Under US law anything you make, especially images are automatically under your copyright. but without an offical copyright with the government it is much harder to successfully make a claim of infringement and takes much longer. It's easier to fight against the original holder if they don't have an official copyright and the court often won't really bother with it.
At least from my experiance with the copyright office
Originally posted by dadudemon
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?
😐
Cruise has broken his nose several times.
His teeth are (or were) not centered either.
Allow me to hit this note: C#
Man, just singing that note gives me a Python erection.
I think I'm going to need some Java to pep me up after this one.
We'll all get A++ on our coding homework, for sure. Well, BASICally all of us will. That's just occam's razor, yo.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't see anywhere where that's holds true if you post your code to the public domain without copyright.
This, in a nutshell, shows that you have no idea what you are talking about here. You've been trying your best to get up to speed on wikipedia, which I find laudable, but you are still incorrect. If something is in the public domain it does not have the corresponding copyright. If one was to give something to the public domain one would leave give up their copyright, just posting code publicly does not however give up said copyright.
Fair use was indeed your best bet to have a reasonable argument. However fair use has to be decided by a court as well, and most hosts would comply with a cease and desist letter, before letting it come so far. If Rao was willing to go to the courts with his claim of fair use, it is very likely he would lose anyways, in particularly if quanchi was to argue that the usage is a defamation of character, which given the tone of this conversation it would most likely be. Not being a person of public interest the courts would also be more inclined to protect his copyright vs. fair use claims.
To your question of whether Rao can modify it and post it as a work of art. Most likely not.
Originally posted by Lek Kuen
Under US law anything you make, especially images are automatically under your copyright. but without an offical copyright with the government it is much harder to successfully make a claim of infringement and takes much longer. It's easier to fight against the original holder if they don't have an official copyright and the court often won't really bother with it.At least from my experiance with the copyright office
IIRC, uploading photos to photobucket DOES have an official copyright: but it is not yours; it's photobucket's. 😐
It is in the ToS, most likely.
Originally posted by dadudemon
IIRC, uploading photos to photobucket DOES have an official copyright: but it is not yours; it's photobucket's. 😐It is in the ToS, most likely.
Photobucket doesn't gain the copyright but you give them permission to use it themselves. They can't do anything about you using it as you see fit, but you can't sue them for using it. at least last I checked, it may have changed.
Originally posted by dadudemon
IIRC, uploading photos to photobucket DOES have an official copyright: but it is not yours; it's photobucket's. 😐It is in the ToS, most likely.
Originally posted by Bardock42
This, in a nutshell, shows that you have no idea what you are talking about here.
No it doesn't at all.
You're not lashing out: tell-tale sign you're angry. Calm down.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You've been trying your best to get up to speed on wikipedia, which I find laudable, but you are still incorrect.
Still lashing out.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If something is in the public domain it does not have the corresponding copyright. If one was to give something to the public domain one would leave give up their copyright, just posting code publicly does not however give up said copyright.
Yes, I'm fully aware of what "public domain" means. If you don't believe me, check the GDF for my commentary and discussions with inimalist on the subject. In other words, I knew what it was before it was cool to define it in the MvF social thread.
Here's a question: why do you think I said the following: "I don't see anywhere where that's holds true if you post your code to the public domain without copyright"?
Answer: it is because there is no way I could be wrong with my statement like that. I was literally counting on your ignorance so you would slip up and I could reply with a "gotcha b*tch."
Originally posted by Bardock42
To your question of whether Rao can modify it and post it as a work of art. Most likely not.
You're incorrect for the reasons you stated. It is also not copyrighted by photobucket: I just checked. Rao, have at it!
😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
No it doesn't at all.You're not lashing out: tell-tale sign you're angry. Calm down.
Still lashing out.
Yes, I'm fully aware of what "public domain" means. If you don't believe me, check the GDF for my commentary and discussions with inimalist on the subject. In other words, I knew what it was before it was cool to define it in the MvF social thread.
Here's a question: why do you think I said the following: "I don't see anywhere where that's holds true if you post your code to the public domain without copyright"?
Answer: it is because there is no way I could be wrong with my statement like that. I was literally counting on your ignorance so you would slip up and I could reply with a "gotcha b*tch."
You're incorrect for the reasons you stated: it is probably copyrighted and owned by photobucket.
😐
I'll just leave that here as a testament to your ignorance on the subject.
Originally posted by Lek Kuen
Photobucket doesn't gain the copyright but you give them permission to use it themselves. They can't do anything about you using it as you see fit, but you can't sue them for using it. at least last I checked, it may have changed.
Yeah, Photobucket addresses this, specifically:
http://support.photobucket.com/hc/en-us/articles/200724104-Using-Photos-Found-on-Photobucket
"Photobucket does not own the copyrights to any files that appear on the site. Though we have certain licensed rights, we cannot grant a sublicense or give you permission to use an image."
To answer the question, Rao, you can post a modification of Quanchi's image and you're safe to do so under "fair use." It just has to have artistic merit. 🙂
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'll just leave that here as a testament to your ignorance on the subject.
Remember when I made fun of you, first, for being a wikipedia expert?
Originally posted by dadudemon
WEEE! Wikipedia...
I predicted, probably correctly so, that you'd be right off to wikipedia since I contradicted you. 😉
Also, address the content in my post.
1. You're angry.
2. My statement about the public domain is solid as a rock and you know it. You're probably furious because you know that I know what I was doing and you fell for it.
3. Fair use has Rao covered and no one is going to take anything to court. 😉
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, Photobucket addresses this, specifically:http://support.photobucket.com/hc/en-us/articles/200724104-Using-Photos-Found-on-Photobucket
"Photobucket does not own the copyrights to any files that appear on the site. Though we have certain licensed rights, we cannot grant a sublicense or give you permission to use an image."
To answer the question, Rao, you can post a modification of Quanchi's image and you're safe to do so under "fair use." It just has to have artistic merit. 🙂
Really quan could still challenge it and likely win assuming he has offical copyright, but it wouldn't be worth the effort. It's pretty hard to really win fair use on that kind of stuff, even without money involved. It's just most people and companies find it's not worth the effort to fight it unless money is involved.
Originally posted by Lek Kuen
Really quan could still challenge it and likely win assuming he has offical copyright, but it wouldn't be worth the effort. It's pretty hard to really win fair use on that kind of stuff, even without money involved. It's just most people and companies find it's not worth the effort to fight it unless money is involved.
This goes back to the original discussion: Quan likely did not explicitly copyright the photo.
Edit - What happens if Quan decides to, today, copyright that photo but Rao already made his funny little gif and Rao's timestamp is before Quan's explicit copyright (assuming it is informal...clearly)? Does the copyright retroactively apply to the creation date or just the time he created the copyright? The copyright notices usually never include time...
So how does this play out?
Edit - Note that I think Bardock's implicit copyright argument is weak and wouldn't hold up in court. I find no cases that match Bardock's suggested scenario. Does implied license allow Rao to make the "art"?
Originally posted by dadudemon
This goes back to the original discussion: Quan likely did not explicitly copyright the photo.Edit - What happens if Quan decides to, today, copyright that photo but Rao already made his funny little gif and Rao's timestamp is before Quan's explicit copyright (assuming it is informal...clearly)? Does the copyright retroactively apply to the creation date or just the time he created the copyright? The copyright notices usually never include time...
So how does this play out?
I'm not a lawyer so I only know from my talks with the copyright office directly and not all the crazy legal talk. But iirc in that situation Rao would be allowed to keep using that image in the way he had been, but wouldn't be allowed to make more or sell it to others, or make a new version without making a deal with Quan
Originally posted by Lek Kuen
I'm not a lawyer so I only know from my talks with the copyright office directly and not all the crazy legal talk. But iirc in that situation Rao would be allowed to keep using that image in the way he had been, but wouldn't be allowed to make more or sell it to others, or make a new version without making a deal with Quan
Oh...wow. I learned something new. So Quan couldn't apply a retroactive copright to the date of creation? It is from the date the copyright was created? (In other words, Rao's gif is usable, but, like you said, Rao couldn't make another after this point).
I found a case from 2007 that covers retroactive copyrighting but I don't think it applies to this situation. It appears to be tangentially related, at best.
Yeah from my dealing they said they would only cover claims that stem from the copyright was filed (from when I sent it in, even if it wasn't fully granted yet) but not from before even if it was created already. Though I could put enough pressure to fight it, but it is much harder to win in that situation.