scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Also I don't think any additional permission would be needed from
> authors simply to index the images in a different way. By uploading to
> p.b.i you are accepting that the images will be accessible by the public
> and sites like Google will index them.

Sounds reasonable, although IANAL.  How ever, it must be noted (and this is as
true of p.b.i as it is of The Google) that an implied permission to index a work
does not imply permission to /use/ it.  I wouldn't think that I should have to
point this out, but many people seem to be under the delusion that posting a
work to the Internet puts it in the public domain.

Posters have often given explicit permission to use images as wallpapers, for
example, but this would seem to fall under Fair Use or Fair Dealing in many
countries, anyway.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> But Dr. King's speech was in 1963, so even 70 years from then would still
> be 2033 if he'd died at the speech.
>
> So it doesn't even become an issue until 2038.

Actually, 2038 is when it /stops/ being an issue.  (Unless Congress extends the
term again.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.04.2013 20:49, schrieb Jim Henderson:

>> IANAL, but the concept of copyright in the American sense does not exist
>> in Germany. Instead, there is a set of author's rights ("Urheberrecht"),
>> and the heirs do get to exercise and benefit from these until so-many
>> years after the author's death (the duration depending on the type of
>> work AFAIK), after which the work passes on into the public domain.
>
> That's pretty much the way it works in the US, too - copyright is for the
> author's life + 70 years IIRC, and the rights are given to the copyright
> holder or the rights assignee (in some cases the publication), and after
> that period lapses, the work passes into the public domain.
>
> I'm not sure what's different between the German definition you gave and
> what I know of the US system (as a copyright holder).

One major difference is that German author's rights can't be sold or 
otherwise transferred to some other person or legal body.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 17.04.2013 20:49, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> > I'm not sure what's different between the German definition you gave and
> > what I know of the US system (as a copyright holder).
>
> One major difference is that German author's rights can't be sold or
> otherwise transferred to some other person or legal body.

Ooh, that would NEVER fly in the USA.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:13:47 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> But Dr. King's speech was in 1963, so even 70 years from then would
>> still be 2033 if he'd died at the speech.
>>
>> So it doesn't even become an issue until 2038.
> 
> Actually, 2038 is when it /stops/ being an issue.  (Unless Congress
> extends the term again.)

Well, it's when it stops being an issue for that particular speech.

But I wouldn't hold my breath on the term not being extended again.  The 
public domain in the US is essentially dead.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 04:34:57 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Am 17.04.2013 20:49, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> 
>>> IANAL, but the concept of copyright in the American sense does not
>>> exist in Germany. Instead, there is a set of author's rights
>>> ("Urheberrecht"),
>>> and the heirs do get to exercise and benefit from these until so-many
>>> years after the author's death (the duration depending on the type of
>>> work AFAIK), after which the work passes on into the public domain.
>>
>> That's pretty much the way it works in the US, too - copyright is for
>> the author's life + 70 years IIRC, and the rights are given to the
>> copyright holder or the rights assignee (in some cases the
>> publication), and after that period lapses, the work passes into the
>> public domain.
>>
>> I'm not sure what's different between the German definition you gave
>> and what I know of the US system (as a copyright holder).
> 
> One major difference is that German author's rights can't be sold or
> otherwise transferred to some other person or legal body.

That's interesting, I didn't know that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

On 17.04.2013 09:40, scott wrote:

> You can use Google image search on p.b.i by prefixing your search term with
>
> site:http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/
>
> That allows you to choose date, pixel size, colour, and then even things
> like "find images like this" (which I think mainly looks for the colour
> distribution within the images).

I tried this for "Yadgar 
site:http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/" - and what I got 
was some 50 images in fact created by myself (should have been about 
350!), but most hits showed graphic files from other sources. So the 
Google search algorithm is badly unprecise - neither it finds all files 
with the requested properties nor only them! A true POV-Ray image 
database would be much more accurate...

> Also I don't think any additional permission would be needed from
> authors simply to index the images in a different way. By uploading to
> p.b.i you are accepting that the images will be accessible by the public
> and sites like Google will index them.

The images would also need to have assigned titles (rather than just 
filenames) too - this could constitute an infringement of copyright.

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

On 17.04.2013 21:39, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> Sounds reasonable, although IANAL.  How ever, it must be noted (and this is as
> true of p.b.i as it is of The Google) that an implied permission to index a work
> does not imply permission to /use/ it.  I wouldn't think that I should have to
> point this out, but many people seem to be under the delusion that posting a
> work to the Internet puts it in the public domain.
>
> Posters have often given explicit permission to use images as wallpapers, for
> example, but this would seem to fall under Fair Use or Fair Dealing in many
> countries, anyway.

So then I have to delete my private p.b.i download collection 
accumulated since 2000?

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

> Sounds reasonable, although IANAL.  How ever, it must be noted (and this is as
> true of p.b.i as it is of The Google) that an implied permission to index a work
> does not imply permission to /use/ it.

IANAL either, but common sense would dictate you area allowed to do 
certain things with it otherwise the internet wouldn't work. ie you have 
permission to retrieve the image data from the server, store it in 
various caches along the way (including locally), convert it to a format 
that is convenient for you to visualise (normally to raw bitmap data), 
optionally scale the image, and then send it to an electronic display 
device for a period of time.

> Posters have often given explicit permission to use images as wallpapers, for
> example, but this would seem to fall under Fair Use or Fair Dealing in many
> countries, anyway.

I don't think such explicit permission would be necessary, if it was 
then I'll just write an extension to Firefox to maximise the window, 
hides the toolbars, remains behind all other windows, starts on windows 
login and sets the homepage to the address of my "wallpaper" (which of 
course will be stored locally in my web cache). In fact I may write my 
own slimline web browser to accomplish this more efficiently. Maybe then 
MS will buy it and include it in all versions of Windows :-)

Post a reply to this message

Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
>> Also I don't think any additional permission would be needed from
>> authors simply to index the images in a different way. By uploading
>> to p.b.i you are accepting that the images will be accessible by the
>> public and sites like Google will index them.
> 
> The images would also need to have assigned titles (rather than just
> filenames) too - this could constitute an infringement of copyright.

In which country? After all, I have been citing papers in my master 
thesis by indicating the name of the journal, the author and the title. 
This can hardly conflict with any sane law.

As a rule of thumb, you can assume that metadata is not protected by 
copyright. But I am not an american lawyer, just a swiss citizen. Where 
is the server of news.povray.org located again?

Post a reply to this message