Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: A GPL-like Copyright Tagline for Text?
murrayc asks: "I need a short GPL-like copyright message to put on the end of my online articles. I'm no lawyer so I don't know what would be valid. I recently discovered that a commercial site had ripped-off one of my web pages word for word. Compare my article with their copy. They removed any mention of me or my web site and put their copyright on the end of it. When I complained they added my name to the top of the article, but they still have their copyright notice on it, saying that people have to ask their permission before copying it. I don't want to prevent anyone from copying my articles, but I want to retain control over them. No, the articles themselves won't be of much interest to Slashdotters." It was only a matter of time until the digital version of the plagarism spectre reared it's ugly head. What's one to
do if they want to protect their content, yet still make it available
to all?
"This article may be freely redistributed as long as this notice remains intact"
This is a clear case of needing to sue them before you loose control of what you have written. Tell them that they MUST include a link to your site, or call the lawyers. Also, include a LINK on each page to a full size, well written license...
"I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Actually, you own the copyright, whether you put notice on the article or not. You should INSIST that they put your copyright notice on your article, and add "Used by Permission". If they refuse, ask them to remove your article from their site. If you have trouble, hire a lawyer to send them a "bark letter", wait a while, and call them again. A bark letter should cost you $25, $50 at most.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Uhm. They put you as the author. Stop bitching.
RMS and ESR worked on this license which is specific for text. It is the textual equivalent of the GPL.
I thought Slashdotters didn't believe in intellectual property rights.
What kind of a capitalist corporation thinks it can steal from the righteous owner and creator of a document, and then slap their own copyright on top of the guy's original work? Reading the article gives me the impression (as an average, no-computer-knowledge net citizen) that this guy works for their company. Obviously, this isn't the case, but they do a damn good job of making it look that way.
It is a common misperception that you still have to submit written material to the Copyright Office in order for it to be copyrighted. This used to be true, but not anymore. Now, any original work is automatically considered to be copyrighted unless the author specifically places it in the public domain. By posting your work without permission, they are violating your copyright, and you are within your legal rights to sue the SOBs. Threaten them with legal action and see what happens.
With a GPL like license, it would be "sticky" and apply to derived works of your article as well, right? But how is that defined for writing: that it's OK for someone to cut a paragraph here or there from your article as long as they allow people to do the same from their's?
Would an article be derived work if you are referenced as a source (I guess not, since IP doesn't apply to ideas)? What about if you were quoted?
I agree with you that something like this should be in place, I have also seen things I have written popping up elsewhere (though not as bad your example). Maybe you should check the with the IDG people who are working on the "Open Book" on Linux??
-
VB 6.0 Enterprise?! Ugh. Says alot about the website that ripped you off right there.
You may want to check out the Open Content License to see if it meets your needs.
The more you know, the less you understand.
...they even ripped off their design from cnet.
He does not seem to mind if the article is copied, but he does not any additional restrictions placed on it.
A friend of mine is working on this very thing, called the OpenContent License. Their FAQ:
1. Why do we need the OPL?
Computer software can already be made free for public consumption and improvement by distribution under one of several Free Software licenses as mentioned above. If you're developing executable code with instructional potential, please consider licensing it as "Free Software" so that it can both be a part of the Bazaar development cycle and freely accessible to everyone. Other Content (Learning Objects) such as graphics, images, sound bytes, video clips, models, lecture notes, tutorials, HOW-TO's and anything else that can be "referenced during technology supported learning" can not be released under these licenses because they are written specifically for computer software. The OpenContent License has been created to provide instructional designers and content specialists the same benefits, protections and assurances programmers gain from Free Software licenses. The OPL (pronounced "opal") is always open for comment. This version draws inspiration (and some verbiage) from the GPL and Debian's Social Contract.
2. Where did you get the idea that people would be willing to give their work away?
(I'll do my best to refrain from restating the question as "What kind of idiot would actually consider sharing? What kind of idiot would actually expect anyone else to share in return?") If you can honestly ask this question, it seems clear that you have never used the internet. What do people do on the internet more than look for information and find it? and find it available for free? Have you never looked anything up online? You may want to review the project's purpose. Although this idea may seem crazy to those entrenched in academia or higher education (or those who are just greedy), the idea of working hard and freely sharing the valuable results has been in practice for a long time, and is the essence of the Internet ethic (if you don't subscribe to these ideals, maybe you should go on somewhere else.) Richard M. Stallman played a key role early on in the Free Software movement by writing out and evangelizing the idea. He has included Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals in the GNU Manifesto. He answers questions like 'why should software be free?', 'why would anyone do all that work for free?', "won't programmers starve?', and others there. The transfer from the computer programming paradigm to that of education should be easy enough. For a better understanding of the principles underlying OpenContent's organization please read around the Free Software Foundation and Eric S. Raymond's OpenSource.org.
3. How do I get involved?
1. read the OPL
2. agree with its tenets or make suggestions
3. create Content
4. make it freely available under the OPL
5. spread the word
You are entirely in the right here, the company is in infringement. Don't let them waffle and don't be pushed around.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
I think a lot of people here would benefit from checking out the following URL. It debunks a lot of misconceptions most people have about copyrights (losing it if it's not defended, if you dont put a notice then it's not copyrighted, etc) http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html -Justin
A line like this should do the job:
(C) 1999 John Smith. Contact John@Smith.com for permission to reproduce this article under an open source license.
Okay, it doesn't quite fit on one line, unless your browser is real wide. But then when someone contacts you, you can hit them with your choice of license. And the copyright notice will make direct ripoffs like happened to the Filemaker article illegal. You could leave out the part about "under an open source license" if you wanted it to be shorter, but that might discourage people who didn't realize how liberal a license you were offering. People who don't know what an "open source license" is won't be deterred.
Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. But I am suing someone for copyright violation, so I Am A Person Who Hangs Out With Lawyers.
--CarlF
the OPL is a direct descendant of the GPL, so i suppose the rather ambitious self-abbreviation is forgiveable. it has the same enforcement of hereditary freedom, the same indemnifications and the same charge-if-you must clause.
you don't have to provide source, though.
http://www.opencontent.org/opl.html
While I am not a lawyer, I play one on the Net :-)
First of all, you have a lawsuit on your hands. You own any content you publish, regardless of form, as long as the work is original and the work is only yours: it doesn't include a substantial amount of work from someone else and you did not do it as a work for hire (meaning, you did not write the thing for an employer). The work does NOT have to have a copyright notice on it if it was written in any of the countries that have signed the Berne convention. (Which means most western countries.)
Note that you only have lawsuit if you can substantially *prove* that the work is yours and and that you published it *before* they did. One lawyer told me that the only way you can do this is by mailing the thing to yourself via registered mail: it will have a postmark on it proving the date of publication. OTOH, another lawyer told me that the only thing that this accomplishes is the wasting of the stamp and needless tying up of the postal system. I'm if you had 20 different lawyers on the subject, you would get 20 different opinions.
I don't think a whole license would actually be necessary for content. I think just a notice like:
Copyright (C) 1999 Rob A. Shinn
This text may be redistributed in unmodified form only, as long as this notice remains intact.
would suffice. While copyright notices are not necessary, they make it much, much easier for you to win a lawsuit. In fact, in most jurisdictions, it is impossible to win statutory damages without a notice. This means that your lawsuit could probably only win actual provable damages for this particular instance.
Unless of course you want people to modify and pass it along, akin to GPL. But, IMHO, this is a mistake: modified content can hurt the reputation of the original author far more easily than can modified, redistributed source code can.
Once again, disclaimer:
I am NOT a laywer. It is up to you to seek the counsel of a qualified, competent attorney if you indeed desire a truly useful opinion.
My sources for information include the Software Developer's Complete Legal Companion, by Thorne D. Harris III. This is an excellent work and you should consider getting it if you are interested in copyright law....
My journal has hot
Ever heard of OpenContent? They have a couple of licenses you could use. They're like the GPL, but only applicable to non-code works, like text. See http://opencontent.org/ and check out the OpenContent License and the Open Publication License.
The GPL or a GPL-like license is probably not appropriate for articles. The GPL is designed for software and particularly the modification of source code. Most articles, books, etc., are not intended to be further modified without the author's direct approval.
:-)
However, you can still make the article "Free". The BSD license would work well if you weren't concerned that some publisher could add further material to it and sell it. Giving it a tagline that prohibits the selling of your work would make it non-free unless you were very, very careful in your wording.
IMHO, just have the tagline announce the copyright and state that it can be freely copied and distributed as long as the notice is kept intact. See the bottom of this reply for an example
Arandir
-----------
This post Copyright 1999 by David Johnson. Permission to freely copy and distribute this post is granted provided that this notice is retained.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Take a look at the page now, top-right corner of the text and you will see it. Ha, thats funny...
I would suggest providing technical articles and documentation under the OpenContent License. As for editorials and opinions, where modification isn't warranted, the tagline from the Free Software Foundation's Web site may be appropriate:
"Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved."
Of course, every need is different. Review the OPL carefully before using it, because its intentions are not applicable to every form of content out there.
Opps, Top-left corner...
By them posting thier copyright, they are purporting that they "own" the work as others would need thier permission to copy it.
This is time to take action. Legal action. You not only deserve the right that they post your copyright, since you own the work, but you should also demand compensation, since they are using your intellectual property to derive income through the ad rotation.
No, original works are automatically copyrighted under international law as long as it is written in a country that has signed the Berne convention. This includes the United States. In terms of the legal system, the Berne convention is relatively new: it was signed in 1991 by the U.S. and (I think) all of the G7 countries and probably some others.
My journal has hot
Even though you want people to spread opinions or thoughts in the article, you can still sue THEM for copyright intrusion (unless you by now have given them permission to re-publish the article).
And, event if you state that you really want people to re-distribute the article, my personal opinion is that you ought to sue them. Just to maintain the point that you want to know who and where the article is re-printed.
Disclaimer: I'm NOT a lawyer. Even thought I've taken a university course in patent and other immaterial rights in Sweden, I might be wrong.
If you wish to allow people to modify the page (most of the time, this isn't needed), you might want to consider the licensing terms that apply to most GNU manuals. I don't have it at hand now, but you can probably dig it up yourself.
Okay, from other postings it seems like I'm wrong about this -- Nowadays, almost all content is automatically copyrighted. From reading some other sites, it is still recommended to provide the copyright notice since it gives you a better case if you do decide to take it to the courts.
I've seen the OPL and it seemed incomplete or somehow too simplistic; so, I created my own rendition of the GPL that I call the Oasis Public License (because that's the name of the website for which I originally intended to use it). It can be shortened to OPL but I realize that that causes an acronym collision. :)
I wanted to be able to retain control of documents and yet allow people to copy and redistribute them similar in spirit to what the GPL accomplishes for software. The Oasis Public License is pretty much a wholesale conversion of the GPL to apply to documents with a few additions from other public licenses.
Under English law you automatically own the copyright to any original work - you do not even need to put a copyright line in any original works - although it does not hurt.
You should contact a solicitor immediately. They will charge you about 25 quid for a Cease and Desist letter. You should also file for a hearing in the High Court. As the website that has infringed your copyright is based in the US they will likely not wish to invoke the cost of instructing solicitors in England and will back down. If they do not answer the case you will definitely get Default Judgement in your favour. You are then free to pursue damages (likely fairly low) and court costs (if you get default judgement this is likely to be very low too.) Damages will be easy to obtain without messing around international claims as McLane Novea New Media very likely have some exposure within the EU.
Contact a solicitor ASAP - you won't make any money, but you will protect your copyright - and protect yourself from any copyright infringement claims by McLane - which would be pursued in US courts and likely be a LOT nastier...
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
First, you own the copyright to the article, whether or not you note such. They are clearly in violation of the US Copyright law, so the bark letters that have been mentioned should work fine. Unfortunately, before you can actually sue for copyright infringement, you must register the copyright for a nominal fee (~$40 if I remember correctly), and because the copyright was not registered before the actual infringement, you can only collect actual damages (probably none in your case) plus any profits that Filemaker Today made as a result of your article. Had you registered it, you would have also been eligible for up to $100,000 in statutory damages. See The Copyright Website for more info on the Copyright law.
Second, a simple phrase such as: That let's anyone use it as they wish for non-commercial purposes, but if someone wants to put it in their book or whatever, they must get you specific permission first.
A few years back I wrote a smart-ass response to somebody on Usenet, snickered quietly to myself, and then forgot about it. A few months later I saw someone mentioning a funny rant in Wired that sounded suspiciously similar to what I had posted. I went over to a newsstand, paid $4.95, and saw my rant in the letters section, authored by "anonymous". At no time did I recall every giving Wired permission to publish my incoherent ramblings, so I checked around, posted to one of the law newsgroups, and even flamed a few people in alt.wired. The basic facts I established were: I have until something like 75 years after my death to sue them; I don't need a copyright notice; damages are mainly limited to proven commercial value (none, I will freely admit, and I would probably have given them permission *if asked*), and, when you get right down to it, Wired is for ding-dongs. During that time period, Wired was attracting large numbers of zealots who thought that a pink-and-green dead trees publication was somehow revolutionizing the online world, and that things like copyrights, honesty, etc., were obsolete. One guy even seemed to think that Wired was actually an extension of Usenet, and therefore the magazine could freely profit from whatever it could grab there. True, there are some questions as to where Usenet actually ends, since, even more than the web, it's a distributed, multi-copying system, but I'm sure most would agree it stops somewhere short of overpriced, advertisement-laden lifestyle magazines sitting in traditional newsracks. In any case I have something fun to do in my old age, should I ever get the desire to sue them.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
Perhaps if a few slashdotters visited the comment submission page it would have some impact...
Form Confirmation
Thank you for submitting the following information:
MessageType: Complaint
Subject: (Other)
SubjectOther: Theft of Content
Username: Kevin O'Malley
UserEmail: filemaker.theft.response@kevino.com
ContactRequested: ContactRequested
Comments
How much of this content is stolen and re-used without permission?
======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Quoting or referencing an article is "fair use".
Now here's some food for thought...in the same way, dynamically linking to a library is also considered "fair use" by many people, and if such a case ever makes it to a court, there is a good possibility that it will be determined legal to link to a GPL library! It can be justified as "fair use" since linking to a library is the whole purpose of the library, and in many cases, you aren't even including code at all, only a "#include ".
The same thing also goes for any proprietary dll's you happen to have laying around. You may not have any rights to distribute the proprietary library, but you can still dynamically link to it and distribute your own stuff.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
The nice form here to send problems. Let see what ./ can do to them.
The 1976 Copyright Act provides that all expression is automatically copyrighted from the moment it is fixed in some tangible medium of expression. In other words, you automatically own the rights to all that you write.
That is the question
If anybody owns it, then it is the original author. If anybody is able to own it thenit should be the original author.
The problem is that they appear to be claiming copyright to it
Most of the posters believe in I.F. (Intellectual Freedom) -- Where I.P. (Intellectual Property) ideas agree, then we agree with I.P., and where those ideas differe, we are for I.F. and against I.P.
John
John_Chalisque
"Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved"
First, it doesn't matter if you have a copyright notice or not - you own the copyright of all work done by you. To provide everyone with the ability to distribute your work, but not to restrict the rights of anyone else, there are several licenses. I don't know if GPL is applicable to anything else than source. But if it is (A text-file is it's own sourcecode?), that's a good choice (Mainly because everyone knows what GPL is). Another alternative is OPL (www.opencontent.org) ; it is designed for non-code documents so it is guaranteed to be usefull for this purpose. A more restricted license to distribute text under may be the license for the Linux documentation. But I havn't read that license that thorough, so I don't know if it's what you want...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
...that the link to the copied page at FileMaker no longer works?
[
They still link to it from their homepage, though.
since I ripped LinuxCare's bumpersticker
Pork is not a verb
I don't think the current directory can do much to them. /. could wreak havoc on them, though.
However, I don't think slashdotting their form is such a good idea. Remember the story of Cheryl the Unisys secretary.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
"Copyright Begins With the Author at Creation
At the time an original work is created in fixed form, copy-right
is automatically secured. At that moment, all the rights
in that copyright belong to the author of the work. Those
rights remain with the author unless the author specifically
transfers them, in writing, to someone else. Ownership of
the rights can change, but the author of the work remains
the same regardless of who subsequently owns the rights."
Get the entire thing from this PDF.
I think the OpenContent License, mentioned above, is probably the best solution to this guy's problem.
rooooar
...it looks very much like the Java steaming mug to me.
Maybe Sun's lawyers would like to sue them too...
SteveB.
I would assume that it'd only be fair use if you only used a function or two of the library. Otherwise, you'd be using such a large portion of the library that it'd bbe equivalent to quoting entire chapters of a book.
Here is my original web site and the copy that he made. I have changed my site a lot since then (he did this a year ago). He refuses to respond to any emails I send him.
Have they removed it or has it been Slashdotted?
a General Ridicule Liscense. if you feel you have had your words stolen, send the case to a centralized website. there your grievance will be looked into. if the site operators feel you have been plagiarized, they will make a posting with the a link to the original work, the copy and the contact info of the offending person.
/.
/. them until they give in.. or something to that effect.
it could be a subset of
then we
-- john
FYI,
PCM2
Breakfast served all day!
In general, a GPL license would be useless in a case such as this one. You retain copyright to your written works unless you give it away, and that is true whether you explicitly post a copyright notice with your work or not.
If these ripoff artists chose to ignore your own copyright then they could just as easily have ignored a GPL license. Either way you handled it correctly. I guess that your posting to this site resulted in people emailing the ripoff site with their complaint. I certainly was prepared to do so.
Marjo Wycam, Master of the Programming Arts
It'd be interesting to know how long it took the article to be pulled.
You could always trademark the library name and function names!!!
I don't buy that, since it was Mr. Cummings himself who alerted slashdot, but if you try that page now, FileMaker Today took it down.
Seems he may have won.
It looks like the link to their version no longer exists. But you need to put a copyright © 1999 , and what ever else you want on there.
Most people put a copyright notice on their work that also states that any copy must contain the copyright notice. This what I do on my documents (example: http:// www.robertgraham.com/pubs/network-intrusion-detect ion.html#copyright).
I go futher and track my document. I put a 1-bit GIF file embedded in my document that links back to my server. This tracks people who simply mirror the document through the Referer field.
Then, I put interesting spelling and wording in the document. This allows me to track the document via AltaVista and other search engines.
The philosophical standpoint here is that any document you create is the start of a meme. I use these techniques to shepard my meme through the web. From this perspective, the Copyright notice is important for works that you want to be essentially in the public domain: it still gives you control over the basic process.
Your webpages are automatically copyrighted. No notice is needed anymore. You can put a notice "use us permitted as long as the piece remains intact, credits are given, etc.
You can explain to them that they will be sued unless.......
1. They put a ad on their home page to your site.
2. They pay you the normal author's fee for your article.
3. They they buy X more articles from you, that you write within the Y number of months.
That way you get more traffic, and a job. After that, if they like your writing (or anyone else does) you have work as an author.
Injured software engineer beats Mattel!
Information wants to be free and anything decent that you put up is fair game to be ripped off. I hope you have a lot of bandwidth so my fellow Slashdotters and I can easily mirror your site and store it on our servers along with all our traded MP3s, bootlegged movies, and k-rad 0-day w4r3z. 3y3 0wn j00 4nD a11 y3R 1Nf0rMa5huN!
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
> In a world without copyrights I can take your source code, modify it, distribute it binary-only (with heavy copy protection), sell it, etc. Bill Gates can take GNU software and incorporate it into Windows (with heavy copy protection).
Except that in a world without copyrights there would be no Bill Gates-s...
-
Just thought I'd reply to help clear up some stuff I've already said:
1. The Berne convention is not that new. All kinds of countries (70 some-odd, including Canada) were on board in 1985, when the book I was referencing from in my previous posts was published.
2. I had not realized that the US had signed on.
3. Throwing on a © is always a good idea. If nothing else, it makes your work look a lot more professional, and makes lawsuits a hell of a lot easier to win (lawyers can be such a pain at times).
--- A person is smart. People are dumb. ---
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
In three words: BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT! Make a blacklist of these sorry mediocre slugs (poor slugs, they are nice animals, actually :) so the netizensa (those people that *care*) can boycott this asshole FOREVER, and make a big fuss about telling anyone else to do this. I *works*!
A parallel universe is not required. You only need to look at the popularity of *BSD vs. Linux. In this universe, BSDI took the BSD code, closed it, marketed it and fiercly guard it.
BSDI has had some success with this business model, although certainly they are no Microsoft. BSDI has probably benefitted from the Free/Open/NetBSD efforts, but not the other way around. Unfortunately, it's the BSD product itself that has suffered.
The license doesn't matter much.
I strongly disagree. The GPL has made sure that noone capitalizes on the work of others without also benefitting those who performed the original work. I feel this is a Good Thing and is is what has motivated so many to work so hard to improve Linux and GCC. If the BSD folks find it's in their best interest to improve GCC, then Linux users benefit. If BSD folks improve their kernel, only BSD users benefit. This means that the Linux/GPL software base accumulates the best from anyone who might work on it. A lot of the best work on BSD has been done in commercial ventures that have closed their improvements off to the community at large. You see, public domain efforts tend to fork into backwaters.
Ultimately, the GPL snowball effect is the only way to build up a product base to challenge such software behemoths as Microsoft. A similar thing could not happen with BSD. If someone tried to build up a critical mass of BSD (or any similarly licensed) software to challenge Microsoft, Bill Gates could just offer a closed alternative, with all of the benefits of the BSD system, that used the public domain code and attract many of the best BSD resources (not just programmers, but companies like Compaq, Dell, etc.) to support MS/BSD.
In fact, didn't MS use the BSD TCP/IP code in NT? This universe is starting to look more and more like your parallel universe all the time!
It's no wonder that GPL & Linux often get confused as an Anything But Microsoft movement. It's really the Anything But Closed Software movement and Microsoft just happens to be the poster child for Closed Software.
Finally, your contention that
Most people would still develop for the main branch and the proprietary branches would soon be forced to become folded back into the main tree or they would perrish because of lack of support/interrest.
is difficult to support. I know of no examples of proprietary code that has been "forced" to be opened up just because those proprietary code are no longer supported. Commercial interests don't free their proprietary works even when it's of no value to them because of the possibility that it may benefit their competitors. Only under the GPL have you seen a great freeing of once-proprietary software (SGI for example) because the commercial interests know that their competitors cannot possibly benefit more they can. In fact, the SGIs (and the like) are banking on the fact that theirs will be the preferred and mature implementation of this code and that they will be in the best position to support it.
Please not. Proof that, no matter how bad things are, they can always get worse.
Only with static linking. With dynamic linking, the person distributing the software that uses the library does not copy the library, so is not restricted by copyright law. The only stuff copied is some metadata about the library and it's symbols - this is certainly fair use.
Static linking is another thing. Even copying (quoting) might be considered to be not fair use. In a document, quoting provides information which your document already alludes to (or is commentatry). How this applies to static linking is far from obvious - the law does not intend to cover this, there can be no serious contender for precedent unless the law explicitely identifies and categorises software. This is a very contentious issue and I'm just slapping some crap together here, please don't flame me.
Oh yeah, I'm no lawyer.
Copyright 1999 Tristan Wibberley
All rights reserved.
--
I know I'm not missing it when I look through the replies - especially when I check several times.
from this point on, I will make it a point to inform people that slashdot does in fact CENSOR posts and replies if it doesn't fit in with their agenda. I've heard rumor of this and never believed it to be true, but now, after having "tested" it myself, I see that whoever started the rumor was right.
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
Please read your copyright laws concerning a copyright statement. Courts have upheld the often seen "Copyright (c) 1999 ..." as a valid copyright since it was shown that the required copyright symbol © could not be affixed to a document written with a typewriter!
Okay. I am really sick and tired of having to explain this to ignorant AC's.
Here it is:
1. Nobody on Slashdot is censoring your comments.
2. Comments are not deleted from a story. Moderators assign a score on your post based on content.
3. The default viewing method of comments has a threshold of 0. This means your troll post scored to -1 don't show up by default. To change this, go to the top of a story, select -1 as your threshold, and click the "Change" buttom. It really isn't that hard.
You trolls who have your posts scored down and bitch about it really tick me off. Deal with it. Set your threshold to -1 and view by "Oldest First".
This is, by the way, the very first item in Brad Templeton's 10 Big Myths about copyright explained.
Exactly. It's the word "copyright" that does it for you... not the construct with the parentheses.
Breakfast served all day!
From "their" copyright notice:
MacLane Nova New Media can not and will not be held responsible for any of the contents in this site.
I love it. Not only do they (apparently) steal this guy's stuff, they also basically give the world the finger about it...
Sheesh...
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Actually, the word "copyright" isn't needed. "(c) 1999 John Doe" works. It was questionable years ago, but is perfectly fine today, since, under current law, no notice is required at all!
lets do it right and get copy left on text aswell as our soft ware , i dont know how we are going to get around to doing it but we need it
After Alan answered the selected questions, I noticed none of them were from ACs. I went back to the question page and noticed that none of the AC questions even had scores, in effect censoring them. The request for questions should have stated this policy and should in the future. Did I get any of this wrong?
Here's a simple tactic no one has suggested yet: send them a bill. Just create an invoice and bill them for non-exclusive rights to your article. Don't make it for an outrageous amount, but make it for more than they would have had to pay if they hadn't ripped you off. $150 sounds about right.
They just may decide it's cheap insurance against a lawsuit, and you'll get something for your troubles.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/commons/cc.html offers is a tag that unfortunately does nothing to secure attribution and thus promote an author's reputation; but it does allow downstream creators to derive from a text (or work) and create I thencewith A and N hitherto A henceforth L
- COBARDE ANONIMO TRAVIESO
They clearly don't own the copyright on this guy's work. Isn't it fraduldent for them to claim they do?
They seem to think the freeness of the material makes it OK for them to appropriate it and claim it as their own property, or claim that they have special rights to it, like control distribution.
Or, they think copyright is just a formality of the imperialist capitalist machine and they don't have to worry about what it means.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
If you don't stick a copyright, it's still assumed. Still, I'd use GPL rw even for texrt.
The parent posting is absolutely correct, and here's the legal docs from the U.S. Copyright Office.
This should give you plenty of material to include in your nasty and threatening email to the CEO...
Note that on technocrat.net I handle copyrights of postings differently than on Slashdot. Over there, when you make a posting you agree to sign a separate and independent copyright over to me, and you keep your own copyright - the effect is that I can do whatever I want with your posting, and so can you. This is so that I can reprint discussions, etc., without having to go back to the original poster. I've seen this dual-copyright scheme used once on software - it was in the contract when I wrote an iostreams library for Zortech. I don't know of another example of its being used for a discussion forum.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I tried to access the copycat page and it is no longer on their server.
This is copied word-for-word from a govt. web site (http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/smbuss/cpyrigh t/circ1.html): HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT Copyright Secured Automatically Upon Creation The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following NOTE.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration" on page 6.. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music ("copies") or in phonograph disks ("phonorecords"), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.
1. I don't know if the US is a Berne convention nation, but it doesn't matter. According to the US Copyright Code, 17 USC S.101-104 (available as Circular 92 from the copyright office), unpublished works in general are protected, and published works such as Murray's are protected, "if, on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or a domicilary of the United States...." [17 USC S.104(b)(1)].
2. However, there are numerous rules which appear to place a statute of limitations on suits to enforce the copyright. A lawyer could tell you whether the limitations have or have not run.
3. According to Circular 1, "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin." And, "If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie [on the face of it, sufficient so long as another party doesn't have a good rebuttal] evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate." (US Library of Congress Copyright Office, Circular 1, page 7) (PDF circ01.pdf) It looks to me like if anyone's expecting to have to enforce a copyright gained under 17 USC 104(b)(1), she or he had better register it right away.
And there's a whole heck of a lot more info out there too, and a whole Title of the United States Code (Title 17). Good place to start is that Library of Congress website and/or a lawyer.
I'm not saying that Murray necessarily wants to enforce this or put that kind of effort in, though a bark letter might be a nice idea. Any attorneys out there, especially in Murray's state (wherever that may be) who'd like to do this for free? If it were three years from now, I'd do it.
I think I heard something in the spring and summer about appellate court rulings holding online providers responsible for their material...
Don't quote me on any of this. I am not a lawyer; I have just begun my study of law. I have passed no tests, and the only two licenses I have are an amateur radio license and a driver's licence, which certainly don't allow anyone to practice law. No one who is not a lawyer may give legal advice. This should NOT be construed as legal advice. I am a lay person reporting the information I think I have found in 30 minutes of web research. I COULD BE WRONG.
I think the disclaimers give me away. :)
The curious should grab some of those pdfs from the Library of Congress and/or contact their attorneys.
A threatening letter for 40 or 50 bucks? Only if you are a close friend or relative or I seriously want the case. I am a lawyer, and I do play one on the web. If what you say pans out (protective qualifier, see, I really am a JD)you have a clear cut copyright infringement case, assuming that you want to waste your life pursuing it. You also have a common law tort of passing off your work as theirs. No you don't need to put copyright on it, but it helps. Here is how: "Copyright 1999 by Daniel P. White, all rights reserved." It used to be that by registering with the copyright office you could increase your statutory rights and remedies for a nominal fee if registered within a certain time. As I don't practice much in this area, I can't say if that has changed. May the infringer assert their own copyright? But of course. If someone else then copies it from them, along with any changes they have made (a derivative work, albiet unauthorized), then they can sue for copyright infringement, and so can you. See an intellectual property lawyer in your area if you would like to complicate your life with years of litigation and hang out with lawyers if they have stolen something significant to your livlihood. But if only your pride has been hurt and you want revenge, think long and hard, cause even if you make a few bucks, it won't be worth it. www.bayarealaw.com
Yes, the GPL has been cracked in this manner (see gnu.misc.discuss). A useful Free Software license apparently needs restrictions on use (much as RMS would dislike that), not just distribution.
I don't know about this particular case, but are bits and pixels tangible?
Your post probably got reposted, say to rec.humor.best-of-usenet. Or somebody quoted it in a sig. And before you know it you have a GEN-you-wine Ann Landers Craig Shergold immortal bit of netlore ...
I doubt Wired (even today's craven Wired) would have printed your letter with the full knowledge that it was attributable to someone specifically. They're a company. They have lawyers. And whatever you think of them then (techno-weenies) or now (netbiz-weenies), they're magazine people, and magazines are actually a whole lot more cognizant of these kinds of issues than netfolk.
I mean, if they were printing it as "interesting found humor" I doubt they would have chosen to do so as a *letter*. That's pointless.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
as the posts are still available. A better question is why you think everybody should be forced to read your inane ramblings.
I am a 3d year law student. cmurray should inform the commercial site that it is violating his copyrights. Copyrights attach as soon as a work is fixed in a tangible medium, So cmurray is the copyright holder. The copyright holder determines how his/her works is publicly displayed. Therefore if cmurray says anyone can copy his words, the commercial site must respect it.
The question is "is copying a web site completely illegal" or does putting something on the internet automatically make it public domain ?
I think, although a short GPL-like tagline to add at the end of a block of text would suit most needs, there are a lot of instances where the copier(s) would simply remove the tagline and claim that you copied from them. This is the same case with images that are published online. To copyright or protect images from dissemination without copyright notice, companies use a variety of techniques. Many images include the copyright information or source url on the image itself, but depending on the complexity, anyone with experience and a nice image editor can remove this without any perceptible quality loss. So the latest attempts have been to include algorithms which are unique enough to identify but simple enough not to degrade the image, and encode copyright data within the image, a technique known as steganography. Digimarc offers just such image watermarking, though it leads to degradation in quality and a great deal of artifacting (the girl on the front page looks like she has skin cancer!). Anyway, to copyright text online, it would be a great deal more difficult, because, unlike images, the source is the same as the output (image source->decompressions->display; text source->display). To come full circle, a friend of mine wrote an excellent research paper detailing lexical steganography and his implementation of it. It's available here.
~sig~He who waits for opportunity to knock will never hear the doorbell~end sig~
I think this probably happens often - newbies find it easy to just copy a web site than build their own from scratch - I think we can all be blamed for some amount of plagrism for things we create.
Instead, they are *very* reluctant to enjoin any form of speech, instead almost always leaving it as a damages issue.
Just last week, Ford attempted to have a site shut down. They got an initial TRO, which lasted pretty much until the other side showed up. In fact, the judge ordered Ford to assist in the resuscitation of the site--at the same time cautioning the publisher that thie was *not* permission to publish the materials, and that doing so could leave him liable for additional damages.
The general rule on speech is to award damages, but not to restrain it (short of national security issues such as war-time shipping schedules [and you *really* have to wonder why the editor of that paper wanted to publish those--perhaps under a special "U-boats" heading?]).
hawk, esq.
I'd be surprised to see $25. Maybe $50 in an area where legal fees are around $100/hour, or maybe $50 beyond the cost of consultation (if there's a fee). In Las Vegas, I typically charged $100 (which was half my [then] hourly fee). If it was a very short consultation and a short letter, I'd probably apply the consultation fee towards it. More complicated issues, I'd tack it on after the consultation fee.
Keep in mind that a lawyer pretty much has to open and keep a file forever after sending one of these; it's not just five minutes on a typerwrite.
hawk, esq.
p.s. The suggestion below about sending a reasonable bill is a good one. $150 isn't out of line for a short article (about $200 for an op-ed piece in a large newspaper last time i checked). Paying it when clearly wrong costs them less than calling their own lawyer.
Apple drew heavily from NetBSD--and, contrary to GPL advocates' dire predictions, returned nice piles of bug fixes.
On another front, Caldera has decided that Wine has strategic value, and has *hired* a firm to contribute to that bsd license.
Do you really hold a second copyright (even though you didn't contribute to the work) or are they just granting you a (free perpetual irrevocable blah blah) license?
Eh-- this probably isn't worth mentioning anymore, but I will anyway: there's a differece between fact and opinion. "Copyright is Good" is an opinion. Just about any statement labeling something as "good" or "bad" is an opinion. Opinions are not facts, even if nobody has a different opinion.
It Seems to me that they've decided to take it down as the URL no longer works. Lets hope they've been /.ted and that they stay off the Dark Side from now on.
Just like commercial/professional writers protect their intelectual property so should the OpenSource/OpenContent community do. If for nothing else than keeping control of the work that is done in order to keep it OS/OC.
you ignorant little fsck.
You know what? It isn't the censorship that ticks you off. It is having your stupid little troll posts scored down that pisses you off. But here it comes: here is the kicker...
You D O N ' T have the right to be heard. Period. No where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to insist that people listen to you. Get over it.
"Who gives moderators a right to determine whether or not my post is allowed to be read by users with a default setting for "scores"? It should be up to the READERS to make this determination, not slashdot Nazis."
Just to clue you in: Moderators *are* readers. This is a plain fact.
The current system gives readers a choice--they can trust in the Moderators to filter out crap (like yours) and read only what they like, or they can choose to read everything.
If they find that the moderators don't do a good job, all they have to do is change their threshold. Another plain fact.
And while I browse at -1 (cause every now and then I have to school little fscks like you), you people are getting so old I am thinking of going up to 0.
Get over yourselves.
For Christ sake...this is a users site for a cross platform database called FileMaker Pro. These people were kind enough to put this up as a free site for the FileMaker Community...all you need to do is look and see that everything on the site is posted by FileMaker Users and Developers. They are not trying to claim credit for anything. I have used this site for several months now and have seen the said article and it clearly gave credit to this idiot and pointed to his website. There was no such mention as copyright to this article...the copyright notice they have on the page was the same as they have on all pages...it's an html footer. I think Murray C has a problem and wanted to start something and it appears he was very successful. I also know that this moron has several other items that he posted on this site himself if they did not jerk them off already and they to point to him and his pathetic website. Shame on you Murray Cummings.
They don't get to slap on a fraudulent copyright notice and expect everyone to deduce it isn't really supposed to be there. If they're going to mechanically declare ownership of every document on their web server, they need to not host documents they don't actually own.
Unfortunately I was offline when the post came up on Slashdot, so I guess nobody will be reading this now. Anyway:
Thanks for your support and advice. Although these people chose to ignore my emails about the copyright, they obviously found it impossible to ignore the Slashdot effect.
It is a pity that the end result is that we have effectively prevented the free flow of information, but at least the issue of public-domain documentation was aired.
Note that the copy appeared to have been online (without my name on it) for about 6 months before I discovered it and emailed them about it. I never wanted to get paid for this article, which is of limited interest. I just didn't want somebody trying to control it's further distribution.