ATTENTION FOLLOWERS:

jf1acai wrote: Can you get medical compensation thru the union for that many twiters? Sounds like a serious affliction to me.

I got a great plan, and it's for life

Colorado Blue Cross $5 co pay

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

lil precious wrote: My snuggle bunny is a very shrewd busniness man, he doesn’t play pubic golf courses. if he says he has 20,000 Twiters, then he has 20,000 Twiters.

Shrewd is not what I would call it. What he did was totally illegal. It is one thing to use pictures that someone else took for personal research and quite another to use it for personal gain. ANY use of other's works in the public domain is NOT an invitation to make profit. He is lucky not to have gotten sued.

No one gives a hoot about his golf or Twiter followers.

I asked her nicely if I could use them and she said no, then I called my lawyer and he looked at them and said yes..They were not copyrighted

Photos aren't the same as words, UNLESS the forum specifically states that the photos are public domain. Sweetie, long ago when forums started, people tried the lawsuit thing over things they'd posted and that were copied. Now, judges throw those out as frivilous lawsuits.

EDIT_ your lawyer was wrong. Which is why you need a lawyer who specializes in copyright law. Seriously. I deal with my words and pictures out there as part of my work, and I've gotten to know a great about copyright and the internet. If you want public domain photos, free to use with a disclaimer as to where it came from, check wikimediacommons.com. That way, you keep yourself out of the crap.

Now your blog is a different thing - your blog is indeed covered by copyright law, under the Digital Millenium Act - anything you post there that came from you originally - words and pictures - are yours.

Vice Lord wrote:

jf1acai wrote: Can you get medical compensation thru the union for that many twiters? Sounds like a serious affliction to me.

I got a great plan, and it's for life

Colorado Blue Cross $5 co pay

Not long ago you said you had USAA, did you change?

Vice Lord wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

lil precious wrote: My snuggle bunny is a very shrewd busniness man, he doesn’t play pubic golf courses. if he says he has 20,000 Twiters, then he has 20,000 Twiters.

Shrewd is not what I would call it. What he did was totally illegal. It is one thing to use pictures that someone else took for personal research and quite another to use it for personal gain. ANY use of other's works in the public domain is NOT an invitation to make profit. He is lucky not to have gotten sued.

No one gives a hoot about his golf or Twiter followers.

I asked her nicely if I could use them and she said no, then I called my lawyer and he looked at them and said yes..They were not copyrighted

The word ethical comes to mind. Ever hear of it?
And just out of curiosity, did you give credit to the author of each photo?

Vice Lord wrote:

jf1acai wrote: Don't feel too bad, VL, after the $875 you paid to an id10t shyster, and the $542 you got from stealing pictures, you are only out $333 on the deal

And I'm glad you don't play

pubic golf courses

I got a lot more than just Incorporated for that $875. A lot more

Those 'happy endings' can sure be pricey.........but well worth it I'm sure. :Whistle JK

TPP wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:

jf1acai wrote: Can you get medical compensation thru the union for that many twiters? Sounds like a serious affliction to me.

I got a great plan, and it's for life

Colorado Blue Cross $5 co pay

Not long ago you said you had USAA, did you change?

We don't buy health insurance? I'm covered as a retirement benifit negotiated by my union. We get it until medicare kicks in, and if medicare is gone when i'm 70 or whatever, we get it until I die.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

lil precious wrote: My snuggle bunny is a very shrewd busniness man, he doesn’t play pubic golf courses. if he says he has 20,000 Twiters, then he has 20,000 Twiters.

Shrewd is not what I would call it. What he did was totally illegal. It is one thing to use pictures that someone else took for personal research and quite another to use it for personal gain. ANY use of other's works in the public domain is NOT an invitation to make profit. He is lucky not to have gotten sued.

No one gives a hoot about his golf or Twiter followers.

I asked her nicely if I could use them and she said no, then I called my lawyer and he looked at them and said yes..They were not copyrighted

The word ethical comes to mind. Ever hear of it?
And just out of curiosity, did you give credit to the author of each photo?

No I did'nt because I did'nt have to, they weren't water marked or copyrighted.

And Kathi did eventually forgive me btw, and I offered her a pamphlet for free

Local_Historian wrote: Photos aren't the same as words, UNLESS the forum specifically states that the photos are public domain. Sweetie, long ago when forums started, people tried the lawsuit thing over things they'd posted and that were copied. Now, judges throw those out as frivilous lawsuits.

EDIT_ your lawyer was wrong. Which is why you need a lawyer who specializes in copyright law. Seriously. I deal with my words and pictures out there as part of my work, and I've gotten to know a great about copyright and the internet. If you want public domain photos, free to use with a disclaimer as to where it came from, check wikimediacommons.com. That way, you keep yourself out of the crap.

Now your blog is a different thing - your blog is indeed covered by copyright law, under the Digital Millenium Act - anything you post there that came from you originally - words and pictures - are yours.

I think you could be confused

Actually, I'm not. It's part of my job. You are incorrect - just because it is not watermarked, it is still under copyright. Paperwork does NOT have to be filed for words, photos or music to be under copyright. If she had sued, she would have won.

Here you go - digital millenium copyright act - http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

While "fair use" is vague - taking someone else's photo and using it without credit and without permission is clear violation - no matter where you got it.

Here's copyright law -

Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original
works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known
or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise
communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of
authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept,
principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf is where this comes from, and it goes into more detail, includinf published and unpublished works. All you write - except in a forum where it specifically states in the TOS that all you write there is public domain or the property of the site - is AUTOMATICALLY under copyright law. Same with all the categories above.

You can, if you wish, file the paperwork, but legally it is fully unnecessary. So for example, if you took one or more of my articles that I've published online in my work for examiner.com or associated content, and turned around and posted that article in full to your blog, you just violated my copyright. Or say you put them in a book and publish them - same deal. I can sue, and I WILL win, because I can prove date of publication. I don't even have to prove that - I merely have to come up with the date I wrote it on my computer - and while I can manually change that date, the original date is stored in your computer and can be verified by an expert. Same with on blogs - you can change the date, but the original date is still logged in their server.

BTW - if you violate someone's copyright in your blog, and they file against you using the DMCA, you can and will lose your blog, and all access to the blogging site, and get your ISP blacklisted. I know - I got someone blacklisted for stealing my work last year.

I'm not wrong - not even close. Time for you to get a new lawyer.