SGW - Was it worth it?

[_Joseph]

Sock puppte wroe: "Pictures are not the problem. Known violation of copyrighted and trademarked materials are. How would you know if someone's paragraph hasn't been lifted and pasted into a post, from an obscur but copyrighted source?"

***********************************

One problem here. Small sections quoted are 'fair use' under US Copyright law. Otherwise no one could quote book passages in reviews.


Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569 (E.D. Va. 1996).)

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... 9/9-c.html

As for the pornwriter and his photo.

I will bet anyone here the guy did NOT formally register his photos he published on his website either before, or within 90 days of publication.

If he did not, they are not under the protection of US Copyright laws and he is full of BS and posted a DMCA takedown notice that may rise to the level of fraud. That is a matter for the US Attorneys General to take up.

Check this one out for more information. http://asmp.org/tutorials/published-or-unpublished.html

[_Jersey Girl]

harm

See Rule #7. It's already in place. Obviously it didn't work.

harm, Rule #7 doesn't cover this recent event.

[_beastie]

SGW was not an MDB member at the time of CK's thread. No rules were violated in discussing SGW's in real life identity.

I stand corrected. I thought he was already a member.

[_sock puppet]

Sock puppte wroe: "Pictures are not the problem. Known violation of copyrighted and trademarked materials are. How would you know if someone's paragraph hasn't been lifted and pasted into a post, from an obscur but copyrighted source?"

***********************************

One problem here. Small sections quoted are 'fair use' under US Copyright law. Otherwise no one could quote book passages in reviews.


Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569 (E.D. Va. 1996).)

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... 9/9-c.html

As for the pornwriter and his photo.

I will bet anyone here the guy did NOT formally register his photos he published on his website either before, or within 90 days of publication.

If he did not, they are not under the protection of US Copyright laws and he is full of BS and posted a DMCA takedown notice that may rise to the level of fraud. That is a matter for the US Attorneys General to take up.

Check this one out for more information. http://asmp.org/tutorials/published-or-unpublished.html

Well, yes, after all, Joe Biden is now the Vice President.

Seriously though, if the photo is cropped a bit beyond its full copyrighted splendor, then there you go.

And copyrights are not limited to entire treatises, but often to short catch phrases which could be used in toto without Dr Shades knowing it.

[_Jersey Girl]

Ban Joseph.

There is no point in banning Joseph. He'd still be able to view the board and make reports as he sees fit.

Sheesh.

[_harmony]

In reality, SGW has used legal tools to commit an act of terrorism against MDB, its owners and host.

And we're just supposed to assume no one... none of those people who have been targeted for over a decade by some of our members... are going to figure out how to do it again? And again. And again...

Hey! Maybe this debacle will result in SGW getting a job with the church?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Stak,

If we can have Ms. Moniker banned (and I still don't really know why she was banned), then we can ban some dude who is an idiot who got the board shut down.

Fer cereal.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_harmony]

Hello Mr. Stak,

If we can have Ms. Moniker banned (and I still don't really know why she was banned), then we can ban some dude who is an idiot who got the board shut down.

for cereal.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Froot Loops?

[_RockSlider]

Harmony,

I think one of the best threads ever on this board was the picture thread.

[_cafe crema]

In reality, SGW has used legal tools to commit an act of terrorism against MDB, its owners and host.

And we're just supposed to assume no one... none of those people who have been targeted for over a decade by some of our members... are going to figure out how to do it again? And again. And again...

Hey! Maybe this debacle will result in SGW getting a job with the church?

But words can do all the same things that happened in this.

Words can be used as a weapon, often far more viciously than a picture.
Words can reveal a persons family, which is more frightening to have your child's face shown or where they go to school revealed?
Words can violate a copyright.
Words can result in frivolous lawsuits.
Words can make people retaliate.
How are words any less dangerous than pictures?