tree68 If Wanswheel had simply picked up and walked away, would there be this much interest in why? Because the big, bad administrators seem to be responsible, suddenly it's the mystery of the century.
If Wanswheel had simply picked up and walked away, would there be this much interest in why?
Because the big, bad administrators seem to be responsible, suddenly it's the mystery of the century.
Why do you believe that the administrators seem to be responsible for the departure of Wanswheel?
Euclid tree68 If Wanswheel had simply picked up and walked away, would there be this much interest in why? Because the big, bad administrators seem to be responsible, suddenly it's the mystery of the century. Why do you believe that the administrators seem to be responsible for the departure of Wanswheel?
Maybe he didn't like being moderated (where posts are delayed by as much as several days)? Maybe he, like many others, is tired of this forum and ceased posting? Maybe he's traveling or has other things to do?
No...his account is Banned from the Community. The reason stated is "other".
I can send you the documentation by PM then email if you would like to see it.
Miningman No...his account is Banned from the Community. The reason stated is "other". I can send you the documentation by PM then email if you would like to see it.
No need. That's settled. And "Other" is standard for various reasons, likely involving liability.
VOLKER LANDWEHR For me it sounds like a copyright infringement.
For me it sounds like a copyright infringement.
That's my guess as well, most likely posting links to infringing material.
So they couldn’t warn him. He is a key contributor to this site.
Goodtiming He WAS a key contributor to this site.
He WAS a key contributor to this site.
Fixed it for you.
Unfortunately it looks like he won't be coming back.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
But he responded to this thread! So if he was banned, that must have occurred AFTER this thread was started.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
If a organization has created a link for data it controls - how can there be copyright infringment in diseminating that link?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Many copyright holders have tried to get legal recourse against people/websites that post links to infringing material, though the law isn't clear as to whether posting a link constitutes infringement. OTOH, Kalmbach as operator of this website is entitled to set their own rules of what constitutes unacceptable linking.
I do remember a recent post where Wanswheel linked to an on-line copy of a 1940's Trains article, but I have no idea if that was anyway related to what happened.
EuclidWhy do you believe that the administrators seem to be responsible for the departure of Wanswheel?
Who says I do? There are a lot of comments that include the word "banned" or the like. Some folks apparently believe that to be the case.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Even if he was not banned, and I have reason to suspect he was, Mike must have been very frustrated to be moderated. I also had the edit and immediate posting privileges for many years, and now have been moderated for almost a year, and also find it frustrating. But as I have stated, I believe the greaer good is done by continuing to participate, despite the frustration, because the value of my Trains and Classic Trains subscriptions goes far beyond the cash value of the checks I need to send to renew these subscriptions. Klambach is good for the industry and good for fans and model-railroaders. But I can understand how Mike feels.
How can posting a link to a copyrighted work constitute a copyright violation? Is it a copyright violation for me to tell you to go to the library to read a particular book?
Posting a link to a copyrighted work has long been held to be a legal way to refer people to copyrighted information.
If you don't want people to read/view your work on-line without paying for it, you put it behind a "pay-to-access" wall.
erikemMany copyright holders have tried to get legal recourse against people/websites that post links to infringing material, though the law isn't clear as to whether posting a link constitutes infringement. OTOH, Kalmbach as operator of this website is entitled to set their own rules of what constitutes unacceptable linking. I do remember a recent post where Wanswheel linked to an on-line copy of a 1940's Trains article, but I have no idea if that was anyway related to what happened.
I am not a shyster - the act of creating the link opens the material for public view unless a pay wall is created for access to the link. Even a pay wall doesn't stop someone accessing the link - it just puts them in a position to have to pay access the information that the link is the key hole for.
Balt,
Never considered you to be a shyster...
I was playing "Devil's Advocate" with respect to copyright - there's a wide range of opinion about what is or what should be legal/illegal with respect to copyright. There have been many court cases about "deep-linking", i.e. where the link points directly to an article on a website, versus pointing to the top level page f the website - I lean towards that being legal as long as the referring page does not construe the linked display as being part of the referring page.
Keep in mind that Wanswheel's postings were typically set up to display the contents of the linked webpage as opposed to just providing a clickable link, which could be construed to provide more of a liability for Kalmbach.
Again, the above is just a WAG on my part.
If he wants to come back, he can just create another account.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Semper VaporoHow can posting a link to a copyrighted work constitute a copyright violation?
Some copyright holders take it more seriously than others. And those copyright holders will often pursue violators. And even though copyrights expire, I believe it's possible to extend them, keeping certain things out of the public domain.
Look at UP and their fallen flags...
There were issues on a FB site with a poster putting up subject specific images without crediting the persons who took the photos - despite numerous warnings. It's not unusual for folks in that genre to now add a watermark that can't be easily cropped, etc. And most of the "good" posters now make sure to credit the source of the image.
And it's not always about money - I doubt any of image owners I mentioned wanted money - they just wanted credit where credit was due.
For myself - I've sometimes figured that just using the link to the image when posting pictures was enough to cover any such concerns. While fair use is a consideration (I'm not expecting recompense, and aside from the association to the magazine, neither is Kalmbach), I'm not an expert in copyrights (far from it), so it's possible that a well-intentions post could run afoul of the law of the land.
tree68 Semper Vaporo How can posting a link to a copyrighted work constitute a copyright violation? Look at UP and their fallen flags... There were issues on a FB site with a poster putting up subject specific images without crediting the persons who took the photos - despite numerous warnings. It's not unusual for folks in that genre to now add a watermark that can't be easily cropped, etc. And most of the "good" posters now make sure to credit the source of the image. And it's not always about money - I doubt any of image owners I mentioned wanted money - they just wanted credit where credit was due. For myself - I've sometimes figured that just using the link to the image when posting pictures was enough to cover any such concerns. While fair use is a consideration (I'm not expecting recompense, and aside from the association to the magazine, neither is Kalmbach), I'm not an expert in copyrights (far from it), so it's possible that a well-intentions post could run afoul of the law of the land.
Semper Vaporo How can posting a link to a copyrighted work constitute a copyright violation?
We are talking two different uses of the term, "links"... if you post an image on one site (such as this one, or FaceBork, etc.) and the image itself appears as if it came from that site, then that could be a copyright violation.
But if the "link" is merely a text representation of the location on the internet (URL) where the image legally exists, which is what I am refering to when saying "posting a link", such that the person reading the web page has to click on that link to fetch the data to view it, then that is no different than saying to go to the library and look at an image in a book, i.e., not a copyright violation.
Embedding a link to another site in the HTTP language so that material from that other site appears as though it is a part of the site where the "link" HTTP code came from is probably a copyright violation.
Semper Vaporo tree68 Semper Vaporo How can posting a link to a copyrighted work constitute a copyright violation? Look at UP and their fallen flags... There were issues on a FB site with a poster putting up subject specific images without crediting the persons who took the photos - despite numerous warnings. It's not unusual for folks in that genre to now add a watermark that can't be easily cropped, etc. And most of the "good" posters now make sure to credit the source of the image. And it's not always about money - I doubt any of image owners I mentioned wanted money - they just wanted credit where credit was due. For myself - I've sometimes figured that just using the link to the image when posting pictures was enough to cover any such concerns. While fair use is a consideration (I'm not expecting recompense, and aside from the association to the magazine, neither is Kalmbach), I'm not an expert in copyrights (far from it), so it's possible that a well-intentions post could run afoul of the law of the land. We are talking two different uses of the term, "links"... if you post an image on one site (such as this one, or FaceBork, etc.) and the image itself appears as if it came from that site, then that could be a copyright violation. But if the "link" is merely a text representation of the location on the internet (URL) where the image legally exists, which is what I am refering to when saying "posting a link", such that the person reading the web page has to click on that link to fetch the data to view it, then that is no different than saying to go to the library and look at an image in a book, i.e., not a copyright violation. Embedding a link to another site in the HTTP language so that material from that other site appears as though it is a part of the site where the "link" HTTP code came from is probably a copyright violation.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I suspect the answer lies in a different direction.
The two 'disappearing posts' that kicked off the concern in the first place were not copyright issues; they were topic issues. One was a tribute to Barbara Bush, and the other was pictures at Rockingham Park racetrack. At least one of these was actually approved through moderation, but subsequently 'disappeared' from the Forum.
It appears to me that the Forum terms of service (TOS) has been fairly recently rewritten, complete with typos ("martial status") to reflect the importance of on-topic 'railroad-related' posting. That may be as much of an answer as we're going to get, and somewhat indirectly, how wanswheel came to be banned without recourse.
BaltACD If a organization has created a link for data it controls - how can there be copyright infringment in diseminating that link?
I think that some people are a little bit confuzzled.
Posting links to copyrighted material legitimately published to a bonafide website having the rights holders permission is not an infringement.
Posting links to a website featuring copyrighted material that does not have the rights holder's permission (Think "Napster") is where you get special consideration, not of the desirable variety.
Not that I am saying Wanswheel did this, I'm just responding to your question.
Copying protected material published elswhere and posting it here as an excerpt, even if a link is provided to the original source, is still a definite no-no....and I do believe he was doing that.
I still don't understand how this thread could be started because he was banned, yet he made two posts to THIS thread. There is an incongruity here somehow.
Note the thread title.
The original issue was that the two posts 'disappeared' after at least one had been approved out of moderation. That indicated to some, myself included, that efforts were being made to restrict some aspect of wanswheel's postings or posting style. While it would be nice to assume that there would be PM warnings about things like perceived TOS violation, or 'keeping on topic' in threads, or having to mention 'obligatory railroad content' in each post (as is the case on some of the e-mail reflector boards I subscribe to), it would appear that the experience of those who have been banned does not reflect this.
wanswheel's formal ban came sometime after this thread was established, and again if he was not formally notified what the specific reasons for that expedient 'other' in his ban notice were, it is a shame. It is fun to revise the TOS so that you can ban people for 'any reason or no reason' as if it were a one-sided adaptation of at-will employment, but that does not make it either fair or just to hand out the bans without at least some warning about the actual sin(s) in question.
Since this is a matter between wanswheel and Kalmbach at this point, I won't comment (with or without obligatory 'he was railroaded' sarcasm) further.
Semper VaporoEmbedding a link to another site in the HTTP language so that material from that other site appears as though it is a part of the site where the "link" HTTP code came from is probably a copyright violation.
This is actually what I was referring to - using the img tags with the url of the image between them.
Curiously, that's exactly how the "insert image" button works on the forum. Click on the button and insert the URL for the image...
As I noted, I now try to attribute such an insertion to the source. That hasn't always been the case, using the "it's on the Internet, so it's fair game" concept...
tree68 Semper Vaporo Embedding a link to another site in the HTTP language so that material from that other site appears as though it is a part of the site where the "link" HTTP code came from is probably a copyright violation. This is actually what I was referring to - using the img tags with the url of the image between them. Curiously, that's exactly how the "insert image" button works on the forum. Click on the button and insert the URL for the image... As I noted, I now try to attribute such an insertion to the source. That hasn't always been the case, using the "it's on the Internet, so it's fair game" concept...
Semper Vaporo Embedding a link to another site in the HTTP language so that material from that other site appears as though it is a part of the site where the "link" HTTP code came from is probably a copyright violation.
When pictures are inserted the URL is readable by right clicking the picture and then using the 'copy image address feature'. Pictures get their own attribution in this manner - I have no idea where that stands in relation to copyright and trademark laws but attribution is not being eliminated.
Originators of data on the net do so at their own risk. Copyright - Trademark or not.
BaltACDI have no idea where that stands in relation to copyright and trademark laws but attribution is not being eliminated.
My original thought as well - but I'm still usually adding a specific attribution these days.
At least I'm not claiming the images as my own, or hinting at same, as the fellow I mentioned earlier was doing.
OvermodThe original issue was that the two posts 'disappeared' after at least one had been approved out of moderation.
Can you help me, where does this information come from? I've gone through the thread and didn't find it.
I only found Wanswheel's post: Something about the Chattanooga Choo-Choo. I posted the text of newspaper article around Sept. 8, which Brian quickly deleted and put me on moderation.
In another post he explained that he wouldn't create a new account: Sir Dude, for me to abandon wanswheel screenname I would have to abandon all the material I posted about my father and my grandfather. I cannot.Regards, Volker
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.