SD70Dude I believe that a "use it or lose it" principle should apply.
UP illustrates this well. They've been very protective of their own image and of the fallen flags they've absorbed. Hence the various tribute locomotives.
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...
charlie hebdo Possibly not, but it certainly violates the spirit of the protection of IP. If someone gives you something which you know he stole, would you feel it's right about your using it as though you had acquired it lawfully? But it seems "Thou shall not steal" doesn't apply to some members.
Possibly not, but it certainly violates the spirit of the protection of IP. If someone gives you something which you know he stole, would you feel it's right about your using it as though you had acquired it lawfully? But it seems "Thou shall not steal" doesn't apply to some members.
In my example I didn't know that the text was stolen.
Of course, once I am informed of that fact I would be obligated to return the object or stop using the text/image.
In the case of a book that is out of print but still falls under copyright, I believe that a "use it or lose it" principle should apply. The copyright holder should either make new copies available for sale, or after a shorter period of time (say, 5 years) the material becomes public domain.
Kind of like how mineral leases work (out here anyway), if the leaseholder does not develop the deposit in a timely manner then the lease reverts back to the government, who can then lease it to someone else. You can't just sit on the stuff forever.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
This copyright infringement issue arose on the O Gauge Railroading Forum last year. Apparently someone had posted photos that were not their own and a lawyer for the copyright holder contacted OGR and demanded restitution. After consulting with their attorney, OGR deemed it less costly and a more certain outcome to eventually pay the copyright holder.
Immediately after that, OGR made each registered user of the forum personally acknowledge the terms of use which forbid posting any photos or material the poster does not own or has not received written permission from the copyright holder. Further, the person posting copyrighted material they don't own agreed to be held personally liable for any future copyright infringement costs incurred by OGR for material the individual posted. Links to copyrighted material embedded in a post were still permissible.
If the same issue arose here, I suspect it would be Kalmbach on the hook to resolve the matter with the copyright holder. What recourse Kalmbach would then have against the individual who posted the copyrighted material stands to be seen.
So; it doesn't really matter in which corner of the world YOU live, since Kalmbach is based here in the US they are subject to US copyright laws.
With regard to why Kalmbach has not gone back through old posts to rid them of material that is a copyright infringement, one can surmise it may simply be a lack of resources to comb through years of material.
Curt
I would imagine that it is more inportant where you post it to vs from
If the server is in the US then it is under US law.
David K: How would you know the book is out of print? Why 25 years? Does that make it OK in your mind? You think your residing in Israel means US copyright laws won't apply to Kalmbach?
SD70Dude Lithonia Operator The general rule is that copyright lasts until the creator of the work dies, plus 70 years. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html Does anyone really think that the day after Elvis died, people should have been able to take his records, dub them onto tape, then sell them? Or give them away? Or use in some political way? (The possibilities are endless.) Why not? It's not like Elvis would feel hurt or lose any money. I think 70 years post-death is far too long (and that timeline has gotten longer over and over again), but I could be persuaded to compromise at a shorter time, say, 5, 10 or 15 years, similar to the patent expiry timeline. Lithonia Operator As for the question of is it okay if someone else had misused the work before you, but you only got it from them ... c'mon, folks. If you did not create it, you cannot reproduce it. Sorry. That's not exactly what I asked, in my example I was not disputing that Wanswheel had committed a copyright violation when he posted the obituary. If we assume that Kalmbach does not allow copyright violations on the forum it is only logical to think that posts made by other forum members are not copyright violations. I'll rephrase, if I quoted the text from Wanswheel's post without knowing where he had gotten it from (how do I know he didn't copy it from a public domain source?), did I commit a crime? Is quoting another forum member considered a copyright violation?
Lithonia Operator The general rule is that copyright lasts until the creator of the work dies, plus 70 years. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html Does anyone really think that the day after Elvis died, people should have been able to take his records, dub them onto tape, then sell them? Or give them away? Or use in some political way? (The possibilities are endless.)
The general rule is that copyright lasts until the creator of the work dies, plus 70 years.
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html
Does anyone really think that the day after Elvis died, people should have been able to take his records, dub them onto tape, then sell them? Or give them away? Or use in some political way? (The possibilities are endless.)
Why not? It's not like Elvis would feel hurt or lose any money.
I think 70 years post-death is far too long (and that timeline has gotten longer over and over again), but I could be persuaded to compromise at a shorter time, say, 5, 10 or 15 years, similar to the patent expiry timeline.
Lithonia Operator As for the question of is it okay if someone else had misused the work before you, but you only got it from them ... c'mon, folks. If you did not create it, you cannot reproduce it. Sorry.
As for the question of is it okay if someone else had misused the work before you, but you only got it from them ... c'mon, folks. If you did not create it, you cannot reproduce it. Sorry.
That's not exactly what I asked, in my example I was not disputing that Wanswheel had committed a copyright violation when he posted the obituary. If we assume that Kalmbach does not allow copyright violations on the forum it is only logical to think that posts made by other forum members are not copyright violations.
I'll rephrase, if I quoted the text from Wanswheel's post without knowing where he had gotten it from (how do I know he didn't copy it from a public domain source?), did I commit a crime?
Is quoting another forum member considered a copyright violation?
Possibly not, but it certainly violates the spirit of the protection of IP. If someone gives you something which you know he stole, would you feel it's right about your using it as though you had acquired it lawfully? But it seems "Thou shall not steal" doesn't apply to some members. And now Kaplan is proclaiming his willingness to circumvent the rules (and probably laws) by virtue of his being in Israel. Rather like a fence?
I am a USA citizen with dual citizenship. I live outside the USA, and copyright laws where I live are, I believe, somewhat fairer with regard to out-of-print books. If any Trains or Classic Trains subscriber wishes to post scanned photos from an out-of-print book whose last printed edition is at least 25-years old, by all means email them to me as a jpg attachment, and I'll post them under my responsibility. The only exceptions are Kalmbach-published material for which you must obtain permission from Kalmbach, but I will be willing to trust emailed permission.
Dave Klepper
b
ar
SD70DudeIs quoting another forum member considered a copyright violation?
One 'take' on copyright that I had from my radical digital-library days is this: I have been sick to death of dog-in-the-manger exploitation by "rare book dealers" and others running up the street price of out-of-print books in part through exploitation of copyright and somewhat misguided political copyright-style legislation like the DMCA. In my opinion 'copyright' protection against digital dissemination for fair use ought to be suspended slightly for any work that is effectively out of print, at least to the point that you can access and read it in a browser framework like the one HathiTrust developed, and see any pictures in what may be higher resolution than screen printed. I also don't think the exception for 'republishing' works otherwise in the public domain should apply to downloading the historical originals via a service like Google Books -- this is especially painful in areas like automotive steam power, where there were many reprints to 'save old literature' that were commendable before the Internet and the Google Books initiative, but now serve only to run up the price of 'unobtainium' enthusiast reprints ... often of poor offset-printed quality compared to the now-inaccessible originals.
Of course I also think that archived journal content beyond a certain time offset, depending on context, also ought to be free. We certainly lost that war.
tree68 Lithonia Operator I've always been curious when I see a caption in Trains, and it will say "photo by Frick," from the collection of Frack. Did Frick convey reproduction rights in any codified way? I have no idea. I see it regularly in other RR magazines as well - generally in an article on some historical item, place, etc. I've always been under the impression that such a notation indicates that it involves Frick, who has passed away or gave his collection away, and whose collection of images is now in the possession of Frack. And that it's less of a copyright issue than it is a desire to recognize Frick's expertise as a photographer. I could be wrong. I'm not a copyright attorney and didn't stay at that hotel chain last night. Of course, it's rude (not to mention potentially illegal) to share an image without attribution. It's worse when someone claims the image as their own, as happened on a fire service page on FB a while back. A common caption on the SPAAMFAA FB site these days includes the words "... I shot at ...".
Lithonia Operator I've always been curious when I see a caption in Trains, and it will say "photo by Frick," from the collection of Frack. Did Frick convey reproduction rights in any codified way? I have no idea.
I see it regularly in other RR magazines as well - generally in an article on some historical item, place, etc.
I've always been under the impression that such a notation indicates that it involves Frick, who has passed away or gave his collection away, and whose collection of images is now in the possession of Frack. And that it's less of a copyright issue than it is a desire to recognize Frick's expertise as a photographer.
I could be wrong. I'm not a copyright attorney and didn't stay at that hotel chain last night.
Of course, it's rude (not to mention potentially illegal) to share an image without attribution. It's worse when someone claims the image as their own, as happened on a fire service page on FB a while back. A common caption on the SPAAMFAA FB site these days includes the words "... I shot at ...".
Larry, I think you're probably right (your second paragraph). I bet sometimes a railfan dies, and the widow just gives all the pix to a railfan friend of the departed. Probably in many cases the subject of copyright doesn't even come up, and if it did the widow would say, "sure, if you can get one Bob's photos in a magazine, that would be very nice." Probably there are situations when if a photo is published and there is payment, the railfan splits the money with the widow, or even gives her all of it. I dunno, just speculating.
Lithonia OperatorI've always been curious when I see a caption in Trains, and it will say "photo by Frick," from the collection of Frack. Did Frick convey reproduction rights in any codified way? I have no idea.
Years ago I worked for the owner of one of the largest indoor shopping malls in the country. Throughout the mall common area was a central PA system, and we used to distribute muzak throughout the day.
One year we stopped using muzak, and just plugged a large CD changer into the system.
A business agent for one of the artists in the disc pile just happened to be shopping with us one day, and I guess had an encyclopedic knowledge of who had licensed his client's works, and who had not.
He was not the least bit shy, either.
CO, I am not really up and what amateur railroad photographers generally consider to be okay, and I don't know how much Kalmbach polices that part of things.
I've always been curious when I see a caption in Trains, and it will say "photo by Frick," from the collection of Frack. Did Frick convey reproduction rights in any codified way? I have no idea.
I know people trade slides (I don't); and I am guessing that in that world there is a wide range of what rights the receiver of the image gets. And a lot of honest misunderstandings, probably. And probably a ton of people just don't care what someone does with their pix.
CO, that's a good question.
And you answered it. Kalmbach is a money-making venture. Indirectly, having the forum feeds them business. No judge or court would overlook a violation here if it went to court.
I think if you were to use thusly-denoted images and make a railroad slide show for the enjoyment of you and your buddies down in the man-cave, you'd be covered under that limited permission.
Have I ever made a cassette tape for my car from an album I bought? Of course. And, yes, that is a violation (I'm not pure), but of the type the record companies overlooked, as far as I know.
I am not trying to pass judgment on anyone. What our forum members did seems like pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but a violation nonetheless. And I can totally see why Kalmbach cannot allow it. What I cannot understand, at all, is why the older post is still there. If they are going to mind the store, then mind the whole store.
BTW, in my earlier post, I said violating a professional's copyright could get you sued. Please understand: violating an amateur's copyright can get you sued too (but it's not as likely).
And just to reiterate: it does not matter whether or not the violator makes money; and it also does not make it okay if you attribute the authorship to the creator. It's just not yours to use without permission, and/or, in many cases, pay a licensing fee, or buy out the copyright entirely.
As for Shakespeare, I'm pretty sure his work is in the public domain now.
And if someone decides to use my work 69 years after I croak, they'll probably get away with it!
Lithonia OperatorPeople use a multitude of rationales for violating copyright law. 99% of those rationales do not hold water.
Perhaps with your insight, you might care to elaborate on how conditional permissions are sometimes abused here?
For example, a website that grants conditional permission to use materials on it's site for "Private, non-commercial use".....an end user would still be prohibited from copying such materials to this forum because this forum is neither private, nor non-commercial. One user in particular used to struggle with this distinction.
SD70DudeCopyright and other intellectual property restrictions have been extended repeatedly over the years, I think mainly at the urging of big media. I don't think anyone should be able to continue to profit just from holding copyright on things they did not create, or that were created long ago.
There are actually "Intellectual Property Entrepreneurs" who will go out and buy defunct software companies that owned a protected piece of code which was sufficiently similar to code utilized in an existing product on the market, solely with the intent that this entrepreneur might be able to force...Apple, or Adobe, or Microsoft (examples) to pay them money to release their rights and go away.
Strange way to make a living.
Lithonia Operator I had told myself I should stay out of this. But I've changed my mind. As someone who made his living from photography, and also did a little writing, I place a very high value on copyright. Yes, if you are a professional educator, you can use copyrighted material in a limited way. But the easiest way to remember what you need to know is this: if you did not create it, you cannot legally reproduce it. If the creator has allowed its use on a publicly accessable website, you may LINK to it. End of story. People use a multitude of rationales for violating copyright law. 99% of those rationales do not hold water. Yes, you can usually get away with it. A lot a burglars get away with theft of a different sort, but that doesn't make it okay. If you use the work of a professional, you can be sued. I had to threaten to sue a few times, and actually sued once. I won. It makes absolutely no difference if you are not making money off of it. It is simply not yours to use.
I had told myself I should stay out of this. But I've changed my mind. As someone who made his living from photography, and also did a little writing, I place a very high value on copyright.
Yes, if you are a professional educator, you can use copyrighted material in a limited way.
But the easiest way to remember what you need to know is this: if you did not create it, you cannot legally reproduce it. If the creator has allowed its use on a publicly accessable website, you may LINK to it. End of story.
People use a multitude of rationales for violating copyright law. 99% of those rationales do not hold water.
Yes, you can usually get away with it. A lot a burglars get away with theft of a different sort, but that doesn't make it okay.
If you use the work of a professional, you can be sued. I had to threaten to sue a few times, and actually sued once. I won.
It makes absolutely no difference if you are not making money off of it. It is simply not yours to use.
Unfortunately, some in here do not agree. Copyrights are NOT forever, typically ending 50-100 years after the creator's death and vary by nation.
Euclid SD70Dude I don't think anyone should be able to continue to profit just from holding copyright on things they did not create, or that were created long ago. This is why patents do not last forever, we as a society have decided that inventors should be able to profit from their innovations, but not forever. Well, people are allowed to pass down property practically forever. Why should intellectual property be different? Why should it be private property for a liminted time, and then be automatically be placed into public domain? That principle does apply to patents, as you mention. So it raises the question of why copyrights should last forever. One difference is that patent ideas are all part of the flow of societal development, and items copyrighted are often works of art. New ideas for patents are often inspired by older ideas, so I can see a kind of colletive right to existing ideas of utility suited to future patent if they are combined in a new way.
SD70Dude I don't think anyone should be able to continue to profit just from holding copyright on things they did not create, or that were created long ago. This is why patents do not last forever, we as a society have decided that inventors should be able to profit from their innovations, but not forever.
Well, people are allowed to pass down property practically forever. Why should intellectual property be different? Why should it be private property for a liminted time, and then be automatically be placed into public domain?
That principle does apply to patents, as you mention. So it raises the question of why copyrights should last forever. One difference is that patent ideas are all part of the flow of societal development, and items copyrighted are often works of art. New ideas for patents are often inspired by older ideas, so I can see a kind of colletive right to existing ideas of utility suited to future patent if they are combined in a new way.
Is Shakespeare's copyrights still accruing royalty's for his heirs and assigns?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
SD70DudeI don't think anyone should be able to continue to profit just from holding copyright on things they did not create, or that were created long ago. This is why patents do not last forever, we as a society have decided that inventors should be able to profit from their innovations, but not forever.
SD70DudeI think the current copyright system is out of balance.
Seems like I've heard of estates maintaining copyrights. I suppose it would suck for someone to make a movie out of your great grandfather's novel and not be able to get a penny out of it... But you have to draw the line somewhere.
I believe that you should retain control of the writings and photos you create as long as you are alive. But that should be it, I happen to believe that they should become public domain immediately upon your death. If the copyright is intially held by a corporation then it should only exist for a shorter fixed period, say, 20, 30 or 40 years.
Copyright and other intellectual property restrictions have been extended repeatedly over the years, I think mainly at the urging of big media. I don't think anyone should be able to continue to profit just from holding copyright on things they did not create, or that were created long ago.
This is why patents do not last forever, we as a society have decided that inventors should be able to profit from their innovations, but not forever. There comes a time when the benefits of everyone having access to something outweigh the rights of individual.
I think the current copyright system is out of balance.
Flintlock76 Considering it was the Miningman's posting of Rogers Whittaker's obituary that got him in trouble, and by the way Wanswheel told me he posted it himself several years ago without any problems, I decided to fire up "The Google Machine" and find out if obituaries are public domain, since they are a death notice to all when you come right down to it.
Considering it was the Miningman's posting of Rogers Whittaker's obituary that got him in trouble, and by the way Wanswheel told me he posted it himself several years ago without any problems, I decided to fire up "The Google Machine" and find out if obituaries are public domain, since they are a death notice to all when you come right down to it.
Here's that thread, from 2015. Note that the text is still there, guess it was ok back then.
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/250455.aspx
And yes, it did come from behind a paywall. I tried to view it, but the New Yorker's site cannot be defeated by my amateur methods, they must actually have some half competent IT folks.
This begs the question, if Miningman or any other forum user had copied the text from the 2015 thread and posted it on this one, would they have been guilty of a copyright violation? The text was (and still is) freely available there, and how would a regular user know that Wanswheel had (allegedly) gotten it from behind a paywall?
Perhaps it wasn't the obit. He repeatedly posted lengthy pieces sent to him by Wanswheel to circumvent his banishment for his own misdeeds. As a college instructor, Miningman should have been well-informed about fair use, IP infringement and plagiarism, though the latter dies not apply in this situation.
I realize the proper protection of intellectual property is not regarded as serious by some on here. As a media corporation, Kalmbach does.
Flintlock76Copyright and the obit - The Legal Genealogist
Interesting....so if miningman had criticized the writing style of the obituary, he would have been protected by "fair use" doctrines?
I personally found the obituary grandiose and pretentious, particularly in the way the author assumed himself...LOL!
The short answer? "It depends."
Here's two back-to-back articles I found concerning the subject, if anyone's interested. Not long reads, and interesting.
Copyright and the obit - The Legal Genealogist
Copyright and the post-1963 obit - The Legal Genealogist
By the way, Wanswheels pretty devastated over what happened to Miningman, he NEVER intended to set him up for a fall like that.
Murphy SidingI dunno. It could be just a technical issue.
Murphy Siding Flintlock76 Sorry to report this folks, but "Miningman's" been "Wanswheeled," that is, exiled for 165 years, give or take a few. No reason given. I'd hate to think it was because of his posting of a forty year old obituary of a former "New Yorker" staffer who I'm sure the current "N-Y" staffers never heard of or could care less about. C'est la vie. I dunno. It could be just a technical issue. Lord knows we've had plenty of those of late. I think it's very rare for a Kalmbach employed moderator to work on a weekend, let alone do some heavy lifting. See if anything changes Monday.
Flintlock76 Sorry to report this folks, but "Miningman's" been "Wanswheeled," that is, exiled for 165 years, give or take a few. No reason given. I'd hate to think it was because of his posting of a forty year old obituary of a former "New Yorker" staffer who I'm sure the current "N-Y" staffers never heard of or could care less about. C'est la vie.
Sorry to report this folks, but "Miningman's" been "Wanswheeled," that is, exiled for 165 years, give or take a few.
No reason given. I'd hate to think it was because of his posting of a forty year old obituary of a former "New Yorker" staffer who I'm sure the current "N-Y" staffers never heard of or could care less about.
C'est la vie.
I dunno. It could be just a technical issue. Lord knows we've had plenty of those of late. I think it's very rare for a Kalmbach employed moderator to work on a weekend, let alone do some heavy lifting. See if anything changes Monday.
The ban happened sometime between Tuesday (when the "offensive" material was posted) and Saturday. Took a bit of time for the word to get out.
The IT issues continue though, I haven't been able to log out normally ever since the last big forum outage, presumably this is an "upgrade".
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.