Please report any possible copyright violations

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by Anais9000

May I respectfully suggest you let people protect their works in the way and to the extent they wish, rather than imposing a system. Patricia can insert a copyright statement, or statement of origin, or CC license into her ebook if she likes. I prefer to use a copyright statement, which in my understanding allows the uses I wish to permit (viewing, reading, downloading -- implied by the act of posting) and blocks uses I don't (all others, eg. reposting, republishing, including the work in disk compilations etc.).

Sounds good. I was just thinking of ways to make it easier

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Your copyright in the book will not stop reposting. I've seen the books posted here in Sony format reported on Usenet. So no, just because you say mo, doesn't make it so.

I wouldn't be so afraid of reposting. What would suck is if someone tried to resell the books.

[Anais9000]

On cue, JSWolf points out the obvious. The copyright asserts the right, it does not enforce it. We're all aware of the difficulties of defending rights, as well as the harm caused by misguided attempts at over-enforcement (see RIAA). Asserting my copyright does not oblige me to enforce it in every case.

[JSWolf]

I don't think the books will be resold just becaus eof being posted on Usenet. But, I do think that if anyone hwere thinks a copyright will stop reposting other places is quite naive.

[HarryT]

I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that, Jon. The advantage of having a copyright message is that it would give one a means of doing something about a particular distribution which one found particularly irksome, such as someone re-selling one's hard work on a web site, for example.

[Alexander Turcic]

My suggestion, if the Creative Commons license sounds good to you, use their online tool to pick a license, and name it in your e-book work and/or the upload thread.

Example for a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License:


Info

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

I wouldn't be so afraid of reposting. What would suck is if someone tried to resell the books.

this issue has arisen again in a piracy thread. I know this thread is pretty old but I do like the idea of automatically restricting commercial use of posted books. I think we should say at least:

These eBooks can be downloaded for non-commercial use but you cannot sell them. You can give them to your friends under the same terms or tell them where they can download the latest version. These rules apply unless a specific statement is made in the thread containing the uploaded eBook.

Or something similar. I think forcing the uploader to spell out this basic level of copyright is a hardship as does the US government which is why they decided to automatically do it.

Dale

[tompe]

I have taken some of the books from here and checked in in the developer hub as test cases for MobiPerl and they are publicly available. That was a case I thought about what to do but I checked them in and if somebody complain I will remove them. In that case a statement here will not help so much. And I have also checked in old versions of books because they were better test cases...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

I have taken some of the books from here and checked in in the developer hub as test cases for MobiPerl and they are publicly available. That was a case I thought about what to do but I checked them in and if somebody complain I will remove them. In that case a statement here will not help so much. And I have also checked in old versions of books because they were better test cases...

You are very welcome to repost any of my books anywhere you wish.

[moz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you think that any book that's posted here is in violation of copyright law, please report it by sending an e-mail to abuse@mobileread.com and we will investigate and take any necessary action.

So you're only concerned with books? I am curious about the copyright status of your avatar picture, but happy to accept that you took the photo yourself if you say so. http://www.mobileread.com/forums/member.php?u=5306 is very unlikely to be a legal use of that image IMO.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by moz

I am curious about the copyright status of your avatar picture, but happy to accept that you took the photo yourself if you say so.

We've been through that before a few times. HarryT's avatar pic is one that was taken of a model-maker's model. The pic itself is one he has every relevant right and permission to use.

While Daleks are probably trademarked, he's not using it for trade, so that's not a concern: there's no infringement from taking pictures of something that someone else has trademarked, as long as you don't try to use it commercially yourself. And that's pretty murky, as it happens: how many movies don't contain shots with some sort of trademarked image in them (consider any street scene, for instance)?

[moz]

Originally Posted by NatCh

The pic itself is one he has every relevant right and permission to use.

The latter point is the one that counts. Which is why I'd like to know more about the picture Dave Berk is using. It seems very Herge-like for a cariciture.

[NatCh]

It's a good question, and one I don't feel at all qualified to give any sort of definitive answer to, but I expect that it would fall under "fair use" to take a small chunk of an image and use it for totally non-commercial use, as he's doing.

There are probably literally hundreds of avatars here that would fit the same description.

[Xiaopanda]

Originally Posted by NatCh

It's a good question, and one I don't feel at all qualified to give any sort of definitive answer to, but I expect that it would fall under "fair use" to take a small chunk of an image and use it for totally non-commercial use, as he's doing.

There are probably literally hundreds of avatars here that would fit the same description.

Mine own Avatar is a scan of a picture I own...... And I'm not selling myself in a commercial sense, I wonder if I'm breaking copyright (at least technically)!?!