Caught stealing image - now what?

[Donald Brewster]

Steve:

Nothing anyone has said has precludes or counters your advice. Yours is very good advice. The other posts provided the requested possible logical steps. Nobody was giving legal advice or pretending to. I don't understand your position.

Don

[steve simmons]

Don

No one here is an attorney yet some are quoting passages of the law and giving advice. They are doing so without understadning all of the nuances of the law and the situation. Some of the info is anecdotal, again with a full explanation of their context or without understadning evrything that led up to the alleged theft.

steve

[steve simmons]

again with a full explanation of their context or without understadning evrything that led up to the alleged theft.

I meant to say without a full explanation

steve

[tim atherton]

Steve,

I'm still interested in your anecdotal comments on Public Domain.

Stanford Law Library has a very clearly set out site on Public Domain:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/8-a.html

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/index.html

I'm still trying to figure out which of the following, for example, your vaguely worded scenario could fit into:

"There are four common ways that works arrive in the public domain:

expiration of copyright: the copyright has expired.
failure to renew copyright: the owner failed to follow copyright renewal rules.
dedication: the owner deliberately places it in the public domain.
no copyright protection available: copyright law does not protect this type of work. "

Otherwise your comments are just plain miselading

[bglick]

> The advice you gave earlier is not great. As I see it, there has been much "legal" advice given here by well-intentioned less-than-qualified people. I don't want to speak harshly, but if this is a serious matter to "wg" (why don't you use your full name?),

Michael, I use initials as too many people had my first name...is that an issue? Regarding the "only experts should give advise" issue..... This same theme followed through in many other threads, people toss out opinions, experiences, thoughts, etc. This somehow offends some posters, as the contributors are not experts in a given field. But if only experts could comment on everything in life, there would be no chatter in these forums and in our day to day lifes, and how often, does some simple advise make someone think about heading in a certain direction, and often motivating them to seek a professional? In my experience, it happens quite often.... Often in the past, I have been given better advise / solutions / remedies by people who have been through a similar experience vs. a so called expert in the field.

But the point I have made before, and will reinforce again, let the people who read the threads decipher through the posts and the credibility of a poster - as it is an "open" forum. Yes, there will be some bad information, but the same is true in life, and we don't stop people from talking to each other over a beer...the person involved simply makes decisions based on the issue at hand. So I for one, appreciate people contributing information to my threads. In this case, a few posters alerted me to some very useful information I was not aware of, and therefore changed my course of action.

As in this case, I have spoken to an attny, and a prelim. game plan has been laid out, and yes, I will surely keep the group posted on the outcome, although it may be some time, but I am sure others here could benefit from my experience.

[steve simmons]

It is my understanding that if work appears in public without the proper notification of a copyright or trademark then protecting it becomes more difficult. I have said all along that an attorney should be consulted and that those of us who are not IP attorneies should not give legal advice. Referring to web sites and passages from the law does not a lawyer make. If you are an IP attoeny Tim please tell us. If not,, well............

steve simmons

[tim atherton]

Steve,

you seem to be adept at calling the kettle black - you are consistently giving incorrect and misleading information

[Richard Kelham]

Mark

'"when you represnt yourself you have an ass for a client and a fool for an attorney"

i'm going to steal that one

mda'

No need – it's so old it's probably out of copyright!

[steve simmons]

Tim

Are you an IP attorney?

I have said that I am not and the "lega"l advice I have given is to see an IP attorney. You keep citing passages and referring to web sites as if you understand the law. If you are not an IP attorney you knowledge is not complete and comprehensive.

Now, lets let the individual work with an attorney. I am glad he/she is doing so.

steve

[Paddy Quinn]

Steve,

You are quite simply incorrect.

There is no requirement for a work to be marked as copyright ( e.g (C) - date etc) for it to be protected. Nor is the lack of such a symbol a defence for copyright infringement (it is also not directly linked to the legal concept fo Public Domain - the two are somewhat different and slightly seperate things and your comments only add more confusion to the issue)

In a slightly similar way to Registration (or lack thereof) it can have an effect on such things as amount of damages in an infringement case. But it is not a requirement for copyright protection.

And yes Steve, I have worked in Intellectual Property law in the past (including writing briefs for reform of copyright legislation).

I think I recall something about removing motes?