|
Hi all. I tried posting this almost 24 hours ago, so if it does show up twice
I apologize for my impatience. I have a legal question regarding copyright
infringement. A quick background:
I am the author of a book about eBay. I wrote the first edition, a 50+ page
manual, in the middle of 2000. I said it couldn't be copied or resold but
didn't copyright it. In August of 2002, I expanded the manual into a 200+ page
book that I DID get copyrighted. Currently I am expanding and updating it
again and I will get the update copyrighted in the coming weeks.
A couple days ago, I noticed a couple of eBay booklets/reports that have been
floating around the Internet for a long time. I had seen ads for these but had
never bothered to actually purchase them or download them (they are often given
away).
Two of the booklets are blatantly stolen from my material, with minor words or
details changed along the way. Although they mostly seem to be taken from the
original manual, most of what was listed in the original manual is in the first
copyright edition.
The published dates of the two manuals, according to their respective PDF
files, are December 16th, 2000 and December 13th, 2002. My question is, does
it sound like I have legal recourse against either or both of the authors? You
might not be able to answer with any certainty, but any advice you can give
would be much appreciated. If you think I need to contact a copyright lawyer
immediately or if I should forget about it, please advise.
Thanks so much for your time & input. I'll come back to read this post or I'll
check my e-mail at AuctionWealth@aol.com if you want to contact me directly.
All the best,
Tim
|
| |
| |
AuctionWealth wrote:>>
Hi all. I tried posting this almost 24 hours ago, so if it does show up
twice I apologize for my impatience. I have a legal question regarding
copyright infringement. A quick background:
I am the author of a book about eBay. I wrote the first edition, a 50+
page manual, in the middle of 2000. I said it couldn't be copied or
resold but didn't copyright it. In August of 2002, I expanded the manual
into a 200+ page book that I DID get copyrighted. Currently I am
expanding and updating it again and I will get the update copyrighted in
the coming weeks.
A couple days ago, I noticed a couple of eBay booklets/reports that have
been floating around the Internet for a long time. I had seen ads for
these but had never bothered to actually purchase them or download them
(they are often given away).
You would have to be able to prove that the work is entirely yours.
Specially with no real formal copyright notice.
Proof would be in the form of notarization, original publishing dates, if
you published it yourself, that may not help.
Since it's mainly about a website of which you have no holdings, it's hard
to say but maybe you could be infringing on ebay's copyrights.
Others have written so called manuals. Who's to say they didn't write the
same thing you did?
If you can show that there is something unique within the manuals that is of
your own true creation, then perhaps you have a case.
Two of the booklets are blatantly stolen from my material, with minor
words or details changed along the way. Although they mostly seem to be
taken from the original manual, most of what was listed in the original
manual is in the first copyright edition.
"most of'? That leaves a huge gap to discuss. Can you prove beyond any
reasonable doubt that "most of" the work is yours?
The published dates of the two manuals, according to their respective PDF
files, are December 16th, 2000 and December 13th, 2002. My question is,
does it sound like I have legal recourse against either or both of the
authors? You might not be able to answer with any certainty, but any
advice you can give would be much appreciated. If you think I need to
contact a copyright lawyer immediately or if I should forget about it,
please advise.
Thanks so much for your time & input. I'll come back to read this post
or I'll check my e-mail at AuctionWealth@aol.com if you want to contact
me directly.
From what you say here, your case is shaky. Very shaky. Don't bother with an
attorney. Not until you can show a lot more proof. What you may have, is a
case of plagerism. Another party using your work as their own.
All the best,
Tim
|
| |
| |
Again, Richard demonstrates that he has absolutely no knowledge of
copyright law but won't let that stop him from giving bad advice ...
In article <bjb0k201cq5@enews3.newsguy.com> "Richard" <anom@anom> writes:
You would have to be able to prove that the work is entirely yours.
Nope. You would have to show that there is some minimal orginality
in the express for it to be protected by copyright.
Specially with no real formal copyright notice.
No notice is required, and has been since 1988.
Proof would be in the form of notarization, original publishing dates, if
you published it yourself, that may not help.
You would have to register your copyright before any lawsuit in the
United States. That registration is sufficient, and it doesn't have
to be notarized.
Others have written so called manuals. Who's to say they didn't write the
same thing you did?
To show infringement, you show that the alleged infringers had access
to your work and that there is a substantial similarity. You don't
consider those things that are dictated by external considerations,
but you do look for similarities in expressing a concept.
If you can show that there is something unique within the manuals that is of
your own true creation, then perhaps you have a case.
"Unique" is not a test for copyright or infringement.
"most of'? That leaves a huge gap to discuss. Can you prove beyond any
reasonable doubt that "most of" the work is yours?
The "beyond a reasonable doubt" test is for criminal proceedings. For
civil copyright infringement, which is what we have here, the test is
"preponderance of the evidence" or just tipping the scales slightly.
From what you say here, your case is shaky. Very shaky. Don't bother with an
attorney. Not until you can show a lot more proof.
You can talk to an attorney who knows copyright law, or you can listen
to a fool like "Richard" who clearly doesn't. Your choice.
|
| |
| |
Lee Hollaar wrote:>>
Again, Richard demonstrates that he has absolutely no knowledge of
copyright law but won't let that stop him from giving bad advice ...
In article <bjb0k201cq5@enews3.newsguy.com> "Richard" <anom@anom> writes:
Nope. You would have to show that there is some minimal orginality
in the express for it to be protected by copyright.
1 page out of 50 wouldn't show any tangible proof. 10 pages out of 50 would
begin to tip the scale to the favor of the plaintiff. 30 of 50 would
definitely raise some questions, and greater than 40 out of 50 would be
tangible proof.
You can only copyright your original work. If your using material that
someone else wrote, such as from a website as he did, then you can't claim
that as your orignal work.
Which is why better authors of such material will show a bibliography and
credits for the source of their work(s).
Specially with no real formal copyright notice.
No notice is required, and has been since 1988.
So who's to say another person didn't write the material before his claim?
Proof would be in the form of notarization, original publishing dates, if
you published it yourself, that may not help.
You would have to register your copyright before any lawsuit in the
United States. That registration is sufficient, and it doesn't have
to be notarized.
Of course the registration isn't notarized since it's issued by the federal
government.
By having the work notarized, this gives validated proof as to when the
material was created for publication. It also shows a witness of that fact.
Others have written so called manuals. Who's to say they didn't write the
same thing you did?
To show infringement, you show that the alleged infringers had access
to your work and that there is a substantial similarity. You don't
consider those things that are dictated by external considerations,
but you do look for similarities in expressing a concept.
If you can show that there is something unique within the manuals that is
of your own true creation, then perhaps you have a case.
"Unique" is not a test for copyright or infringement.
If you include certain things in your work, which are called "traps", you
can prove infringement quite easily. Since the thief didn't bother to check
the material he is not aware of the traps.
Map publishers do this regularly. They will show two parallel streets
connecting at a point, when in fact they do not. Or they'll put in their own
streets with fictitious names.
If in your manual, you include a photo, one taken with a regular film camera
and you took the photo, then having the negative is excellent proof the work
is yours.
"most of'? That leaves a huge gap to discuss. Can you prove beyond any
reasonable doubt that "most of" the work is yours?
The "beyond a reasonable doubt" test is for criminal proceedings. For
civil copyright infringement, which is what we have here, the test is
"preponderance of the evidence" or just tipping the scales slightly.
From what you say here, your case is shaky. Very shaky. Don't bother with
an attorney. Not until you can show a lot more proof.
You can talk to an attorney who knows copyright law, or you can listen
to a fool like "Richard" who clearly doesn't. Your choice.
Do you know the five things that can not be copyrighted?
If you take a photo of the "Grand Canyon", can you copyright the work?
Think before you answer yes to that.
Can you copyright a general math formula?
Can you copyright your name?
Can you copyright a domain name?
|
| |
| |
In article <bjdkf70232p@enews3.newsguy.com> "Richard" <anom@anom> writes:
Lee Hollaar wrote:>>
Do you know the five things that can not be copyrighted?
If you take a photo of the "Grand Canyon", can you copyright the work?
This is another indicator that Richard doesn't know anything about copyright
law. You don't have to do anything to copyright a photo other than take
the picture. Fixation in a medium of expression has been the only
requirement in the United States since January 1, 1978, and in most of
the world for well before that.
Think before you answer yes to that.
As applied in the case of photos of public domain items, such as national
parks and their contents, copyright only applies to the production and sale
of those items.
Close, but still wrong because you don't bother to try to read and
understand the law. It also applies to the preparation of derivative
works (say, a sculpture based on the photograph) and the public
performance or display of the work.
And you infringe if you either reproduce or sell. You don't have to
do both, as you seem to imply.
If 100 people stood side by side and took the same picture as ansel adams
did, each and every one of those photos is copyrighted by the photographer.
But that does not protect the photographer from being exclusive owner of the
contents of the image.
Sure. So what.
I have seen several of his photos of el capitan, and others, and even though
the images may actually be copyrighted, the copyright can not grant ansel
adams exclusive rights to being the only photographer of the same scene.
I have a few very similar images of el capitan. Can ansel adams sue me for
infringement? I don't think so.
Of course not, and I never said that.
To repeat what should be obvious by now --
As I said, Richard likes to wing it rather than know or look up the
real answer. Consider that if you are considering following his
advice ...
|
| |
| |
In cases of photographic work, which involves public domain items, such as
national parks, no one person has the exclusive right to publish and sell
his own photographs. 10,000 people can photograph precisely the same scene
and 10,000 people would have rights to publish and sell those images.
Neither one could sue the other over infringement because the subject matter
is public domain.
There have already been several court cases in which the owners of famous
landmark buildings, such as the TRW building, tried suing the photographer
for infringement because the owners felt they had exclusive rights to the
building and any and all images thereof.
If you don't want people taking pictures of your building, don't build it in
an area that is easily accesible to the populace.
You can not take a picture of a tree and claim the work as your exclusive
work.
But you can if you put something else in the image to make it exclusively
yours.
Here's a very good explanation of what is to be done and expected with
respect to the copyrighting of images.
http://www.vippa.com/articles.html
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp
Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and
containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height
and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from
public documents or other common sources)
This could also be applied to an image of public domain property. As it
could be loosely construed to be shown that the contents of the image are
not your original work.
|
| |
| |
In cases of photographic work, which involves public domain items, such as
national parks, no one person has the exclusive right to publish and sell
his own photographs. 10,000 people can photograph precisely the same scene
and 10,000 people would have rights to publish and sell those images.
Neither one could sue the other over infringement because the subject
matter
is public domain.
There have already been several court cases in which the owners of famous
landmark buildings, such as the TRW building, tried suing the photographer
for infringement because the owners felt they had exclusive rights to the
building and any and all images thereof.
If you don't want people taking pictures of your building, don't build it
in
an area that is easily accesible to the populace.
You can not take a picture of a tree and claim the work as your exclusive
work.
But you can if you put something else in the image to make it exclusively
yours.
Here's a very good explanation of what is to be done and expected with
respect to the copyrighting of images.
http://www.vippa.com/articles.html
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp
Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and
containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height
and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken
from
public documents or other common sources)
This could also be applied to an image of public domain property. As it
could be loosely construed to be shown that the contents of the image are
not your original work.
es:
This person does not seem to understand/comprehend copyright laws.
The above quated example indicates that.
..." In cases of photographic work, which involves public domain items,
such as
national parks, no one person has the exclusive right to publish and sell
his own photographs. 10,000 people can photograph precisely the same scene
and 10,000 people would have rights to publish and sell those images.
Neither one could sue the other over infringement because the subject
matter
is public domain.
What he seems not to understand is that everyone of the 10,000 people
photographing "precisely the same scene" will result in 10,000 individual
(unique/different) photographs, EACH and EVERYONE automatically protected by
the US copyright law (no registration necessary!)
|
| |
| |
In article <bjbu1t02o9a@enews3.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <anom@anom>
wrote:
Richard:
I don't know you - unless you were one of the many people who claimed
to know copyright and trademark laws on askme.com (which you appear to
be based on your asinine beliefs and the utter nonsense you're telling
people). So, in case you don't want to believe Lee:
Do you know the five things that can not be copyrighted?
If you take a photo of the "Grand Canyon", can you copyright the work?
Yes.
Think before you answer yes to that.
Can you copyright a general math formula?
Copyright no. Math is particularly difficult because you're stating
"nature", a trusim. This is why people NAME their formulas.
Can you copyright your name?
No. You didn't create it for one. Two, it's not a "work" as described
in the copyright act.
Can you copyright a domain name?
No, again, wrong IP right. Trademark yes (under the right
circumstances), but not copyright.
Go to law school or at least more fully educate yourself about
Intellectual Property law before you try to give honest, hardworking
people bad advice which might set them back further than they already
are. What you're doing is negligent.
~Jeff
|
| |
| |
|
