copyright image theft (re. spuriousmonkey)

Status
Not open for further replies.
spuriousmonkey said:
read up ronnie. Within the EU national laws apply.

You are not easily identified because nobody knows what you look like. Nobody even knows who you are. Possession doesn't mean anything. If you didn't take the picture you are not the photographer.

Moreover according to local national law if you can see a home in background you are braking copyright law.

You don't know what you are talking about.

My wife knows what I look like.
She took the photo.

--- Ron.
 
perplexity said:
I own the copyright, in which respect the rights and duties are well defined.
You said he stole it. I see you're still using it. Intellectual property laws are indeed well defined so why are you claiming spurious stole your image? It's infringement not theft.
perplexity said:
PMs are speculative, there being nothing to guarantee, nor any notice to show that a PM is ever read at all.
In other words you'd prefer to throw a public tantrum...
Can you see my avatar Ron? If so block it and stop infringing my copyright.
 
perplexity said:
You don't know what you are talking about.

My wife knows what I look like.
She took the photo.

--- Ron.

Your alledged wife is then the owner of the picture.

duh...

Shame she doesn't exist because the observer is not objective.
 
avatar21927_3.gif


wow!

I did it again...


stole your picure...


again!!!
 
cop·y·right (kp-rt)
n. Abbr. c. or cop.

The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

notice that is specifically says: EXCLUSIVE PUBLICATION, PRODUCTION, SALE, OR DISTRIBUTION.

you posted the picture on the internet, and by that very action (without before obtaining legal rights to the picture), you have willingly relinquished your right to say that your mug is copyrighted.

a copyright is a tool of law to keep others from profiting from your intellectual properties. as a digital photo used as an avatar on a public, free of charge online forum, you have no claim.

but please, i welcome you to threaten me the way you threatened invert nexus.
fucking crybaby.
 
kazakhan said:
You said he stole it. I see you're still using it. Intellectual property laws are indeed well defined so why are you claiming spurious stole your image? It's infringement not theft.

"copyright theft" is a commonly used phrase to describe the practice:

http://www.google.com/search?as_qdr=all&q=+"copyright+theft

kazakhan said:
In other words you'd prefer to throw a public tantrum...
Can you see my avatar Ron? If so block it and stop infringing my copyright.

Shame on you for your ingratitude, in view of the obvious ignorance of the subject.

--- Ron.
 
perplexity said:
Copyright is owned by default, for any work, by the owner of the property, whoever put the work in, regardless of a copyright notice or any other prior notice apart from a specific permission.

The image that was used by spuriousmonkey is evidently my image, not a parody of it, not an imitation.

The image is easily identified as mine because I have the original from which the smaller version was reduced.

International issues are not of course a novelty:
The Berne Conmvention for the Protection Literay and Artictic Works would for instance apply.

--- Ron.

Ron, the image is hosted on David Watanabe's server, and there is only one copyright notice. Now, while all material is granted unofficial copyright status, hosting on some sites confers copyright to the site, or makes the work public domain. (deviantart, for example of the latter).

I don't recall if there is anything specific about the copyright of avatars, or copyright in general in the sign up blurb.

I'm not defending Spurious, just pointing out that it's not clear cut.
 
actually, it is.

having published studies in 3 different scholastic publications, i know a bit about copyright law.

you just cant stand being wrong.
again, i state: shut up, ron. you are a fucking crybaby.
 
The Devil Inside said:
you posted the picture on the internet, and by that very action (without before obtaining legal rights to the picture), you have willingly relinquished your right to say that your mug is copyrighted.

a copyright is a tool of law to keep others from profiting from your intellectual properties. as a digital photo used as an avatar on a public, free of charge online forum, you have no claim.

That is simply not true.


Copyright laws grant the creator the exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the work publicly. Exclusive means only the creator of such work, not anybody who has access to it and decides to grab it.

Copyright protection begins when any of the above described work is actually created and fixed in a tangible form.

http://www.whatiscopyright.org/

Copyrights and the Internet.

Public domain - not! When visiting a web site, it is so easy to click and save with a mouse button when one sees a graphic image that one likes, or to view the source code and copy part of or all of the HTML coding because one "likes the way this or that was done" or one "wants a similar layout", or to copy original writings because "that person expresses this or that so well". The general (and incorrect) notion is that anything that is on the internet is public domain and may be taken without permission from the creator/owner. Some people actually think (incorrectly) that just because bits of web pages may be stored in one's cache, or because certain browsers allow one to do "file save as" moves or anything similar one may use such material as one wishes. This is false.
--- Ron.
 
whatever helps you feel better about yourself, guy.

hey look! now I am calling myself Ron Harvey!!
does that mean that i have copyrighted my tagline? wow...didnt know it was so easy!

get an education, simpleton.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top