Magazine Editor Shows How to Anger Net

[Guest]

The moment that a work is 'fixed in tangible form' it is copyrighted. Typing it is enough to make it copyrighted. And once it is copyrighted, ONLY the copyright holder (usually the author) has any authority to permit it to be reproduced in any form except for fair use. Fair Use also has some pretty specific definitions - scholarship, satire, criticism. You don't have to register it, you don't have to put a copyright mark on it.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

 

[applegetsmelaid]

Supposedly a cheap way to prove when is to mail you stuff to yourself. Then the postage is proof of when what is contained was done.

I don't know how true this is.

If you want to sue for infringement, enforce cease and desist, obtain compensation for legal fees, etc, it has to be registered with the library of congress.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]thegreathuntingdolphin[/nom]In the US copyright is automatic as Chrys says. You do not have to put the copyright symbol on it and you don't have to register it or anything. The copyright exists the moment you make the work. As Chrys said, proving it can be difficult; however, that is not the case here. There are fair uses for copyrighted material but that is for reviewing, quoting, for education uses, etc and NOT writing, lifting, passing off as their own, etc.What Judy Griggs did is blatantly illegal. Monica Gaudio could sue that magazine out of existence easily; after all, Judy Griggs has already admitted to violating Monica's copyrighted work.I can't believe how dumb Judy Griggs is. She thinks the web is public domain? This is what happens when people who have no inkling on legal matters think they are an expert.[/citation]

what kind of copyright, when i was making videos, i had to deal with it so much, it was all so confusing, that i just gave up. just because something is copywrited doesn't mean that its under the same copywrite as something else. iv delt with this in video only so thats where my perspective comes from

 

[alorha]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]what kind of copyright, when i was making videos, i had to deal with it so much, it was all so confusing, that i just gave up. just because something is copywrited doesn't mean that its under the same copywrite as something else. iv delt with this in video only so thats where my perspective comes from[/citation]

All copyright, video, audio, pictorial, or text vests in the creator the moment you fix it in tangible medium. The moment the video is stored has the same effect as text landing on a page, or a hard drive. It is actually harder not to have a copyright. Creative commons, for instance, requires a lot of licensing, and took people awhile to work out, and they're still refining it.

Meanwhile, in the US, if you write something, be it on a napkin or a webpage, you have a copyright in that thing. Absent fair use, (which doesn't exist in this case) no one can reproduce your work without your permission.

The internet is not the public domain any more than a bookstore. Just because you can browse for free doesn't mean you own it.

 

[Guest]

Gentlemen,

The future of journalism!

 

[Guest]

Now, let me get this straight, when I search on line and find a copyright article, copy and post it for distribution, this is absolutely wrong. But when I search on line and find a copyrighted song and down load it from a free distribution site, this is a right.

Do I have this correct now?

 

[dogman_1234]

^ It's screwy.

To put is simply: What you make is yours. What other make is theirs. One needs permission to use the others ideas. That is why so many people hate the Patent. it doesn't make sense when your plans are copy-written in your handwriting. many considered to use a specialized handwriting to create copyrights.

 

[zak_mckraken]

I heard Judith Griggs of Cooks Source Magazine can't have an orgasm unless she kills a dog. That's just was I heard somewhere.

 

[eddieroolz]

I'm sure she's the type that will say that the web is public domain, but turns around to sue a blogger who uses her post and makes "improvements'.

Hypocrites.