MtnMan Loc: ID

...right

border

All works are by default copyright by the creator when produced.

Enforcing copyright requires demosctrating financial harm. So it rarely happens.

Then there is ethics. She is a loser on that scale. I'd put her way down on my list of "friends".

MtnMan Loc: ID

No, you most likely wouldn't. At least not if you are intelligent, as you otherwise seem.

You attorneys are sure to charge you and your chances of recompense near nil.

How many times have you initiated such actions? If any (which I predict none) how many did you collect on? Net gain?

That is why there is little risk for the dirtbags.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Here's the link for anyone who wishes to educate themselves

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

You seem to be persistent in your efforts to introduce some association between this obvious case of copyright infringement and the circled "P" symbol. And you seem to be doing so by now obfuscating the real purpose of a symbol for a copyrighted sound recording. The matter is moot. You affirm that "lack of it does not cause the owner to lose rights", meaning lack of any copyright notice, regardless of medium. Under certain conditions, the copying of copyrighted material MAY be permissible for non-commercial, educational purposes, but that certainly is not the case here. This seems to be a case of simple theft, and I can think of no logic that will justify it as otherwise.

drucker Loc: Oregon

The original copyright holder has all rights including the right to make derivative works unless he has legally transferred those rights. Anyone wanting to use the original work in any form must get permission for the specific use and abide by any restrictions and make any acknowledgements and/or compensation agreed upon. e.g. An author could get permission to use a photo as an illustration in a book and may copyright the book as a whole, but that doesn't imply any copyright rights for the photo used.

"Fair use" has very strict guidelines. It's not the, "I'm using it for personal use and I am not selling it, so it is OK," attitude.

As a printer, I deal with copyrighted materials in a wide variety of forms. In general, it can be assumed that anything created after 1977 is in copyright. Works created in the 120 years prior to 1977 are covered by various rules concerning "publication" and registration. Determining the actual status of a copyright can be a real challenge and then finding the right person to request permission from may be impossible.

nanaval Loc: Cornwall

Thanks again to every one who has written about my question.... :thumbup:

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

If not mistaken, usually doesn't mean anything unless it's registered....

Cedge

Registration is not required to own or enforce copyright. Copyright is automatically applied once a creation is completed. Registering your copyrights gives you some additional avenues to claim compensation for incurred losses, should you have to take legal action to enforce your rights. As the copyright holder you have control over nearly all aspects of your creation, including how, when, where and by whom it is used and/or distributed. Your copyrights remain in effect for 75 years beyond your death, so your heirs can inherit and enforce them, once you pass.

There are a few exceptions to these hard line usage restrictions. Satire, some forms of commentary, limited descriptive purposes, some educational usage (another whole list of restrictions) are generally considered "fair use", just to name a few commonly allowed uses.

Simply asking is quite often all that is needed to receive permission to use an image. I've granted limited noncommercial usage rights to plain old ordinary folks, many times over the years. I did so because they showed me a bit of courtesy and respect, by asking before acting. I have also placed some of my early 3d GIF animations into the public domain, so that anyone could freely use them. By doing so, I gave up all of my control over their usage and returned a little something back to the online community.

I've also enforced my legal claim, when it was warranted. The once all powerful 800 pound AOL gorilla, as well as the estate of a very well known sports legend, both had to back down when they were discovered to be in violation of my copyrights. However, those sordid tales are best left for another time.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Personally, none. Professionally, twice. All our attorney asked for was the removal of images posted to web sites without permission. The images came down. That's all we wanted.

A good percentage of folks — the "honest" dirtbags — DO react to attorney's certified letters, especially if you separately contact them in person with a member of the press or a TV news crew in tow who want to do a local story on copyright infringement... NO ONE wants to be seen on TV, looking like a dirtbag who evades reporters' pointed questions.

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

What SS says! :thumbup: :thumbup: