"rf" and others. - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: "rf" and others.

Oli Filth wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me  ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Re: "rf" and others.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ah, yes, of course. By 'paid for' I meant paid a photographer to take
for you. I suppose even then you would have to agree the copyright of
the image be transferred to you.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's just the example I thought of when I started reading your reply.
Of course, if you'd paid someone to produce the software for you,
copyright could be yours.

I see a lot of PHP job offers that insist you give them copyright over
whatever code you write. I've never had to do that as the jobs always go
to some guy in India for $5.

While we're doing image copyright, do you know of any companies in the
UK that will accept images online and sell them as prints? Sort of like
Cafepress, but good.

Daniel Ruscoe
http://www.danruscoe.com /

Re: "rf" and others.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:10:12 +0000 SpaceGirl wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The simple calendar itself is not copyrightable.
Photographs, and other items placed on it are.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If I take a picture of a building, then edit it so the building is shown
twisted out of shape, in essence, that is a parody. It is not copyrightable.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which I have stated many times.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Who's to say I didn't do the precise same work on my own?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: "rf" and others.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, it is copyright.  You would own the copyright for both the
original photo and the edited picture.
The fair use definition of parody would not even come close to
applying in that case.


Re: "rf" and others.

Richard wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

True, but not likely. You'd still end up with the same result, therefor
end up slapped around the head for copyright. Someone else did it first.
I'm not a lawyer either, but you have to be pretty careful when it comes
to (c). If you didn't create the image from scratch yourself (which you
freely admited) then *someone* copied it from somewhere didn't they,
even if it wasn't you?


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

Re: "rf" and others.

Richard wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The whole product is copyrighted.

As stated earlier, you have no idea of what you are talking about. So it
would be preferable if you just shut up, and stop demonstrating your

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you took the picture and altered it, it is.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is not a parody, it is an artistic expression and therefor
copyrighted. And even the parody can be copyrighted.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

A common statement made by those who have no clue at all.


Poetry and thoughts < http://www.vision2form.nl/personal-uk.html

Re: "rf" and others.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:10:12 +0000 SpaceGirl wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not quite.
"fair use" has to deal with using someone else's work "in part".
Like that of a newspaper quoting another source.
Or as we see in websites, a paragraph taken from a book and commented on.
An image taken from another site and used without permission for commentary
Such as one might do with their favorite tv show.

"Fair use" is part of the copyright law. It is not superceded in any way.

"Far use" does not involve the outright marketing of a work for your own

"Public domain" means basically, works not protected by copyright.

The question still remains, is the work claimed by duende his own original
work entirely? Or did he merely "morph" an image that was in "public
Unless he can show that 100% of the work was of his own doing, he can not
claim copyright.

Re: "rf" and others.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

There are stipulations to Fair Use thoughts; you cannot just take and
share - even if for sake of discussion. It is just not that

Quoted text here. Click to load it

There are around 2 to 3 other vague clauses of thought also under the
Fair Use header. Profit is not the only thought around Fair Use

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And why is it not protected by copyrights is an important thought also
in relation to Public Domain thoughts - either the copyrights have
expired or the person that has claims to copyrights VOLUNTARILY placed
the item into Public Domain.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Whose to say the original image was ever in the public domain?

You have broadly painted what falls into Public Domain - and too
broadly painted at that.

You and I can stand side-by-side and take a picture of a tree or
someone's eye. I can retain all claims of copyright to that image
while you decree your copy to being Public Domain. Just because you
placed yours into the header of Public Domain doesn't mean that my
photographs are then also considered Public Domain. You cannot take my
images and morph them or modify them then display it withOUT my
permission in advance.

Go to some sites that offer free background sets and many of them have
a terms of use where you, if wishing to use any of those sets, agree
to NOT modify [resize, change colors, morph parts of the design, et
al] the images. You can add text to the "buttons" and "banners" but
that's about it. Want a set modified more than that? Contact the
person and ask them to modify it for you.

Likewise, if Duende lifted then altered a copyrighted image - this
does not absolve you if the original copyright holder of the original
image stumbles across your site and files a DMCA with your site host
over the image; you still run the risk of your site host deleting your
site solely by lifting the image from another site. Duende could have
had permission from the original copyright holder that you don't have.

You don't know because you didn't care to ask prior to using the image
on your site. But later claims of "not knowing" or "misinterpreting
the laws" may not help you either as it can be argues you would have
been either granted or denied permission, therefore KNOW, simply if
you had asked in the first place versus just taking "'cause it is on a
website" type thought.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Evidence has been shared by himself and others sharing that it was
Duende's original work.

No one but you has disputed he has any claims to the image - but then
again you have also admitted to lifting the image from his site and to
using it without asking Duende about the legal status of the image to
begin with.

I also imaging the time stamp of when it was uploaded to his site will
differ and pre-date the time stamp on your site[s] where you have
uploaded the image to. I bet, hazarding a guess, that you do not have
a copy of the original unaltered image file so any altering of the
copy taken from Duende's site can still fall under copyright
infringement thoughts. None of the arguments you have presented have
made a difference as you have tried to apply too broad of
interpretations to those arguments.

I really don't understand why you are stomping your feet about it and
don't just do what Duende politely asked: cease using the image in
question. It is not an unreasonable request on his side and all the
attempts to argue the fact have only shared, in my opinion, that you
do not fully understand the laws you are tryignt o cite as part of
your defense ploy.

Sorry but I fail to see why you persist in dragging this out and just
making yourself look worse in the process.


Re: "rf" and others.

Thus spake Richard:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

<cents value="2">

Fuck the law.  A thief is a thief.  If you took something from someone,
you have stolen your integrity, too.


Journeys: http://www.journeys.ws /

There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. -

I find it sad....

  I find it sad that a news group I have been quietly reading for useful
tips for many years has gone the way of so many other decent groups, a flame
war group.

  I don't wish to get involved in this argument, but I also don't wish to
waste my precious download time, download this argument either.

  Here are a few very useful sites (written in layman's terms)  that may or
may not resolve the
argument.  I'm hoping it will.  I have used the sites myself to enlighten me
in this same topic when I placed my site on line.  As the copyright law can
be very
confusing, like any legal area.  Unless you know it that is. :-()


http://www.whatiscopyright.org /


Have a happy week one and all!

Re: I find it sad....

Anonymous wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
a flame

I don't see that happening.  I have been involved in the group for over
3 years now, and it has not changed dynamics at all.

You have good informative threads, and silly ones, and flame ones.  You
also have  people in the know, people that think they know, people that
don't know, and trolls.  Just like every other group.
Picking and choosing your threads. That is the key.


Site Timeline