn't belong to him, claims as his own (he steals it)and he is the victim. Pete S

[Guest]

Thanks Scott!!!!I have been a fan of your work since the days of your PF98 panel work.The problem lies though when people make public accusations, and attack people personally regarding their opinions.Jeff

[Guest]

"Tell me there was any chance whatsoever that this person could be mistaken into believing that he had the right to use those textures."He probably was mistaken because the Pan Am logo is not Anniettes to begin with.Jeff

[michal 44]

>There is so much of a Double Standard in this hobby now >days. This seems to be your favorite line. In fact most of us do not see any double standard here. If you can't tell the difference between subtle difference in the copyright law - it is your problem. :-(Michael J.