Regarding my former signature...

[Guest ThunderRiver]

I apologize for putting up the following comic as my signature yesterday. I put it up mainly because yesterday was April Fools' day, and I was hoping someone will find a laugh at it. But I guess not. I do agree that the size is quite bit. Someone also reported with CopyRight concern, which I don't believe is a very big deal. If you look at the comic, you would see the CopyRight statement, and for god sake, I didn't take that copyright statement off nor modified the picture in anyway.I, however, have only one request. If you have any concern with someone's specific signature, I prefer you PM that person first to sort things out. I hope you understand and agree with it. That's all I have to say. Comments on this one are welcome.ThunderRiver

[Stryder]

Well let me say THIS about that........

[Stryder]

.....and THIS is all I have to say.

[Guest LilBambi]

Let me add THIS to Stryder's THIS ....

[Guest LilBambi]

And that too

[Guest ComputerBob]

I'm no copyright expert, and I hate to be "the bad guy" in a friendly discussion like this one, but as the owner of many copyrights, I feel that I should speak up on this topic. Copyright law is intended to do just what its name says -- it gives the copyright owner the right to decide who can copy their copyrighted material.If I post someone else's copyrighted material on my Web site without their permission, then I am violating the other person's copyright *. Whether or not I include the copyright owner's copyright notice in my posting, I would still be violating the other person's copyright. The only way I can legally post someone else's copyrighted material is if I have the copyright owner's permission *.If the copyright owner were to take me to court, they could make an extremely strong case that, since I posted their copyright notice along with their copyrighted material, I must have known that their material was copyrighted, and therefore, I willfully violated copyright laws by posting it.Best policy: Assume that other people's material is copyrighted, even if it doesn't include a copyright notice, and don't post anyone else's material without their permission.*(except for certain specific instances that meet the legal definition of "fair use")

[Jeber]

Well, I hope you didn't take my comments regarding the cartoon seriously. I tried to make my reaction to it obviously farcical. I agree that if anyone wishes to criticize another in earnest, they should do so privately. But as far as poking fun at someone; if you post it, you are fair game. I think the reason Dilbert is so funny is because it's so real. I've worked in situations Adams describes, with some of the same people he portrays. Please, though, never again.

[Guest ThunderRiver]

I'm no copyright expert, and I hate to be "the bad guy" in a friendly discussion like this one, but as the owner of many copyrights, I feel that I should speak up on this topic. Copyright law is intended to do just what its name says -- it gives the copyright owner the right to decide who can copy their copyrighted material.If I post someone else's copyrighted material on my Web site without their permission, then I am violating the other person's copyright *. Whether or not I include the copyright owner's copyright notice in my posting, I would still be violating the other person's copyright. The only way I can legally post someone else's copyrighted material is if I have the copyright owner's permission *.If the copyright owner were to take me to court, they could make an extremely strong case that, since I posted their copyright notice along with their copyrighted material, I must have known that their material was copyrighted, and therefore, I willfully violated copyright laws by posting it.Best policy: Assume that other people's material is copyrighted, even if it doesn't include a copyright notice, and don't post anyone else's material without their permission.*(except for certain specific instances that meet the legal definition of "fair use")

Well..okay.. thanks for the lecture and oh! NO April Fools for you... Good dayThunderRiver

[Guest Paracelsus]

ThunderRiver, I didn't even think twice about it! I took it for what it was... understanding the "Spirit" of the day. I also understand (stood?), that Jeber's comments were meant as friendly ribbing (Which I fervently hope that those of us who become/are regular participants in this Forum can accept, and not try to "read" too much into them )Having said that...I can also understand ComputerBob's perspective on this. Although, try as I might to comprehend "Fair Use" policy.... when I try to decide if it's OK for me to photocopy and article on instrument maintenance, or methodology, to hand out to the Techs that work for meJeeeeeeeeez!!!... I'm just a dumb ol' Analytical Chemist. If I understood THAT much, I'd be a flipp'n lawyer... and make 10x more money. Seriously though...On the bottom line...I do agree with you. You didn't alter the images... You didn't remove the "©" from the graphic... and you didn't claim that it was your creation or that you owned the material. Additionally...I fully agree than ANYONE who had a real problem with should have contacted you FIRST!!!I don't fully understand exactly what transpired here... But if another member went directly to Scot over this, I would ask them to dispassionately consider these things in the future...ESPECIALLY in regards to an EXTREMELY Knowledgeable; Helpful; and DEDICATED Moderator... from whom many of us have benefited!!!End of Sermon

[Guest ComputerBob]

Well..okay.. thanks for the lecture and oh! NO April Fools for you... Good dayThunderRiver

I'm sorry -- I didn't mean it to be a lecture. I was just trying to be as informative as possible without attacking you personally. That's why I wrote it in the first person ("If I post someone else's copyrighted materials...")Copyright enforcement/infringement isn't a fun or popular topic, but it's one that we must all deal with. My point was that no one but the copyright owner has the right to give anyone else permission to post copyrighted materials -- even if those materials are funny and immensely popular.I know it sounds corny and trite, but I really was trying to help you protect yourself from the risky legal situtation that people put themselves in when they infringe on others' copyrights.With that said, I'm sorry that you thought I was acting like the neighborhood "Hey, you kids -- get off my lawn!!!" guy.

[Guest LilBambi]

Copyright issues can be a real pain. The lay person may not even know if they are stepping on someone's copyright.And the way that the copyright law is being weilded in relation to Internet related matters is a bit daunting for anyone.Having said that, I fully understand where ComputerBob is coming from on this as well, because it is very hard for those with copyrights to deal with the 'freedom' on the internet and the ability to copy and paste just about anything whether it is free for use or not.That gray fuzzy line is often very hard to find

[Stryder]

With that said, I'm sorry that you thought I was acting like the neighborhood "Hey, you kids -- get off my lawn!!!" guy.

I AM that guy!!!!! Anyone looking to buy baseballs in bulk???? I got a BUNCH!!!!

[Stryder]

Hey Thunder,Not sure what all the fuss was all about, but do not worry about it, bud. I did not realize it was such an issue. So if my statements earlier in this thread ticked you off, I apologize. I was just kidding around.And THAT is all I got to say about that.

[Guest ComputerBob]

I AM that guy!!!!!

Now THAT'S funny!

[Guest Paracelsus]

I don't know...Perhaps I'm just parading my ignorance again, but...If I owned the "©" to an image/graphic, and it was being circulated...Either by private e-mail distribution, or even a temporary BB post...WITHOUT removing copyright credits; modifying or implying ownership...I believe I would be Highly flattered. "Hey!!! People love my Stuff... and I'm being recognized"Am I seriously naive??? Have I been in the Lab toooooooo long???

[Guest ComputerBob]

I don't think you're ignorant OR naive. If you own a copyright, then you have the legal right to enforce your copyright or not. So, while you might choose to not enforce your copyrights, others would choose to enforce their copyrights. There's nothing wrong with your viewpoint, but there's certainly nothing wrong with the opposite viewpoint either. From what I've heard, United Feature Syndicate, owners of the Dilbert copyright, have forced several "Daily Dilbert Cartoon" sites off the Internet over the years. And they have every legal right to do so. ;)BTW, the whole issue of removing the copyright notice, claiming ownership, or modifying the copyrighted material is a straw man. It's still a copyright infringement to publish someone else's copyrighted work, even if you leave the copyright notice, AND you don't claim ownership AND you don't modify the copyrighted material.

[Guest Paracelsus]

Understood. I can see the Pros and the Cons.And I guess we all benefit form respecting what the owner MAY prefer.I sign-off on this one. Makes my brain hurt almost as much as trying to contemplate the future of the Internet!

[Guest ComputerBob]

I sign-off on this one.  Makes my brain hurt almost as much as trying to contemplate the future of the Internet!

LOL

[Jeber]

My last comment on this topic...next time, ThunderRiver, CALVIN AND HOBBS! Yea!

[havnblast]

For you that maybe ok for you to be flattered, but what a lot of companies face being in the eye of the company is they always have to be defending themselves.Take Amazon.com for instance, before the war some Iraqie site had their image on their site and it was brought to the news that Amazon support Iraq, which in turns makes them turn around to deny it.I wouldn't want my logo on a porn site or a terrorist site, that is my reputation being ruined. Copyright is a good thing for your own protection.

[Guest ThunderRiver]

For you that maybe ok for you to be flattered, but what a lot of companies face being in the eye of the company is they always have to be defending themselves.Take Amazon.com for instance, before the war some Iraqie site had their image on their site and it was brought to the news that Amazon support Iraq, which in turns makes them turn around to deny it.I wouldn't want my logo on a porn site or a terrorist site, that is my reputation being ruined.  Copyright is a good thing for your own protection.

Good point

[Guest ThunderRiver]

My last comment on this topic...next time, ThunderRiver, CALVIN AND HOBBS!  Yea! 

Hehe nah.. I don't like to catch fires again

[Mike]

I AM that guy!!!!!

Now THAT'S funny!

Yes it is...