Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that is accurate.
We covered IP in school but I honestly don't remember the nuanced details that you're hinting at.
But this might help:
"In informal usage, the public domain consists of works that are publicly available; while according to the formal definition, it consists of works that are unavailable for private ownership or are available for public use."
WEEE! Wikipedia...
Originally posted by dadudemon
We covered IP in school but I honestly don't remember the nuanced details that you're hinting at.But this might help:
"In informal usage, the public domain consists of works that are publicly available; while according to the formal definition, it consists of works that are unavailable for private ownership or are available for public use."
WEEE! Wikipedia...
I was referring to quanchi not giving up his copyright to this photo, even though he posted it in public. It's not in the public domain in either usage, unless quanchi has specifically given up his copyright for it. And if someone were to modify it he could take steps to stop that from being used (in a first step he could send a cease and desist letter, for example).
Originally posted by Bardock42
I was referring to quanchi not giving up his copyright to this photo, even though he posted it in public. It's not in the public domain in either usage, unless quanchi has specifically given up his copyright for it. And if someone were to modify it he could take steps to stop that from being used (in a first step he could send a cease and desist letter, for example).
I dont think anyone is making money out of his picture, but is public on an internet domain (photobucket)
Originally posted by Bardock42
I was referring to quanchi not giving up his copyright to this photo, even though he posted it in public. It's not in the public domain in either usage, unless quanchi has specifically given up his copyright for it. And if someone were to modify it he could take steps to stop that from being used (in a first step he could send a cease and desist letter, for example).
Quan never copyrighted it: I guarantee it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't need to copyright your work. It's implicit.
I checked: you're wrong.
"Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net."
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Getting trolled is definitely ordinary flow of the net.
🙂
Edit 2:
Well mother****er:
"Most people copyright their work explicitly, but informally, by attaching a copyright notice to the work. (We'll describe how you do this in the sections that follow.) However, neither formal registration nor even the attachment of an explicit copyright notice is needed to establish copyright. Thanks to the Berne Convention on copyrights, the contents of any graphics files created after March 1, 1989, are automatically and implicitly copyrighted and protected, regardless of whether a copyright notice is actually present in the file. In fact, even all the posts on USENET and all email sent across the Internet are automatically copyrighted by these international laws."
Quan may have no chin by my nose is crooked in the same way Tom Cruise's nose is crooked:
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3060108800/h63AE47CF/
Except mine is the other side. I wonder if he was punched in the face, too?
😐
I come from the Cyber Security side of things where code was covered, not images
You have to explicitly state in your code the stuff about copyright. :
"Object code copyright
An object code copyright is a human-readable copyright notice that has been embedded into the object code of a library mode or executable file. This notice allows anyone who is performing a string search on an object file to see that the intellectual contents of the file are protected by copyright.
In ANSI C, you could use the following line of code to embed a copyright string into an object file:
static const char * const Copyright = "Copyright 1996 by James D. Murray";
This code creates a static constant named Copyright that contains your copyright string. This is also the string that should be displayed to the user with other information about the program."
Honestly, I had no idea there was a separate provision for images.
But, no you're still wrong: fair use still applies because he is wanting to alter the image for artistic purposes. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
I come from the Cyber Security side of things where code was covered, not imagesYou have to explicitly state in your code the stuff about copyright. :
"Object code copyright
An object code copyright is a human-readable copyright notice that has been embedded into the object code of a library mode or executable file. This notice allows anyone who is performing a string search on an object file to see that the intellectual contents of the file are protected by copyright.
In ANSI C, you could use the following line of code to embed a copyright string into an object file:
static const char * const Copyright = "Copyright 1996 by James D. Murray";
This code creates a static constant named Copyright that contains your copyright string. This is also the string that should be displayed to the user with other information about the program."Honestly, I had no idea there was a separate provision for images.
But, no you're still wrong: fair use still applies because he is wanting to alter the image for artistic purposes. 😐
No you don't, your code is also copyrighted implicitly.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No you don't, your code is also copyrighted implicitly.
I don't see anywhere where that's holds true if you post your code to the public domain without copyright.
Nothing I found says that it is still implicitly protected. In fact, it says the opposite.
😐
Edit - If you have a quote on it, be my guest. 🙂
Edit 2 - Cover the topic: can Rao modify Quan's picture and post it as a work of art or can he not? 🙂