"Ross" <rli### [at] speakeasynet> wrote:

> >
> > I am no lawyer but doesn't a release without use stipulation constitute a
> public
> > domain item?
> >
>
> no.



in that case SUE SUE SUE, I could be kidding, I am not sure.

I forgot to mention the previous vain post on ego payoffs is COPYRIGHTED
material.

Dont ya just love to hate this world?

I was in selfish violation of the copyright by using it in a vain attempt to
make my world a more comfortable place! Personal profit all the way!

Post a reply to this message

alphaQuad wrote:
> I am no lawyer but doesn't a release without use stipulation constitute a public
> domain item?

  In international copyright agreements, as well as in the local
copyright laws of most countries *all* works are automatically under
copyright without the need to specify it explicitly. No license means
you can't use that work, period.

  As for releasing under "public domain", few countries even have that
notion in their law at all, except in the form "50 (or so) years after
the death of the author it becomes public domain" and "all government
documents are in the public domain unless specifically stated
otherwise". Usually those two cases are the *only* ones where works fall
in public domain. Most copyright laws don't have the concept of the
author "releasing something to public domain" at all. "Public domain" is
synonym for "has no copyright", which is often not supported by law.
Pieces of work will have copyright no matter what the author says.
  What the author can and should do is to release it under a completely
permissive usage license. That doesn't remove the copyright from the
work, however.

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> I am no lawyer but doesn't a release without use stipulation constitute a public
> domain item?


That's a major misconception, especially since the Internet has made it so easy
to share files and indulge in wishful thinking on copyright law.  Either the
copyright must expire (Slime's death + 70 years), or Slime must *explicitly*
place the work into the public domain.

In order to use the image legally without Slime's permission, the hospital must
claim Fair Use.  They would need to consult a lawyer if Slime doesn't agree.

Copyright FAQ:
   http://faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/

Copyright myths, pertaining specifically to Slime's country, but probably
similar internationally:
   http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Slime must *explicitly*
> place the work into the public domain.

  From my experience even lawyers specialized in copyright issues seem
to disagree on whether it's possible for the author to remove copyright
from a work just by declaring so. Some lawyers say it is possible,
others say the law has no such concept.

  If I were to release something to completely unrestricted usage I
would not trust that just saying "this is PD" is enough. I would use an
explicit license. (For software the MIT license would be good for this,
for example.) Then there would be absolutely no controversy possible.

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4741bade220aa032f1cc42d70@news.povray.org...
>
> The words look very Spanish or Mexican looking. Par for the course IMHO.
> Don't get me wrong. Anyone without a "silver spoon" has had a difficult 
> time,
> trust me.
>

= Italian.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I apologize for the degree of civilization in some of my fellow-citizen: in
reply to my mail they say that their opinion was that Internet images were
freely available for all purposes. There is a lot of work to do on!
Anyway a lot of patients was (I think) delighted by seeing your trees...
;-)
Paolo

Post a reply to this message

Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> in
> reply to my mail they say that their opinion was that Internet images were
> freely available for all purposes.

  Perhaps you should give them a link correcting that mistaken assumption?

Post a reply to this message

Paolo Gibellini nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/23 11:55:
> I apologize for the degree of civilization in some of my fellow-citizen: in
> reply to my mail they say that their opinion was that Internet images were
> freely available for all purposes. There is a lot of work to do on!
> Anyway a lot of patients was (I think) delighted by seeing your trees...
> ;-)
> Paolo
> 
> 
Images on the internet are NOT freely available for all purpose. BUT, once 
anything hit the internet, it's very hard to enforce. You MUST ALWAYS assume 
that any image, any content in fact, is covered by a copyright. If there is a 
text that say: "Freely available for personal use.", it mean that you can set it 
as your wallpaper, or save it localy for your own personal, private use. You are 
NOT allowed to redistribute in ANY way or to use in any professional way. For 
ANY use that exeed private and personal, you shouls always consult with the author.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you've tried rendering hair with 
each strand as an object.
Quietly Watching

Post a reply to this message

4748435f@news.povray.org...
> Paolo Gibellini nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/23 11:55:
>> I apologize for the degree of civilization in some of my fellow-citizen: 
>> in
>> reply to my mail they say that their opinion was that Internet images 
>> were
>> freely available for all purposes. There is a lot of work to do on!
>> Anyway a lot of patients was (I think) delighted by seeing your trees...
>> ;-)
>> Paolo
>>
>>
> Images on the internet are NOT freely available for all purpose. BUT, once 
> anything hit the internet, it's very hard to enforce. You MUST ALWAYS 
> assume that any image, any content in fact, is covered by a copyright. If 
> there is a text that say: "Freely available for personal use.", it mean 
> that you can set it as your wallpaper, or save it localy for your own 
> personal, private use. You are NOT allowed to redistribute in ANY way or 
> to use in any professional way. For ANY use that exeed private and 
> personal, you shouls always consult with the author.
>
> -- 
> Alain
> -------------------------------------------------
> You know you've been raytracing too long when you've tried rendering hair 
> with each strand as an object.
> Quietly Watching

I had a similar problem last year (or the one before).
I was waching a morning talk program at national French tv ("Telematin" on 
France2).
There was a short medical subject about chocolate and good molecules you can 
find in.
I had a surprise when I saw an image of a chocolate tablet that I had seen 
somewhere.
It was this one maked-up to hide the faces on the chocolate and the text on 
the package. http://marc.jacquier.free.fr/tablette.htm
But the shape of the torn tinfoil was exactly the same and it could not be a 
co-incidence as it is an intersection of a box and a height_field made from 
an image I drew  myself.
As it is a mean image I didn't make any move but I considered complaining.

Marc

Post a reply to this message

I am afraid this is only the tip of the iceberg. There are probably many 
more misuses like those reported here, of which we are not at all aware of.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message