*
I notice in another discussion that Mr Fusco has a copyright notice in his signature block. If it was a complicated graphic I’d think it was maybe that. If it was his company name then it should be Registered. So, maybe he is intending to copyright his posts and his pride of authorship.
Since Taunton clearly says they have all rights to these posts maybe some clarification is in order.
What gives?
Smart construction decisions and material choices can significantly improve occupant safety and survival in the event of a fire in the home.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
Replies
*
Fred,
View Image
"The first step towards vice is to shroud innocent actions in mystery, and whoever likes to conceal something sooner or later has reason to conceal it."
Aristotle
*I just searched, whew. A hint, "search the entire site" includes "Cook's Time". Turns out, they are VERY interested in copyrights over there...Dave, copyrighted 1960 ;-)
*I think a logo is supposed to be registered, not copyrighted. And the date is the year of the copyright or registration. Unless he's copyrighted it twice or something.Ed.
*Joe:We have newbies here and I'm considered one as well, in consideration that I wasn't here two years ago. Ah, come on Joe, do some paste for the lazy ones. Start with the meat...I'm kinda curious about a patent..Yea, long story, but why is it so damned complicated thesedays?I am aware of most of the preperation, disclosure, and such, but it seems to be a huge amount of unnecessary BS to get where you want to be. I haven't developed the widget to perfection yet, but I am hoping within a few years the "Fishclamp" will be something many will use for generations.Yea, talk to a patent attorney and get raked for blind with the other guys that don't know jack. I've considered specialty clamp manufacturers, but am very patient. There is no such item as the Fishclamp..anywhere.
*Ken, let's get that ™"FishClamp"® up in the Gallery and give it a good going over. I promise not to rip you off. We've all got oodles of money to invest in an earth shaking idea. Joe H
*Anything can be copyrighted just by saying it is. The point in saying "Copyright 20XX, All Rights Reserved" is that it gives some legitimacy when filing a lawsuit for infringment. Listing multiple years means the work has spanned multiple years, such as a work of fiction with significant revisions in those years, or multiple versions of software. You can even copyright after the fact. The big question is, would you prevail in court.Designs can be trademarked (the small TM), and then can be registered (the small circled R). The distinction carries weight when trying to prevent trademark infringement.Patents are more difficult (cost and time) to obtain, and are for inventions, etc.If Tauton says stuff posted on their board becomes their copyrighted material, it's hard to argue--they get to use the material without owing the authors for it, even if you claim your writings belong to you.
*OK Ken, just send the pictures to me, no use cutting Andy in for a piece. He's got a real job, he doesn't have time for this. Joe H
*Copyrights are very complex but ...If a post here contains a quote from (or link to) any source other than the author's copyrighted material, the post is an infringment of the owner's rights.If the magazine claims copyrights to posts, the magazine has infringed.I say infringed because there is no fair use of the duration of the archives.For some really nice discussion see any of the "legal" bulletin boards.By the way use of my copyrighted materials on the internet costs $1000 per use as stated in my copyright notice.
*George,
View Image "The first step towards vice is to shroud innocent actions in mystery, and whoever likes to conceal something sooner or later has reason to conceal it." Aristotle
*George, I'm not a lawyer, but here's how I see it. Taunton claims the rights to anything posted here. Posting is optional. By posting, you accept our terms. If you don't want to risk unpaid publication, don't post. I'm not sure what the deal is if someone posts someone else's copyrighted material. Logic would seem to say that the poster, by the act of posting, assumes any liability. At least, were I king, that's how it would be.Andy
*George says: "If a post here contains a quote from (or link to) any source other than the author's copyrighted material, the post is an infringment of the owner's rights."Maybe, maybe not... From Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair useNotwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;the nature of the copyrighted work;the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.Since, of course, all of our posts at Breaktime are for criticism, comment, scholarship, and research, we therefore can avail ourselves of the safe harbor of the fair use provisions...(Satire is also usually considered a fair use and some posts would also fit there, although some of them inadvertently...)
*Back when the music business made a very good living off me, a copyright was easy to get. Just fill out the form, send in your $6 with a score of the melody and your set.You could get a copyright on White Christmas if you wanted to. They didn't care. Try to use that copyright and watch out.The copyright laws changed in 1976. It was now $10 and you could send a cassette.I guess you can still copyright any song you want. It would be difficult to research evey request for copyright that the copyright office gets each day.In court, the first date rules.Ed.
*EdEvery artistic express that you generate is automatically copyrighted under the current laws. That includes this message and that drawing that you did of a trim detail on a napkin.However, if you register the it makes it easier for you if you need to sue someone that used your copyrighted material.
*Ed,What hit songs did you write? Just curious.Davo.
*Kinko's (a big photocopy, printing chain around here) was sued in a big law suit in the early 90's for making coppies of other's copyrighted material. Their defense was that the customer had commited the crime by bringing the copyrighted material in to be copied, Kinko's had only followed the customer's orders and couldn't be responsible to know if everything brought into the store was copyrighted or not. Kinko's lost. I don't remember how much it cost them but it was big.
*Ryan, I use Kinko's frequently, especially for copying blueprints, and no one ever asks about copyrights, although there are signs posted. If they lost big, why aren't they more careful? It's no use arguing with a court, but if I were king (did that infringe on Andy's previous use?) Kinko's would not be at fault if the customer operated the copier. However, if the customer handed the material to a Kinko's employee who then put it on the platen and pushed the button, then the employee should have inquired first and thus is responsible for the imfringement.
*Might I assume your middle initial is A, Ed.?Dave
*Well, from this I gather that when I use Mr. Fusco's material in the local humor column I may be in trouble with Taunton and but not with him. That is what I thought.As for a tortuous Blind Search in the archives for something two years ago just to save someone from a minute of typing: Forget it!
*Fredi Well, from this I gather that when I use Mr. Fusco's material in the local humor column I may be in trouble with Taunton and but not with him. You main problem is with bad taste .If you just copied one of his messages you would have problems with him. Each "artistic" expression is copyrighted automatically including my drivel.If you copied a whole thread then you could be in trouble with each poster to that thread and Taunton.However, if I remember correclty, unless it is registered with the copyright office they can only collect actual damages. And there would not be any. However, I don't think that the readers can sue for damage .
*As I said copyright law is very complex.The copyright office has a publication, Circular 21 - Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians. There are guidelines which state "copying shall not be repeated with respect to the same item by the same teacher from term to term."I believe this limits the time any copyrighted item may remain on a bulletin board to less than 1 school term. (Not-for profit educational usage is the most liberal usage allowed.)Since those who operate the board claim "future rights" to what appears on this board, I believe they put themselves on the hook for the liability.There are ways to set up a bulletin board to avoid liability for copyright infringement, but I do not believe this board has done so.
*Dear Joe:I ain't talking, but I'll give a small hint. It's a fish clamp, so what could it be used for in the construction business? It's not an electrical tool or appartus for that segment. Perhaps a jig for lunchtime guys on site with some water nearby?I'm not talking.
*George,I confess I once fell asleep in my intellectual property class in law school, and didn't practice in that area, but I know enough about it to know that your 0-2 so far in this thread.I suggest 3 years of law school or a good E&O policy
*Davo,I never got that hit that I was looking for. I never even got a cover.I had one song published by United Artist for which I received a small advance who then sold it to Capitol Records for an amount unknown to me. They were pushing it to Ricky Nelson (remember him?) but he died and that was that. I had a reversion clause in my contract and I got that song back. I still have the rights to it.A few years later, I signed a song of mine to Screen Gems. A duo known as the Belamy Bros. were supposed to record it, but they pooped out of the public eye. The song got lost after that, and Screen Gems still owns the rights to it. I really believed in that song. It's a great song if I may say so myself. I've written some crap, and I know that, but I've written some that I am really proud of. I then had an artist contract offered to me from Virgin records which seemed to just fade away. The A&R guy who was in charge of the whole thing took a hike and that was that. So it goes.I wasn't sure where all this music thing would go, so at the ripe old age of 20, I took a job as a carpenters helper to provide me with an income for demos at the local recording studios. Who knew that this would turn into my REAL profession.I'm 47 now, and have no regrets. I still play and write, but now it's for fun. I haven't pushed a song in years. Maybe one day again? I've got a ton of them. Some good, some so-so. Hey, you can't hit a grand slam everytime up to bat.Enjoying playing and writing music more these days........some things do improve with age.......Ed.
*I can play three chords on the guitar, so I guess that makes me a musician. The only trouble is that only one of those three chords ever seems to be required in any one song. Slainte, RJ.
*About 14 or so months back I had someone use a copyrighted image of mine to advertise their product. They didn't ask my permission to use it, nor of course did they even think to pay me for the right to use that image. When I questioned them about this, and pointed out that they were infringing my copyright, that they could continue using it for a fee, including payment for previous unauthorised usage of my image, and acknowledgement in future usage of my ownership, etc., the organisation in question started back pedalling pretty fast. The image was gone from their promotional material in a big hurry. I even raised the issue here as a topic; I got lots of good advice and interesting opinions too. This doesn't really have any direct bearing on the original question, but I thought it might be of general interest. Slainte, RJ.
*NOTE: I am not a lawyer, but work in the world of intellectual property (as I'm sure several of you do) and have had to deal with these issues from time-to-time. There seems to be a bit of confusion...i Anything can be copyrighted just by saying it is. Actually, you don't even have to say it. Creating an original piece of intellectual property (photo, writing, floor plans, drawing, painting, music, etc...) automatically is copyrighted, with the creator being the copyright holder.You are also allowed to make derivative work. Ie, you can take a famous painting, and then paint over it with a collage. You would then own the copyright on that derivative piece of work (the original copyright owner WOULD own the original piece, however, and you would have had to properly license it from them).i The point in saying "Copyright 20XX, All Rights Reserved" is that it gives some legitimacy when filing a lawsuit for infringment. Not really. SAYING something is Copyrighted merely points that fact out. Registering a copyright is what you'd want to do for greater protection.i The big question is, would you prevail in court. And therein lies the problem with copyright/trademark/patent law...it is a HUGE grey area...sadly, often the one with bigger lawyers is the one that wins...i Designs can be trademarked (the small TM),Only designs that are being used as an actual Trademark, though, such as logos like Spam, Kleenex, Nike, Bob's Contruction, etc...i and then can be registered (the small circled R). The distinction carries weight when trying to prevent trademark infringement. Very much so. Anyone can call their logotype/workmark/logo/what-have-you as their trademark...and one should if they are using it as such, but for better legal protection you take the time to register it via a trademark lawyer.i If Tauton says stuff posted on their board becomes their copyrighted material, it's hard to argue--they get to use the material without owing the authors for it, even if you claim your writings belong to you. This has to do with the terms of service agreement that is attached to the use of this bulletin board. This is still a concept that is debated a lot. A lot of large online providers have tried to use the same type of TOS and have gotten lambasted in the media and by the public for doing so. (BTW, I doubt taunton has any ill intentions, as I'm sure it is a generic TOS that their lawyer put together.) The big issue is that by merely posting an item to a forum, can that forum owner take over the rights of the copyright by default? This is a scary proposition, as anyone posting a photo of theirs automatically loose their copyright to said photo when they post it here.i If a post here contains a quote from (or link to) any source other than the author's copyrighted material, the post is an infringment of the owner's rights.Not true. That is merely citing material. That is still legal. There have been a few court cases regarding the legality of linking to a site, and the issue has flipped-floppes a few times, but I believe the last verdict was that it is completely legal to link to somewhere else. Quoting is perfectly legal provided you cite your source.i Ryan, I use Kinko's frequently, especially for copying blueprints, and no one ever asks about copyrights, although there are signs posted. If they lost big, why aren't they more careful?I believe they have their own TOS now stating that any copying of copyrighted material is the sole responsibility of the store patron, not Kinkos.i About 14 or so months back I had someone use a copyrighted image of mine to advertise their product. They didn't ask my permission to use it, nor of course did they even think to pay me for the right to use that image.Did you ever get any $$$ from them? If it was a significant amount of promotion material, you have a legal right to sue for all money generated from said promotional item. ie, if it was a national magazine ad, and the only ad they had in those 14 months, you may be entitled to a large portion of their revenue this past year. (I'm not saying you SHOULD do that, but if did want to teach them a lessen, you might want to have a lawyer draft a letter and see if they'd be willing to settle).As quite a few people have pointed out, Copyright law is VERY complicated. If you are ever in a position where you may have the opportunity to generate some revenue from intellectual property you've created, do not hesitate to get a lawyer involved for your protection.Also note that if any of you generate custom plans, designs, etc..., you may want to have a copyright clause in your contract. Typically, the purchaser is merely licensing your design for use in a specific matter, and you retain the actual copyright. Having that in writing doesn't hurt.-Darrel
*darrel1, You said, i "Did you ever get any $$$ from them? If it was a significant amount of promotion material, you have a legal right to sue for all money generated from said promotional item, etc."No I didn't. I wasn't interested. It was a college in England advertising one of their woodworking courses. I've worked in that particular field of education, so I knew they had no money. They used my copyrighted image of a piece of furniture I designed and made. The piece was featured in an article I wrote that was published in a British magazine- and also latterly in an American magazine- and the British magazine 'gave' the college the image. The implication seemed to be in the advertising that was published in the self same internationally read British magazine that one of their students, or a member of their staff, made the piece. If I recall correctly, my opening gambit was to phone the head of the furniture department at the college and I asked if I could commission the maker of that piece to make a similar piece for me, or was that item available for sale, and where could I see it with the intention of perhaps of buying it? There was a bit of bluster at that end, and I informed him that the piece was actually in a gallery in Houston TX., and that I designed and made it, and that I owned the copyright on the specific image they were using, so how could they imply by association (if you like) that someone in England designed and made the thing. The conversation became very interesting. I offered to go to the college for a month and teach someone how to make a cabinet exactly like that, all expenses paid, etc.. That was when the back pedalling became earnest. I followed up the conversation with a registered delivery letter laying out my terms for settlement of their infringement of my copyright. My letter was pretty much off the cuff, but incorporated suggestions from contributors to this forum. I'm no lawyer, but they dropped the use of my image like a hot potato, and I was happy with that. Interestingly, since then, an author in the US has contacted me for permission to use an image of that specific piece for a part in a book on woodworking that he is writing for Cambium Books. I've agreed to that as long as certain conditions are met. But the point is that he had the good manners to ask first! Slainte, RJ.
*If you post something on a public forum (and this is a public forum) with no expectation of remuneration; then aren't your rights forthwith denigrated ? Taunton has fully disclosed their intent to select a subset of materials from this forum for inclussion in their copyrighted materials with attention paid to ascribing authorship.A link, provided it doesn't circumvent an established fee being paid or substantially alters the way the materials could be normally viewed (like linking directly to a copyrighted piece of artwork or photograph that was intended to be viewed within a larger page) wouldn't be a violation either, would it ?
*Phill, you talk funny sometimes. Joe H
*heh heh heh
*Where's Perry Mason when we need him.
*Phill -- My daughter did some research on the issue on the Misc.legal news group. It appears that at one time a news group was going to print a book of postings. The postings included some material with third party copyrights. The project was dropped due to copyright problems.As far as links go ...A copyright owner holds the distribution rights to his material, that means control of the links. A site owner also owns the site name and can control who uses that name for business purposes.There are some fair use issues, but, in general, unless the initial post includes substantial discussion of the quoted or linked material the link most likely infringes on one of these two rights.The nice thing about courts is that they decide on the issue brought before them. It is possible that the same court could hear two cases regarding links and decide one way on the copyright issue, and the other way on the business use issue.-------I try to make a court's job easy. I set a use fee for my pages on my copyright page. When I point the use fee out to an infringer, they usually quickly remove the offending material. When I point the use fee and a forum's guidelines out to a court, that is sufficient to provide a quick decision in my favor.-------But as a fellow posted above I was 0 for 2, I may be 0 for 4 now. Always get legal help from a professional.
*Darrel....many thanks for your insites!near the stream a tad wiser for a day or so...aj
*The Fishclamp.I bet that's like the Fish Carburetor from the '70s!Remember that? It got 100mpg and the Fuel/Auto/Government conspiracy kept it from ever going into production.VBG.
*
I notice in another discussion that Mr Fusco has a copyright notice in his signature block. If it was a complicated graphic I'd think it was maybe that. If it was his company name then it should be Registered. So, maybe he is intending to copyright his posts and his pride of authorship.
Since Taunton clearly says they have all rights to these posts maybe some clarification is in order.
What gives?