Copyright infringement - I'm scared.

[Ross Taylor]

It seems like a lot of trouble for someone to go through, joining MS to send random messages.  Maybe I should send them money so I don't get sued for copyright violation? 

 

[Rwsavory]

He doesn’t want his content circulated on the Internet.  If I had a webpage that looked his I would feel the same way.  

[Oscar Avalle]

wtf?

[ArtVandelay]

Shouldn’t he specify what material or are you suppose to remove everything you ever posted?

[Ross Taylor]

Ha, I didn't even know he/she had a website...now I'm curious.  Unless he/she owns Mooney or Brittain manuals, I think I'm safe.  Whew!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Do you even have a context to possibly understand it?

[Marauder]

A lot of the photos on the web have copyrights on them but in many cases they are in small print and hardly visible. The ones who take it seriously are the ones who will watermark their photos on the web.

If you look through the photos you posted, you might find the one they are referring to.

I have a friend who’s wife is responsible for tracking and paying royalties to musical artists. It is amazing how much money flows this way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Ross Taylor]

Just to clarify...this has to be a scam or somebody's idea of bored fun.  The only things I've posted are screenshots of products I've purchased from Amazon or AS, pics from my hangar, or pages of relevant manuals.  I don't, for a second, think I really used anyone's copyrighted material.  I expect I'll get a follow-up demand for money next...kind of like those frequent "we caught your wank on video and we'll share it with your contact list unless you pay us in Bitcoin" emails I get through the business email. 

So, not a serious "threat"...but one I thought I ought to share for the hive humor and as a heads-up, in light of the scammers trying to sell stuff to MS members.  And, why did I share this in the bug/suggestion forum?  Maybe, in light of these scammers sending DMs to members, it might make sense to not allow DMs until someone's posted 5 or 10 times or something?  That would keep people from joining and sending trash right away.   A post threshold would at least give us a chance to vet some public comments.  Another forum I used to participate in was set up like this.  On the other hand...junk like this is easy to ignore. #delete

[cferr59]

I think it is the Tamco guy again.  That isn't a scam, just a really crazy avionics person.

[Rwsavory]

27 minutes ago, cferr59 said:

I think it is the Tamco guy again.  That isn't a scam, just a really crazy avionics person.

Yes.  His website is a hot mess.  Cheap entertainment on a warm July day.  

[Ross Taylor]

Oh, how funny...I didn't think of him and that.  I did post, asking if his service was an option for display repair.  I see why so many steered me away.  Thanks, MS, for saving me from myself on that!

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Marauder said:

A lot of the photos on the web have copyrights on them but in many cases they are in small print and hardly visible. The ones who take it seriously are the ones who will watermark their photos on the web.

FWIW, copyright doesn't have to be marked.   If you create something new, you own the copyright to it regardless of whether it is marked or not.   If you publish something for which you wish to maintain the copyright, it's a good idea to mark it.

[Ross Taylor]

11 minutes ago, EricJ said:

 If you publish something for which you wish to maintain the copyright, it's a good idea to mark it.

Very true.  It's not absolute protection, but it gives you some advantage in litigation to defend it.  We got a ® registered trademark on our business logo, but I've seen it copied exactly on some motorcycle gear, on some guy's plasma cutting website, and on some clothing.  But who could blame them...it's fun. 

 

 

[EricJ]

4 hours ago, Ross Taylor said:

Very true.  It's not absolute protection, but it gives you some advantage in litigation to defend it.  We got a ® registered trademark on our business logo, but I've seen it copied exactly on some motorcycle gear, on some guy's plasma cutting website, and on some clothing.  But who could blame them...it's fun. 

 

 

Unfortunately sometimes when people have wound up in litigation, instances of not defending IP (especially trademarks) is sometimes used as evidence that the IP has been abandoned.   This is one reason why big companies go after small companies using similar names, e.g., a garage can't call themselves "Honda Doctor" even if they work exclusively on Hondas, because if Honda lets them they lose exclusivity to the name.

IP is a minefield, and a double-edged sword.   You lose either way.   

[Skydancer2992]

Fair Use laws allow the use of copyrighted material for the purpose of quoting, parodying, criticizing, researching, scholarship, etc.

That should cover most of what takes place on MS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

"Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship.^[4] Fair use provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor test.

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:^[6]

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.^[7]"

 

 

[N201MKTurbo]

I don’t think anybody here is trying to make money off of his work. What is he going to sue for? Free advertising? 

[Ross Taylor]

14 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

What is he going to sue for? Free advertising?

Exactly! I was actually considering using his services. Was...

[1964-M20E]

Well if he is really serious then he can send an official cease and desist letter through USPS registered mail citing the specific images and infringements.  I'm no lawyer but to me a comment on a website is non binding.

 

[jlunseth]

On 7/5/2020 at 9:42 PM, Skydancer2992 said:

Fair Use laws allow the use of copyrighted material for the purpose of quoting, parodying, criticizing, researching, scholarship, etc.

That should cover most of what takes place on MS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

"Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship.^[4] Fair use provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor test.

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:^[6]

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.^[7]"

 

 

What he said.  See e.g. https://copyright.columbia.edu/basics/fair-use.html#:~:text=Fair Use is a Balancing Test&text=You still need to evaluate,or value of the work.