|
|
Posted by Ed Mullen on 06/12/07 00:12
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Chris F.A. Johnson:
>
>>> Please consult some primer on copyright, or ultimately the copyright
>>> laws that may apply, before making such statements. You're seriously
>>> misleading people - even to commit crimes.
>>
>> If there is such a requirement, can you point to something that
>> substantiates your position?
>
> See my advice about. I know the jurisdiction that I live under, and I
> know what it says about copyright and about the requirement to indicate
> the author of a work. I don't even know which jurisdiction you live
> under, but I'm pretty sure you didn't check its copyright law before
> posting your opinion.
>
You are "pretty sure" that the poster didn't check the law? It's
statements such as these that, contrary to what you are presumably
attempting to achieve, actually degrade the apparent credibility of many
of your posts.
You frequently chide others on making assumptions, yet you do it all the
time. I'm not saying you're wrong, simply that you stated no good
reason for doubting the poster. As usual, you just got up upon your
high horse and pontificated. Sad, because you obviously are smart,
well-read on some topics, and are able to express yourself (usually) in
a lucid manner. Sad, because your effrontery in presentation oft times
precludes my (and other's) interest in even reading your pompous
pronouncements. Sad, because your wisdom is, then, being lost.
Although, I do realize that you probably don't really care. My
suspicion is that you simply delight in hearing yourself talk and that
furthers your view that all other human entities are lesser than than you.
Before addressing the issue at hand I will opine that rudeness is
/never/ acceptable. I have been, in my 57 years, guilty of it. I have
always tried to apologize for the incivility. You seem to thrive on
being uncivil. To what end, I have no idea. It demeans you in others'
eyes and reduces the import of what you have to say. But, hey, in
America we like to say things like: "That's ok! You wanna be an
asshole? No problem! This is the land of the free, knock your socks off."
Regarding the issue at hand, I can't presume to speak concerning your
jurisdiction, however, after extensive searching, and years of being
responsible for interfacing with corporate attorneys on such matters for
companies large and small, I have found nothing in U.S. copyright law
that requires a citation defining the copyright holder when one uses a
copyrighted work (or portion thereof).
It seems that the citation (and its form) would be something specified
by the copyright holder in granting permission to use the copyrighted
material.
Further, there is some case law that indicates that two things could be
significant in a dispute over a copyright:
1. The holder of the copyright should identify the copyright in any
usage. This /may/ be used in a dispute to demonstrate to the court that
the copyright holder was aggressively identifying his rights, thereby
precluding any argument by an infringer that "He didn't identify his
work as his." Not necessary under the law, but it /could/ be supportive
in court for the copyright holder.
2. An authorized user /should/ cite the copyright holder when using a
copyrighted work with permission. This not (as far as I've been able to
ascertain) required, however, in a dispute the (supposed) infringer
could use it as supportive of his intention to /not/ infringe.
These seem to be not requirements but, rather, incidental supportive
acts should a dispute arise.
Indeed, at least in the U.S., /the creation/ of a unique copyright-able
work is legally sufficient to ensure the copyright: That is, the author
does not need to register the copyright, the mere creation of the "art"
is sufficient to guarantee copyrights.
So, I would support, in the face of any other authoritative information,
the notion that one is not /required/ to cite the copyright holder (who
may not be the author) when using (with permission) a copyrighted work.
If the author requires such indentification in granting permission
and the user does not do so, then the user would (obviously) be in
violation of the terms of usage.
Again, I'm happy to have an actual attorney weigh in here with
authoritative experience. And very happy to learn and change my own lay
opinions in the face of actual learned experience.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|