ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/fractint/archive/v01.n522

Internet Message Format | 2000-12-28 | 39.2 KB

From: [e-mail] (fractint-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: fractint-digest V1 #522
Reply-To: fractint-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


fractint-digest       Friday, December 29 2000       Volume 01 : Number 522




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 21:47:21 -0800
From: jerome schatten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) What is protected by copyright law?

Bob Margolis wrote:
>
> What is protected by copyright law?
>
>        Your artwork is your intellectual property, and it is protected by
>        copyright law.
>
>        Your art (graphics, photos, music, etc.) becomes protected by
>        copyright when you take it from an idea or concept and make it into
>        something fixed and tangible. The basic requirements that a work of art
>        must meet to qualify for copyright protection are:
>
>             It must be original. The artwork must be original, not copied
>             from anything else.
>             It must be creative. The artwork must show at least a minimum
>             amount of creativity.
>

Err... and just who is the arbiter of creativity? If I don't think your
work
creative, can I use it, reproduce it, sell it? No? Then  how to test it
for
creativity?

Simple Jerome

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 23:57:36 -0600
From: Bob Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) What is protected by copyright law?

jerome schatten wrote:
>

>
> Err... and just who is the arbiter of creativity? If I don't think your
> work
> creative, can I use it, reproduce it, sell it? No? Then  how to test it
> for
> creativity?
>
> Simple Jerome
>


Dear Simple;

It's a good thing you don't work in the copyright office. With your
standards, it'll be difficult for one to get a copyright.
:-)

Notice the words "minimum amount of creativity." It has to show *some*
creativeness. Let's not get philosophical here. If you want to argue
about the copyright law and it's legal interpretations, this is not the
forum to do so, and I'm not about to bore others here nit-picking every
sentence of the Copyright Law as you seek to complicate matters. Consult
an attorney dealing in copyright law with your questions.

Bob

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 22:24:23 -0800
From: Ken Childress <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Bah Humbug (For Bob)

At 08:30 PM 12/27/00, you wrote:
>>Would you please discuss the above?
>
>Certainly. I think this thread is quite appropriately named -- the lot of
>you who are getting so concerned about copyright law are acting an awful
>lot like Ebeneezer Scrooge. I think the Grateful Dead have a much more
>enlightened approach to things...

But then, you've publicly promoted theft of programs like UltraFractal,
so I wouldn't expect you to respect Bob's position.

While I've disagreed with Bob on some points about posting parameters,
I fully agree with his position regarding the use of his images.


Ken...



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 22:33:04 -0800
From: jerome schatten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) What is protected by copyright law?

Bob Margolis wrote:
>
> jerome schatten wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Err... and just who is the arbiter of creativity? If I don't think your
> > work
> > creative, can I use it, reproduce it, sell it? No? Then  how to test it
> > for
> > creativity?
> >
> > Simple Jerome
> >
>
> Dear Simple;
>
> It's a good thing you don't work in the copyright office. With your
> standards, it'll be difficult for one to get a copyright.
> :-)
>
> Notice the words "minimum amount of creativity." It has to show *some*
> creativeness. Let's not get philosophical here. If you want to argue
> about the copyright law and it's legal interpretations, this is not the
> forum to do so, and I'm not about to bore others here nit-picking every
> sentence of the Copyright Law as you seek to complicate matters. Consult
> an attorney dealing in copyright law with your questions.
>
> Bob
>
Yeah... and just what is the 'minimum' standard?  Law, my man, is
philosophy carved in stone.  I'm sorry you think this topic boring.
I can't imagine that someone wrote copywrite law with the phrase
'minimum amount of creativity' embedded in it. But who knows...
I'm just a dairy farmer.
Simple Jerome

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:23:47 -0500
From: davides <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Bah Humbug (For Bob)

At 11:30 PM 12/27/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>>Would you please discuss the above?
>
>Certainly. I think this thread is quite appropriately named -- the lot of=
=20
>you who are getting so concerned about copyright law are acting an awful=
 lot=20
>like Ebeneezer Scrooge. I think the Grateful Dead have a much more=20
>enlightened approach to things...

I wasn't aware you were named Bob.
[e-mail]
http://www.mbfractals.com/usergal/davides.html
http://home.pipeline.com/~davides

^  ^
0=BF0
 _

New Windows Message:
Press any key except... no, No, NO, NOT THAT ONE!

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:34:05 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (fractint) Stolen? Artwork

I've been reading a lot on the list lately about the always-
interesting topic of copyright infringement.  Perhaps I should
tell of my experience in this area.  About five years ago I had
the idea of designing and marketing a set of twelve birthday
cards with an Astrological theme.  To create some rough designs
I scanned some published art of others and combined it with art
of my own creation.

I originally had not intended on using the borrowed art, but
some of the designs were so successful that I decided to send
samples of my designs to those whose art I had borrowed, asking
for permission to use their art, and offering of course a
percentage of any profits.

I sent out twelve samples to twelve different artists.  Of these
twelve artists, only nine replied.  Of these nine, one approved
strongly, four gave simple permission, three tersely denied
permission, and one was so outraged that I had dared to violate
her art that she gave a personal phone call not only to deny
permission, but to vigorously scold me for my infringement.  The
crux of her argument was that I had not first consulted her
before changing and using her art.

Having been subjected to such an attack, I assumed that the
artist had been taken advantage of in the past, and wanted no
further use made of her published art.  But what was I to make
of the whole experience?  Is it proper to borrow the work of
others and use it in one's own work before consulting the owner?
There is no objective answer.  In my case, out of nine
respondents, five said it is proper and four said it is wrong.
It depends on the feelings of the artist whose work is being
borrowed.  I can only conclude that Bob has every right to feel
as he does, and those contradicting him have every right to feel
as they do.

Every month I receive a couple requests to use my FOTD fractal
images on a web page or CD cover, etc.  I usually give
permission.  If someone manages to make some money in the
process, so be it.  It would be them who exerted the effort to
market their product and make the money.  I put very little
effort into the creation of the images, and I make no effort to
market them.  To me, creating fractals is an exploration of the
world of numbers rather than an expression of art.  However I do
put effort into the FOTD discussions, which I still plan to
collect some day and edit into a book.  If I saw someone
blatantly profiting from my literary work, I would most likely
take action.

IMO, in this debate, both sides are partly right and both sides
are partly wrong.

This having been said, the C-FOTD will return on
January 3, 2001.


Jim Muth
temporarily  <[e-mail]>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:40:26 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (fractint) What is protected by copyright law?

- --part1_e6.f65911e.277d539a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 12/27/2000 10:35:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[e-mail] writes:


> I can't imagine that someone wrote copywrite law with the phrase
>


Lawyers put enough "vaguery" in their wording so it can be subject to
interpretation and thus create continuing income for themselves!  As  we've
all seen in the past few years, if you pay the right lawyer the right amount
of money, even the most incriminating evidence can be overturned (with the
right media soundbytes).

Its a simple concept.  Guaranteed source of income............provided its
'minimally' clear and concise.....

- --part1_e6.f65911e.277d539a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 12/27/2000 10:35:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>[e-mail] writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I can't imagine that someone wrote copywrite law with the phrase
<BR>'minimum amount of creativity' embedded in it. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Lawyers put enough "vaguery" in their wording so it can be subject to <BR>interpretation and thus create continuing income for themselves!  As  we've <BR>all seen in the past few years, if you pay the right lawyer the right amount <BR>of money, even the most incriminating evidence can be overturned (with the <BR>right media soundbytes).
<BR>
<BR>Its a simple concept.  Guaranteed source of income............provided its <BR>'minimally' clear and concise.....</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_e6.f65911e.277d539a_boundary--

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:15:12 +1300
From: "Morgan L. Owens" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) What is protected by copyright law?

At 21:40 28/12/2000 -0500, Khemyst wrote:
>In a message dated 12/27/2000 10:35:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>[e-mail] writes:
>
>
>>I can't imagine that someone wrote copywrite law with the phrase
>>'minimum amount of creativity' embedded in it.
>
>
>
>Lawyers put enough "vaguery" in their wording so it can be subject to
>interpretation and thus create continuing income for themselves!  As  we've
>all seen in the past few years, if you pay the right lawyer the right amount
>of money, even the most incriminating evidence can be overturned (with the
>right media soundbytes).
>
>Its a simple concept.  Guaranteed source of income............provided its
>'minimally' clear and concise.....

And I thought legislation was made by politicians, well - you live and learn.

Because I was interested, and capable of making such a search on my own, I
looked up my country's copyright law. It was interesting that fractal art -
unless it's printed - somehow manages to slip through, apparently not
qualifying as neither "computer-generated" nor as a "graphic work" by the
definitions given of those phrases. But then, I'm neither a lawyer nor a
politician.

"Creativity" gets only a very small mention, and "minimum creativity" is
not used, but the defintiion of "artistic work" _does_ state that it holds
regardless of artistic quality.

Morgan L. Owens
"And it took me all of quarter of an hour."


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:45:15 -0600
From: Bob Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) What is protected by copyright law?

jerome schatten wrote:
>
> I'm sorry you think this topic boring.

I never said *I* found it boring. I indicated that others may be bored
about the constant chatter here that is becoming off topic in may ways.

> I can't imagine that someone wrote copywrite law with the phrase
> 'minimum amount of creativity' embedded in it. But who knows...
> I'm just a dairy farmer.


I can tell by the way you spell copyright "copywrite" after this subject
has been pounded for several days on the keyboards. :-D

Bob

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 01:17:23 -0600
From: Bob Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Stolen? Artwork

[e-mail] wrote:
>

> There is no objective answer.  In my case, out of nine
> respondents, five said it is proper and four said it is wrong.
> It depends on the feelings of the artist whose work is being
> borrowed.  I can only conclude that Bob has every right to feel
> as he does, and those contradicting him have every right to feel
> as they do.

Sorry to disagree with you, Jim, there is an objective answer and it's
called copyright law. Those artists who allowed you to use their artwork
in your birthday card project, and did not which to receive
compensation, gave you permission *before* you made the set of cards.
Those who denied you permission had every right to do so since some of
the designs you wanted to use in your set of cards belonged to them.

The discussion here has centered on my artwork being taken and displayed
at a Web site before permission was asked of me to do so. That's what's
in complete violation of the 24-year-old American Copyright Law, and
international copyright law, too. Please read the thread I wrote
yesterday showing that portion of copyright law that pertains directly
with this discussion.

It's not a matter here of whether people here agree with my position or
not. It's whether they agree with what's stipulated in copyright law. If
artwork is taken and used without permission of the original artist,
that is not violating *Bob's Law* but that of copyright convention. I
stand by my principles because I'm supported by case law, If I didn't
have that support, then I would be less outspoken about it, I suppose,
but I would work to get such law enacted.

You, Jim, have principles, which you've cited here. You asked the
artists if it's okay to use their designs *before* making your cards,
not afterwards. You showed respect toward those artists in the way you
handled the situation. I was shown disrespect by Mr. Miller, who
displayed his CD covers at his Web site using my artwork on one of the
covers, who told me what he had done *after* doing it.

Had I been one of those you contacted beforehand to use my artwork, I
would have given a polite *no.* I wouldn't have flown off the handle
like some of those who turned down your request. After all, you were
simply asking a question of them, nothing more. Why they became irate, I
don't understand, because you did not violate their copyright holding at
that point in your project.

There is a big difference in these two cases discussed here. You sought
permission beforehand, Mr. Miller sought it after the fact. And it was
Mr. Miller who broke copyright law, not you.

Bob

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 01:33:19 -0600
From: Bob Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Stolen? Artwork

Bob Margolis wrote:
>

> Sorry to disagree with you, Jim, there is an objective answer and it's
> called copyright law. Those artists who allowed you to use their artwork
> in your birthday card project, and did not which to receive...


He meant to write:

Sorry to disagree with you, Jim, there is an objective answer and it's
called copyright law. Those artists who allowed you to use their artwork
in your birthday card project, and did not wish to receive...
                                           ^^^^

Looks as if the copyreading key on my keyboard is broken. :-D

Bob

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:39:25 -0600
From: Bob Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractint) Re: reality check

Programmer Dude wrote:
>
>
> Maybe some kind soul should generate some nice *free* fractals to send
> to the Dead Head to use on his CDs, and we can let Bob go the way .ARC
> files went (and .GIF files are soon to go).
>

Dear Dude;

What would your position be if the person who wanted to use your *free*
fractal on his CD cover was a neo-Nazi, a White Supremicist, or the
KKK's Grand Dragon (if you detest these groups, of course)? Or a Pro
Lifer (if you're pro abortion) or a Pro Abortionist (if you're pro
life)? Or some other group that espouses opinions 180 degrees from
yours? Would you adopt this same "free-for-all" attitude then? What if
you don't particularly want to associate yourself with a certain group
even though your opinions were similar but you didn't care for them on
other grounds? Would you feel then that it is okay for them to use your
artwork without seeking permission from you?

Is all artwork posted on the Internet supposed to be *free* for the
taking, no questions asked?

Is it *toughies* for any artist who chooses to make a living by selling
artwork over the Internet, because people such as you believe things in
life should be *free* to them?

Do you believe that all people who honor and respect copyright laws
should join me in going the way .ARC files went?

Do you find copyright laws silly and an inconvenience to you?

If any of your rights would be violated, would that be okay with you?

I'd like to read your answers to these questions?

Bob

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:41:12 -0500
From: "Barry N. Merenoff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Stolen? Artwork

Dear Bob,

I have an idea for a fractal algorithm that, as far as I know, uses
original concepts. I would be capable of writing my own C++ or Visual Bas=
ic
source code for it, but I haven't done so yet. The resulting fractal migh=
t
look like something I've seen on a web site. However, I cannot be sure,
because I haven't made it yet. If I were to take on this project, would I=

be obliged to inform the author of that web site of my algorithm, so he
could compare it with his own? If I did so, wouldn't he then be able to u=
se
it for fractals of his own?

Does not putting fractals on a web site prevent such issues? If so,
wouldn't people be afraid to put fractals on a web site because they'd be=

worried about what you, as an enforcer of copyright law, would think of
their doing so?

Sincerely,
        Collin

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:44:58 -0500
From: "Barry N. Merenoff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractint) Re: reality check

Message text written by INTERNET:[e-mail]
>Or some other group that espouses opinions 180 degrees from
yours?<

Then why don't you just be honest and admit that the reason you don't wan=
t
Mr. Miller to use your work is that you don't like the Grateful Dead? (Th=
is
seems to be what you're implying.)

Sincerely,
        Collin

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:55:06 -0600
From: Programmer Dude <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) What is protected by copyright law?

"Morgan L. Owens" wrote:

>> Lawyers put enough "vaguery" in their wording so it can be subject to
>> interpretation and thus create continuing income for themselves!
>
> And I thought legislation was made by politicians, well - you live and
> learn.

Heh.  Where do you think most politicians come from?  Many of them used
to *be* lawyers!

- --
|_ CJSonnack <[e-mail]> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:50:43 -0600
From: Programmer Dude <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: reality check

Bob Margolis wrote:

> What would your position be if the person who wanted to use your *free*
> fractal on his CD cover was a neo-Nazi, a White Supremicist, or the
> KKK's Grand Dragon (if you detest these groups, of course)?

Are you comparing Dead Heads to neo-Nazis or White Supremicists or KKKs?
Are you saying that the *real* reason for your attitude is that you detest
Dead Heads or what they stand for?

Hmmmm.

These comparisons are specious.  It was an *individual* who liked your
art work and thought it was worth honoring by using.  Your response, no
matter how *legally* justified it may (or may not) have been, was unkind
to that individual.  He may have been well-meaning but ignorant.

> Or some other group that espouses opinions 180 degrees from yours?

If I posted artwork on my website, and if someone else contacted me and
actually asked permission, and if I had reasonable perception that they
were not using my artwork for financial gain, and *most importantly* if
they were doing this on a *personal* level rather than a corporate or
organizational level.....

Yes, almost certainly.  My world's big enough for people with opinions
180 degrees different from mine, and I don't feel the need to attempt
to control or thwart them just because I don't agree with them.

Further, if I had art work which I considered sellable, from which *I*
expected personal, financial gain, I sure wouldn't post it on my web
site for the whole world to see.  Not in hi-rez format, anyway.

What I *do* (or will someday) post on my web site *is* free for personal
use.  I happen to like the freeware attitude of Fractint, Irfan View, vim
and many, many others.  That we are given life, that our presence here in
this group implies we are granted a pretty darned good life filled with
shelter, food, friends.... to me that calls for giving something back,
and if someone thinks enough of my work (considering the available ocean
of work out there) to want to use it.... I think that's great.

> What if you don't particularly want to associate yourself with a
> certain group even though your opinions were similar but you didn't
> care for them on other grounds?

I don't think that way, nor live my life that way.

> Would you feel then that it is okay for them to use your artwork
> without seeking permission from you?

But that's not what happened, is it, Bob.  He *sought* your permission,
and, AIUI, removed your art after your reply.

> Is all artwork posted on the Internet supposed to be *free* for the
> taking, no questions asked?

Regardless of the legal issues, that's pretty  much the way it works out.

If you don't like it, tough, that's life.  Deal with it.  Incorporate
your copyright *into* the image as many others do.  Add a watermark to
the image.  Use the image comment capability.  Don't post hi-rez work on
a *public*, international internet.

> Is it *toughies* for any artist who chooses to make a living by selling
> artwork over the Internet, because people such as you believe things in
> life should be *free* to them?

Yes.  ;-)

Sorry, you deserved that reply, since you've mis-represented my position.
For genuine answer, see previous paragraph.

Here's a comparison for you.  Certain drugs are illegal, but that doesn't
stop them from being widely available to those that want'm.  The law alone
isn't enough to protect your precious artwork from use by others.  It's
up to YOU to do that.  If Mr. Miller had never contacted you, you'd never
have known.  For all you know, there's a dozen people out there who *are*
using your artwork.

> Do you believe that all people who honor and respect copyright laws
> should join me in going the way .ARC files went?

Again, you're mis-representin'.

I *do* think people with attitudes like yours are *doomed* to go the way
of .ARC files.  And, perhaps, rightfully so.  The digital age is changing
many aspects of life we previously took for granted.  It calls for a new
mind set.

> Do you find copyright laws silly and an inconvenience to you?
> If any of your rights would be violated, would that be okay with you?

Sheeze, talk about mis-representing.  Not worth answering.

> I'd like to read your answers to these questions?

[grin] What does the question mark at the end mean?  You're not sure if
you'd like to read my answers?

- --
|_ CJSonnack <[e-mail]> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:54:24 -0500
From: Mike Traynor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) U.S. Code pertaining to copyrights is at

Bob Margolis wrote:
>
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/

(BTW, the same info is available at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/ in
a less annoying format.)

A quick read of Sec. 506 - Criminal offenses doesn't seem to
support a characterization of Mr Miller's actions as criminal
(use of "theft" and analogy with taking tangible personal property).

I'm trying to make the point that there is a difference, and one the
law makes, between infringement and infringement that rises to the level
of the criminal.  A distinction you are not making.

It would take case law research to figure out whether using a copyright
work to illustrate a proposed use for the purpose of seeking the copyright
holder's permission for that use would constitute fair use.

> One side respects copyright law, the other pooh-poohs it and regards such
> law as nonsense, or money-hungry attorney "legalese."

How about the third side (there are at least that many) that respects copyright
law but understands that infringement is not treated as theft by copyright law
and objects to seeing a person characterized as a thief because of the method
used to ask permission.

> It's the latter group who have taken me to task for defending my position
> that permission must be sought *before* using someone else's artwork, and
> not to request that permission after the fact.

Not accurate.  I've taken you to task for your characterization of Mr Miller's
actions as "theft".  Especially since, on such evidence as we have, it appears
he was acting in good faith, simply showed you what he wanted to do and dropped
it when told he couldn't.

Now, despite my thinking your reaction is over the top, I don't question your
right to decide how your image will be used, nor your decision not to allow
Mr Miller to use your images.  Whatever your reasons and even if you have
none at all but pique at his mocking up the CD covers before asking you.
One of the rights the artist has is the right to be arbitrary in deciding
how his image will be used.

> I don't like placing a copyright notice in my design for I feel it
> detracts from the picture I want to show, but I'm forced to do so
> because of copyright violators.

What is really needed is not the copyright notice but something to tell
recipients what they can do with the image1.  The fact that some folk
here think you go too far in describing what Mr Miller did as "theft"
and that some don't even think he did anything wrong (I'm not sure it
wasn't fair use - as long as it only served to illustrate the use so
you'd know exactly what was being asked and he desisted on your refusing)
shows that a mere copyright notice fails to clearly communicate what it
is you will allow a person to do.  When you post a upr you are granting
the recipients in the forum you post to an implied licence for some use,
but is it clear what the limits of that implied licence are?

Will you allow the image to be generated from the upr? [probably part of
the implied licence when posting]

Will you allow the image to be saved to some permanent medium (hard drive,
floppy, etc)? [likely not part of an implied licence]

Will you allow personal use, such as windows wallpaper, printing for personal
use? [not part of an implied licence]

As with Damien's post about what to do when there is a problem, I'm trying to
point out something practical to prevent problems in the future.  Because of
its nature, copyright is not exactly the same as other forms of property and
what folk other than the owner can do with it is less clear, particularly when
the owner is clearly giving permission for some use (as you are when posting
a upr).  Instead of relying on others having the same view of a complex and
rapidly changing area of law as you do, spell it out.

If you are worried about detracting from the image with legalese, put it like:

"Feel free to generate the image and save it for future viewing.  Please ask
me before doing something else with it."

just as an example of a fairly narrow licence.

Clear licence terms make for good relations between copyright holders and users.

Mike

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:57:04 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (fractint) What is protected by copyright law?

I find it hard to believe that this list has degenerated so with it's
writings.

- --Bob Carr--(Ocala, FL)


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:07:36 -0600
From: Programmer Dude <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) U.S. Code pertaining to copyrights is at

Mike Traynor wrote:

> Especially since, on such evidence as we have, it appears he was acting
> in good faith, simply showed you what he wanted to do and dropped it
> when told he couldn't.

Good post!  Well said!!

- --
|_ CJSonnack <[e-mail]> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:26:08 -0600
From: DeBow Freed II PhD <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractint) Traynor's contribution

Congrats from the peanut gallery for some legally informed and moderate
commentary.


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:36:18 -0800 (PST)
From: caren <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) What is protected by copyright law?

- --0-1432795212-978114978=:54530
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


 it does this every once in a while, and 'tis one of the reasons i keep the delete button handy...  of course, i had decades of practice on the old bulletin board systems where "conversations" similar to this would go on and on and on, until all respondents realized they'd said all they could and that the others were either gone, dead, or had realized the same thing...

and six months later, it would start again...  usually different topic, but same result...

the topic is important, but it's being beaten to death by people (on both sides of the issue) who aren't listening with an open ear...  it can easily be solved:  if the infringed believes in his case, he should take it to court and let the court decide...  you and i did this (with a number of others) a few years ago and prevailed...  what is important to remember is that no amount of conversation *here* is going to change long-held opinions...  if the infringed isn't going to take the case to court, the conversation should have ended quite some time ago, as an exercise in moot...


- -- caren park, monroe, washington state

  [e-mail] wrote:
I find it hard to believe that this list has degenerated so with it's
writings.

- --Bob Carr--(Ocala, FL)



- ---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
- --0-1432795212-978114978=:54530
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<P> it does this every once in a while, and 'tis one of the reasons i keep the delete button handy...  of course, i had decades of practice on the old bulletin board systems where "conversations" similar to this would go on and on and on, until all respondents realized they'd said all they could and that the others were either gone, dead, or had realized the same thing...</P>
<P>and six months later, it would start again...  usually different topic, but same result...</P>
<P>the topic is important, but it's being beaten to death by people (on both sides of the issue) who aren't listening with an open ear...  it can easily be solved:  if the infringed believes in his case, he should take it to court and let the court decide...  you and i did this (with a number of others) a few years ago and prevailed...  what is important to remember is that no amount of conversation *here* is going to change long-held opinions...  if the infringed isn't going to take the case to court, the conversation should have ended quite some time ago, as an exercise in moot...<BR></P>
<P>-- caren park, monroe, washington state</P>
<P>  <B><I>[e-mail]</I></B> wrote: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I find it hard to believe that this list has degenerated so with it's <BR>writings. <BR><BR>--Bob Carr--(Ocala, FL)<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
<a href="http://photos.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Photos</a> -
Share your holiday photos online!
- --0-1432795212-978114978=:54530--

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

End of fractint-digest V1 #522
******************************