Site copying LF forum without attribution

[Jac@stafford.net]

I am not familiar with all the workings of the 'net, so this might be a silly question.

While surfing for information I came across a couple posts from here, one of them mine, copied to this site: http://www.naijafinder.com

Specifically the thread here: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...lens-shade-DIY

Copied to: http://www.naijafinder.com/digital-p...shade-diy.html

It does not seem ethical or legal. Am I wrong?

jjs

[adelorenzo]

There are a lot of sites like this on the internet. They 'scrape' content from other sites to attract search results and then hopefully get people to buy something, click on something or sign up for something. I would say legality is questionable, definitely unethical but on the whole pretty harmless. Certainly not worth pursuing anything against the site.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Thank you for the information. After browsing the site it is clearly harvesting many and diverse sites, a very desperate kind of behavior. Sad.

It is registered to a Nigerian address and by the traffic it gets the site is steadily failing.

[Leigh]

When you put something on an internet site, it's public, and anybody can use it.

It doesn't matter what caveats you attach to it, nor the COU statements of the site, nor anything else.

That's reality.

Unless you're a high-priced photographer, and can demonstrate significant economic damage
traceable directly to unpermitted use, you'll never even get to court.

Even if you could prove violation of copyright, prosecution under the law is the responsibility
of the copyright holder, not the government, so you have to foot the costs $$$.

- Leigh

[adelorenzo]

The omnipotent Google will get wise to them eventually.... Then they'll just set up a new one.

[Jac@stafford.net]

When you put something on an internet site, it's public, and anybody can use it.

I don't buy that. Not as a matter of law or principle. Your argument that it is too expensive for an individual to pursue notwithstanding. If what you are suggesting is that theft is profitable it is therefore acceptable, then that is just wrong.
.

[welly]

I don't buy that. Not as a matter of law or principle. Your argument that it is too expensive for an individual to pursue notwithstanding. If what you are suggesting is that theft is profitable it is therefore acceptable, then that is just wrong.
.

I think (or I'd like to think) Leigh was saying that when you put something on the internet, it's available for people to do with what they want, whether legally, morally or otherwise (as is often the case) - as opposed to saying things on the internet become public domain, which is clearly not the case.

[ROL]

Regarding unauthorized use, here's a point of perspective for you. Last fall I finally got around to posting a slide show of my wife and me crossing the Sierra on skis in 1978, on my YouTube channel. Within a day or so it was re-posted on a site where users(?) vote on "The Most Boring Internet Videos". It seemed to have escaped the appreciation, as all decorum and propriety evidently have, of the re-poster that this was not original video material, and that such cameras capable of recording such a wilderness excursion did not exist at that time, and had they, my female companion and I could not have carried them. It apparently wasn't enough that we even undertook the hazards of such a journey at the time, but that we should bring back a Hollywood worthy(?) production. Even the use of trendy music didn't seem to help. I understand that the existence of POV hero cams is the standard these days, and though presently working on just such a video, that simply wasn't the case 35 years ago. I included this slideshow on MY video channel for my own uses, not as any representation of skilled video production. Comparing the slideshow, and not the mountaineering achievement of getting my wife safely across a major mountain range in winter, to video, is about the equivalent of comparing a book to a movie. The internet: it's all about the freedom to criticize other's efforts, from the perilous seat of your chair.

If anyone cares, here it is.

[Henry Ambrose]

When you put something on an internet site, it's public, and anybody can use it.

It doesn't matter what caveats you attach to it, nor the COU statements of the site, nor anything else.

That's reality.

Unless you're a high-priced photographer, and can demonstrate significant economic damage
traceable directly to unpermitted use, you'll never even get to court.

Even if you could prove violation of copyright, prosecution under the law is the responsibility
of the copyright holder, not the government, so you have to foot the costs $$$.

- Leigh

No, that is absolutely not true.
If you post something on the net you certainly should not be surprised when someone steals your material but that does not make it right and it does not mean you are without legal remedy. Usually an email will get your stolen photos taken down. If you do end up in court and prevail, the statutory damages are substantial for willful infringement of registered copyrights. Don't let people steal from you, fight back.

[DrTang]

I don't buy that. Not as a matter of law or principle. Your argument that it is too expensive for an individual to pursue notwithstanding. If what you are suggesting is that theft is profitable it is therefore acceptable, then that is just wrong.
.

I thought the internet was legally the same as a newspaper..in that once it is published..it is automatically copyrighted

I think one can legally 'link to' a discussion here..but can't copy/paste as if it is theirs or on their site