Some thoughts on copyright

[Guest TomOOO]

My apologies to Trans_27 Pilot Chase for continuing to takehis thread off topic. Anyway, my understanding of copyright of written text/pictures placed on this forum - please will the admin correct me if I havethis incorrect in the context of the usage of this posting site. I take this view from many years working in thebig wide world of computers/data and lawyers.Copyright : look it up on WikipediaCopyright is placed on ideas or information and is usually attributedto a person rather than an institution. It is datedCopyright applies when copyright is stated on the text/picture inthe correct format with correct symbolYou will see that most addons are copyright : they state this inthe readme. You may only "copy" (ie copy-right) the material withinthe conditions of the copyright. Copyrighted material can normallybe copied only at the express permission of the owner. Copyrightmay also allow copying with implicit permission if this is statedin which case you don't need to ask - but see the next sentence.Copyright material must contain the original copyright when copied.Text and picture placed on this site are public unless anyone placesa copyright notice on their text/picture.It is good practice to cite someone else's contribution if you quotethis verbatim.If is also good practice to cite someone else's contribution if youquote ideas taken from someone else's post. (Being in the wide worldof such things I can tell). The text may not be verbatim.Pictures here tend to have greater level of ownership than text since they are a personal snapshot of a persons simulation.It would seam odd to me if someone posted a picture of mine withoutorigin notice. You wouldn't want to put your name to my dodgy flying ! :-) From a personal point of view, this place is public and anything I post you may use/mangle as you wish - and I do read other simulationsites. It only makes me smile. The aim of any post from me is to freely help anyone with problems they are having, I don't get much time to read posting - or even fly (for real or simulation) at the moment; so please feel free to copy anythingi say - and post it anywhere. A citation might be nice but does notmatter. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Have I put my head above the wall only to get if shot off ????:-boom RegardsTom

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Read the forum terms of use. You have it wrong.

[Trans_27 Pilot Chase 59]

No worries. I got to read it before it was removed. :)

[Guest TomOOO]

Then I am very sorry about getting wrong.I believe AVSIM has copyright on all posted material (:(, andand such restricts reproduction of material (F). My mistake and I should have found this link before posting.Shame I cannot delete the posting now.....Tom

[mgh 89]

"Copyright applies when copyright is stated on the text/picture inthe correct format with correct symbol"I'm afraid that's incorrect. The Berne Convention (adopted by most jurisdictions) doesn't require it nor does US law - although I believe it used to.For the avodance of doubt (as the lawyers sat) copyright automatically exists whenever pen is put to paper, finger to keyboard, and hand to mouse provided some skill, originality and work is involved.This means that practically everything is copyrighted by someone, so unless it is explictly stated that domething isn't than we should assume it is and deal with it accordingly - certaimly the fact of publishing it publically doesn't remove copyright.

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

Correct, but additionally it is 'usually' only enforcable (legally)in court if the copyright holder has filed and paid their 30.00 fee; in the US.Now, morally, in our industry, it doesn't matter much whether or not a person has actually filed for their copyright because we'll be all over them at the drop of a hat. In other words, we tend to self police ourself, which is a good thing.Edit: My statement here doesn't have to apply to the context of this post. Further one can still use the copyright symbol and claim copyright even if they haven't paid their fee if memory serves me correct.

[Guest]

>"Copyright applies when copyright is stated on the>text/picture in>the correct format with correct symbol">>I'm afraid that's incorrect. The Berne Convention (adopted by>most jurisdictions) doesn't require it nor does US law ->although I believe it used to.>>For the avodance of doubt (as the lawyers sat) copyright>automatically exists whenever pen is put to paper, finger to>keyboard, and hand to mouse provided some skill, originality>and work is involved.>>This means that practically everything is copyrighted by>someone, so unless it is explictly stated that>domething isn't than we should assume it is and deal with it>accordingly - certaimly the fact of publishing it publically>doesn't remove copyright.>>>> you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? how can you enforce a copyright against someone when they are merely posting what you said and responding on a public forum? are you really serious? unless somehow someone is making money or taking credit for your "work" do you really think you won't be laughed out of court? no wonder our legal systems are all in a mess, we have tons of people who are sue happy with little grasp of the concepts they pretend to understand

[mgh 89]

I do know what I'm talking about - which is the law of copyright.Some one took a complete post of mine from another site and posted it in it's entirity here without my permission or that of the other site. That infringed my copyright and, as I said elsewhere, also breached AVSIM's Terms of Use. You seem to see nothing wrong in that. Do you see nothing wrong when files from the AVSIM library posted to libraries on other sites without the owner's permission? The principle is exactly the same.The fact that enforcement is difficult/impossible doesn't make the original infringement acceptable. Common politeness and respect for others should make it unnecessary in forums like these.

[Trans_27 Pilot Chase 59]

I guess there's two ways look at this:The post was copied from another site without theirs or your permission, and laws say that's wrong... Now, he made absolutely no profit off of your post, he simply copied it here to explain what a memory leak is and what causes them. IMHO, no harm done.Second way: Yes, it's said to be illegal. But we're also talking about a post on a public forum. Again, IMHO, proper credit was given to "flightsim.com," the website of it's original posting, and the author of the original post "mgh" just by the first 2 or so lines. It clearly says Flightsim.com and posted by mgh.Now, eatheir way you look at it, no harm was done. He posted it to help me understand the definition of a memory leak. IMHO, your tone in your response to his post was rather "sour", and instead of pointing it out publicly, it would of just been better to send him a PM about the incident. Doesn't really matter how you look at it, no harm was done here, and you are clearly the Original Author. After all, it says so at the top of the text. This whole conflict is just a waste of time and interest. Might as well quit wasting the bandwidth over this seeing how nothing anyone says will make the past go away, especially this event.Unless you plan on filing charges against him, just forget this happened. My pennies worth...

[mgh 89]

The fact remains that it was an infringement of copyright, regardless of motive, harm done, etc. The original poster asked for his post to be removed - which it has. I respect him for that and have no intention of taking action against him.There were references to the fact that these are public forums but you suggest that I shouldn't have raised this matter publically.

[btacon 1,788]

MGH...I agree with you about the certainty of copyright. Copyright is automatic, it occurs the minute the original thoughts are posted, written, or otherwise expressed. My words here are copyrighted, and that is a FACT. Now, let's fast forward from pre-internet/World Wide Web to today.The amazing connectivity of the WWW, and all the nuance and muck-lee-muck that comes with it, makes a proposition such as yours, i.e. "regardless of intent or attribution, copyright is copyright", pretty much a lost cause, and a battle that will not be won in future courts.The original poster attributed you. There was no infringement of your muse, other than it appeared in another forum. IF YOUR INTENT was to keep it there, and there alone, you would have been wise to clearly state that, in light of the very premise of the WWW, that it lives, thrives, and demands the use of hyperlinks and referenced text.If that was your intent, and you failed to properly caveat your post in the other forum, IMHO, on this topic...you're pissin in the wind.No disrespect intended...just my POVBraun

[mgh 89]

It's not my resonsibility to caveat anything. It's the responsibility of others not to use copyright material without permission.

[Murmur 3,941]

>It's not my resonsibility to caveat anything. It's the>responsibility of others not to use copyright material without>permission.Man! Even if technically speaking it's probably copyright violation, I find very anal your general attitude on this issue, and the fact that you even mentioned taking action against him.Marco

[mgh 89]

Where did I threaten action against him? I specifically said I had no intention of doing that.Many people here seem to think that it's acceptable to infringe the rights of others when it's convenient and when there's no likelihood of action against them. I don't but I'm letting this matter drop now - having made my point.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>It's not my resonsibility to caveat anything. It's the>responsibility of others not to use copyright material without>permission.I'm not a lawyer, but given the situation, the public nature of the copied and the original posting, I think it might fall under fair use.Under US Copyright law, anyways, fair use allows for limited reproduction for informational purposes or review, not too mention satire and parody, which also fall under fair use. There are several factors when determining fair use, as it has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. They are purpose and character of the use, nature of the copied work, amount and substantiality used, and effect upon the original work's value.In this case, there was no personal profit or benefit gained by the user, and the use was in line with the informative nature of the original posting. The original work was scholarly in nature, intended for public consumption. The amount was, of course, all of the post, however, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, the Ninth Circuit court ruled that even copying an entire picture is fair use "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use." But the last one is the kicker, I think. Not only was the original value of the published work not diminished (in my own opinion), but citing and linking back to the original post even promotes increased viewership of the post on flightsim.com.The point is, I think there's a fair case (pun intended) for fair use.Anyways, I'm a lawyer, as I said at the front of this post. However, I think with some research and understanding of the precedence set, especially concerning the internet, there's not a cut and dry "you copied something I wrote, therefore copyright infringement". There are many questions being asked even concerning the ownership of your words when you submit them on website, as some of my friends who are artists are finding out. There's just a lot of gray out there.