Boring legal debate over some copyright BS, best to ignore

[zerokwel]

AGGGHhh  crap I don't know who the org poster was (crys) need to find him quick before I get sued.

[Seraphim401]

UK is not a state of US and I am not subject to US laws, hence your point is moot.

It's the other way around.
The IRS collects taxes for the old witch in the UK.
 

[PatrickHarnett]

It was not claimed as his work, and fair-use rules allow reproduction of publically available image (just posting a link would not have been as useful). 

True, I'm not 100% sure that was the original, but best I can tell it is. Though the laws may be written that way, case law (at least in the US) clearly disagrees.  There have been numerous cases where pictures have been posted on one website or another and when they were reposted, the sites were sued and lost.

btw - org charts and network diagrams with random labels would be hard to copywrite.

This image isnt strictly an org chart.  It is clearly of humorous nature and is not designed to 100% reflect reality.  Thus it can be copyrighted.

I wasn't trying to suggest the humour content could not be copyright, but that generic diagrams would be difficult.

One the first point, a google image search returns lots of material, not all of which is the original with correct attribution - that doesn't appear to be an infringement worry for them.

[JBDive]

UK is not a state of US and I am not subject to US laws, hence your point is moot.

The DOJ would likely disagree with that. Search for background on Richard O'Dwyer, of TVShack.net and TVShack.cc.

The fact is law enforcement rarely has anything to do with the Law anymore in the US. You may be seized, your property taken, your body radiated all in the name of the law no matter if you have broken the law or not.

[Matt Corallo]

I wasn't trying to suggest the humour content could not be copyright, but that generic diagrams would be difficult.

I would disagree entirely here.  Though, yes generic diagrams of an org chart are absolutely not copyrightable, this image clearly is (in the US) for various reasons.  First of all the humor, which went largely unchanged (only the change from Facebook to Bitcoin) and secondly the specific image itself.  If the org charts were generic ones, fine, but this image isnt.  Its a (possibly hand-drawn) specific layout of a set of org charts.

One the first point, a google image search returns lots of material, not all of which is the original with correct attribution - that doesn't appear to be an infringement worry for them.

As I pointed out previously, I have no concern over this causing any kind of legal issues, it would simply be nice to (attempt to) provide some form of recognition for the original author.

In any case, I think we agree here, though for different reasons, no point arguing any further.

[Raoul Duke]

Dear Matt Corallo,

I urge you to find the user of this forum that is using a photograph of Michael Pascazi as his avatar because that image is copyrighted as you will see if you open the URL inside the code tags

Code:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60168406/Internet-bs-Corp-071011?secret_password=1312v473afuxx3tcazoj

And you better find that guy fast or else the next of those pdf's/letters will come to this forum...

PS: Now... Tits or GTFO!

[Matt Corallo]

I urge you to find the user of this forum that is using a photograph of Michael Pascazi as his avatar because that image is copyrighted as you will see if you open the URL inside the code tags

Code:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60168406/Internet-bs-Corp-071011?secret_password=1312v473afuxx3tcazoj

And you better find that guy fast or else the next of those pdf's/letters will come to this forum...

Yep, random crap like that is all over the place.  This kind of blew up, look all I wanted to do was post a link to what I think is the original copy of the image.  At no point was I suggesting it be taken down nor that the forum will get into legal trouble for it.  That said, crap like this where people show blatant disregard for the law does result in legal issues occasionally and anyone who has any respect for bitcoin/the people who put a ton of work into running and paying for the servers that run this site should try to be careful about crap like this.

PS: Now... Tits or GTFO!

And people wonder why these forums are being divorced from bitcoin.org...

[Raoul Duke]

PS: Now... Tits or GTFO!

And people wonder why these forums are being divorced from bitcoin.org...

Not enough tits?? 

[Synaptic]

And people wonder why these forums are being divorced from bitcoin.org...

Think wishfully much?

[phillipsjk]

If you don't know the licensing status of an image, then you clearly don't have a license, which means you cannot legally post it.  If you don't have a license, then it is illegal to post, period.  When something is created, it is automatically copyright its original author, not automatically public domain.  Because you are doing a satire of the original image, you might have some claim to fair use, but that is always a questionable legal defense.

Umm, what if there is no original author?

Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?

Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

[teukon]

I think a threat of legal action due to copyright infringement is a greater crime than copyright infringement itself.  The damage caused my such threat is quite real for a start (psycological) and if it were levelled against someone who might feel intimidated then I would be appauled in the same way that would cause others to call for banning the poster and censoring the material.

Fortunately, Vladimir seems to be more 'annoyed and amused' than 'intimidated and upset'.

When we are talking about large-scale intentional copyright infringement then a threat of legal action is distasteful to me but understandable and people involved in such operations should know to take steps to hide/protect themselves.  However, threatening people just sharing images they found on a website is despicable.

I hope that this 'threat' was really a kindly-worded polite request by the artist that their name be included near the image (very much acceptable in my opinion).  If they mentioned copyright law at any point then my reply would be, and always has been, "f*** off".

Also, I think the term is 'Nazi', not 'Copyright Nazi' just as it is 'Pirate' not 'Copyright Pirate'.  Don't worry, English is a tricky language.

[PatrickHarnett]

In any case, I think we agree here, though for different reasons, no point arguing any further.

Yes - it was interesting/fun to debate points of view.

[Matt Corallo]

And people wonder why these forums are being divorced from bitcoin.org...

Think wishfully much?

No, another domain has been purchased and as soon as sirius returns from being MIA, the forums will be moved to there.

[Synaptic]

And people wonder why these forums are being divorced from bitcoin.org...

Think wishfully much?

No, another domain has been purchased and as soon as sirius returns from being MIA, the forums will be moved to there.

And that's somehow going to magically divorce it from bitcoin proper?

Will it not still remain the de facto official bitcoin forums for anyone that wants to look?

[wumpus]

And that's somehow going to magically divorce it from bitcoin proper?

Will it not still remain the de facto official bitcoin forums for anyone that wants to look?

It is only a first step, don't expect it to rain unicorn dust. It makes it perfectly clear to new people that this forum is not associated with the bitcoin developers and bitcoin as an open source project.

There might be a new help/support/development-only forum later on, if so it will be small and strictly moderated not to grow into a monstrosity like this.

[hashman]

I do not infringe copyright any more that a thousand of other places similar image is posted on. But should you want to go legal on this, I suggest you to talk to imageshack.us first.

However, if you are certain that the website you linked holds copyright on the image than thanks for your link. I also maintain that the image linked in my post is more accurate than the one in your link.

Seriously? I'm not trying to "go legal" on anyone, I was simply suggesting you give proper attribution to the original author.  Most sites which do have this image have a via link at the bottom which allows one to (theoretically) trace the content back to its source.  Additionally, if you are suggesting that because you did not upload the image to this forum but instead linked to it on imageshack.us copyright does not apply to this forum you are wrong.  That is true in some jurisdictions, but case law clearly indicates otherwise in the US (the only thing that matters here as the forum is hosted in the US) and most EU member-states.

Seriously who gives a satoshi what the some guy with a wig wrote in a book to please the king?  If you are using somebody's work, reference it.  That way you will continue to have respect of your peers.  If you didn't, apologize, and learn for next time.  Maybe you will regain respect.

Peace -