On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:37:20 -0500, Warp wrote:

> simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
>> The IRTC has put all the entries up for voting therefore the IRTC has
>> judged them to be in compliance with the rules.

>   That's where you are wrong.
>   Receiving entries and creating the voting page is mostly automatic.
> Entries are not pre-judged individually before they are allowed to go to
> the voting page.

	One is responsible for the automated processes one executes. 

>   It has happened several times before that entries that have been for
> some time in the voting page have been removed because people told the
> IRTC team about them blatantly violating the rules.

	Correct, the option is to remove it from the contest. There is no cause
for vigilante action based upon each person's modest understanding of
national and international copyright laws. My knowledge is indeed modest.
I would not suggest everyone use my judgement in this matter. The statute
and case law on copyright is a specialization within the legal community.

	Who here practices copyright law? Who is giving their legal opinion? 

>   There also have been many cases where the violation has not been as
> blatant as to deserve a complete removal, but so clear that it has
> (correctly) deserved a penalty in points.

	If the violation is judged not sufficient to withdraw it from the
competition then it is reasonable the aspect of the image which is a
violation of the rules, using the model of someone else, should be
considered by reducing the scoring in the appropriate category. A lack of
creativity being considered.

	In other words, there are three categories. There is no category for
copyright violation. It is not reasonable to advocate vigilante action. 

	A 1,1,1 score could be issued for having a Coca-Cola sign in the scene
as that is technically a copyright violation as it is created in the
scene as opposed to a photograph which happens to have the sign in the frame.

	A better example. By the interpretation being proposed here, permission
of the IRTC team would be needed to include the IRTC logo in the scene.
That is certainly copyrighted and possibly trademarked. 

	That can be debated as reasonable people can disagree. But should the
response of the pro-violation be 1,1,1 when the IRTC makes no objection?

Post a reply to this message