Yesterday I saw this cover on my Hospital magazine...
;-)
Paolo

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'civile_cover.jpg' (382 KB)

Preview of image 'civile_cover.jpg'

Wow, interesting. I get a lot of requests for that image and I usually ask
people to put my address on it somewhere, but I don't remember them asking.
It's cool that they liked the image that much but I do prefer when people
ask, you know? Is that a big commercial magazine or something?

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Slime nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/17 04:18:
> Wow, interesting. I get a lot of requests for that image and I usually ask
> people to put my address on it somewhere, but I don't remember them asking.
> It's cool that they liked the image that much but I do prefer when people
> ask, you know? Is that a big commercial magazine or something?
> 
>  - Slime
>  [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
> 
> 
I don't think that it have a large circulation. It's a magazine published by an 
hospital, and most of those are almost only distributed to the personel and 
available to the patients when in the hospital. Probably available in the 
waiting rooms.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.

Post a reply to this message

> I don't think that it have a large circulation. It's a magazine published
by an
> hospital, and most of those are almost only distributed to the personel
and
> available to the patients when in the hospital. Probably available in the
> waiting rooms.

Oh, I see.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Alain wrote:
> I don't think that it have a large circulation. It's a magazine
> published by an hospital, and most of those are almost only distributed
> to the personel and available to the patients when in the hospital.
> Probably available in the waiting rooms.

  Unless the image has been explicitly published with a permissive usage
license, that's still technically copyright infringement.

Post a reply to this message

Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/18 10:27:
> Alain wrote:
>> I don't think that it have a large circulation. It's a magazine
>> published by an hospital, and most of those are almost only distributed
>> to the personel and available to the patients when in the hospital.
>> Probably available in the waiting rooms.
> 
>   Unless the image has been explicitly published with a permissive usage
> license, that's still technically copyright infringement.
I agree with you. But, that kind of magazine is rarely sold, so that greatly 
limit the liability. Note that there are NO price apearing on that cover.
I would contact the hospital concerned and see what can be done. Possibility: 
publish an apology for not having properly asked the permition to use the image, 
to appears in the next edition. Maybe with some finantial compensation added, 
but don't take that for granted.
The key is to be polite in the message.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when your source files are starting to 
get bigger than the image files.
     -- Matt

Post a reply to this message

No, as Alain think, it's a free magazine available in the waiting rooms,
mainly for patients and clinicians.
I agree with Warp remarks: the afternoon I took the magazine, and the
evening I wrote a mail to Hospital customer service demanding them to advise
their press office to print the source of their covers and asking them about
publishing permissions. Usually Hospital customer service replies to mail, I
will report you when it'll happen.

;-)
Paolo



> "Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
> Wow, interesting. I get a lot of requests for that image and I usually ask
> people to put my address on it somewhere, but I don't remember them
asking.
> It's cool that they liked the image that much but I do prefer when people
> ask, you know? Is that a big commercial magazine or something?
>
>  - Slime
>  [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Paolo Gibellini" <p.g### [at] teinoscom> wrote:
> ... the afternoon I took the magazine, and the
> evening I wrote a mail to Hospital customer service demanding them to advise
> their press office to print the source of their covers and asking them about
> publishing permissions. Usually Hospital customer service replies to mail, I
> will report you when it'll happen.
>
> ;-)
> Paolo




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

But without a published source with it, well that’s just ignorant and rude.

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.

aQ

What's wrong with the world? Infinite apathy and narcissistic selfishness born
in the suffering and punishing negative influence. Get out of that line, ya
think?.

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:web.4741bade220aa032f1cc42d70@news.povray.org...
> "Paolo Gibellini" <p.g### [at] teinoscom> wrote:
> > ... the afternoon I took the magazine, and the
> > evening I wrote a mail to Hospital customer service demanding them to
advise
> > their press office to print the source of their covers and asking them
about
> > publishing permissions. Usually Hospital customer service replies to
mail, I
> > will report you when it'll happen.
> >
> > ;-)
> > Paolo
>
>
>
>
> I am no lawyer but doesn't a release without use stipulation constitute a
public
> domain item?
>

no.

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> ... Anyone without a "silver spoon" has had a difficult time,
> trust me.
>
> aQ
>
> What's wrong with the world? Infinite apathy and narcissistic selfishness born
> in the suffering and punishing negative influence. Get out of that line, ya
> think?.


on that note it was once put to me: there are 1st world countries and 3rd world
countries. Wait! What happened to 2nd world? Well in their superiority trip
they thought 2nd world sounded too close to their "1st world".

The Negative ego payoffs are complete (synergy) as follows:


1. Avoiding responsibility or the truth
2. Self-pity/poor me
3. Righteousness/martyrhood/punishment
4. Holding out for guarantees that I wont be hurt before I will love or trust
5. Self-Importance/competition/superiority
6. Blame
7. Clinging to the past

where 4 is the core and 1,2,3 mirror and reflect 7,6,5 respectively (lower and
higher octave)

aQ,
still "fixing" the world (in vain)

Post a reply to this message

"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

"Alain" <ele### [at] netscapenet> a écrit dans le message de news: 
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

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

Quoting a website:

Q: Isn’t this license basically public domain?

A: There is no such thing as "putting a work in the public domain", you 
America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies 
with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether 
someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled to 
put his own work in the public domain.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot escribió:
> 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.
> 

I have seen Jaime Piqueres's "Office" scene in a fairly small image on 
TV, probably was shown during some seconds.

Post a reply to this message