Keep Turning Left.

JumbleDuck said:
All covered already. He took someone else's IP, stuck his own copyright note on it and then, when challenged, tried to wriggle his way out of it by siccing his posse on the man, with conspicuous lack of success.
Click to expand...
You keep saying this and you are wrong. See #22-27 on this thread.

I have already mentioned that you are wrong about it. It is no excuse that you do not understand the subtleties of it if, when told you are wrong, keep repeating it as if that will somehow make it true.

The fact you (and others) are not lawyers does not disqualify you from reaching a reasoned and correct conclusion about the situation any more than I am prevented from reaching a correct and reasoned conclusion in quantum physics. But it would make you a lawyer in a very restricted field and me a quantum physicist in the same way.

But the trick is to make reasoned and correct conclusions - you have shown none of that despite me inviting you to show your 'workings' before accusing someone of acting unlawfully (as you have repeatedly).
 
Poecheng said:
You keep saying this and you are wrong. See #22-27 on this thread.
Click to expand...

It is a shame that you were then unwilling, or perhaps unable, to explain your assertion or, in your own words, show your working.

Is it your claim that Dylan did not behave as described (taking someone else's IP without permission, using it on his website and putting his own copyright notice by it) or is it your claim that he did so, but without any breach of copyright laws and without incurring any liability to pay for what he used? The repeated success of the man whose work he used in gaining redress through the courts suggests that the latter may be a hard argument to sustain.

Of course I am not a lawyer, but I am involved, daily, in the preparation of work for publication online and the people with whom I work are punctilious about seeking right holders' permission - with payment when necessary - before using material. I will, with all due respect, treat their processes with rather more respect than the unsupported word of a Person on the Internet who says "Nah, you can do what you like."
 
Last edited:
JumbleDuck said:
It is a shame that you were then unwilling, or perhaps unable, to explain your assertion or, in your own words, show your working.

Is it your claim that Dylan did not behave as described (taking someone else's IP without permission, using it on his website and putting his own copyright notice by it) or is it your claim that he did so, but without any breach of copyright laws and without incurring any liability to pay for what he used? The repeated success of the man whose work he used in gaining redress through the courts suggests that the latter may be a hard argument to sustain.
Click to expand...
I am not accusing someone of acting unlawfully. In our system the accuser puts up or (should) shut up. You choose to do neither. Matter for you but it does you no credit at all.
 
Poecheng said:
I am not accusing someone of acting unlawfully. In our system the accuser puts up or (should) shut up. You choose to do neither. Matter for you but it does you no credit at all.
Click to expand...

Once again you have failed to substantiate your claim, or even make clear what your claim is. Are you saying that using other people's IP on website's without permission is OK, or are you saying that Dylan, despite his admissions here at the time, didn't do that?
 
It's a pretty poor shift from an intelligent man.
You are the one accusing DW of acting unlawfully; I suggest (I happen to have done the workings and know what I am talking about) that he has not.
As it is you that makes the claim, you 'put up'; to suggest I am making a claim (by suggesting your claim is baseless and wrong) is pretty poor stuff.
 
JumbleDuck said:
I'm just saying what he did.
Click to expand...

No you are not.

To say someone took another person's IP is a mixed question of law and fact.

It is not 'what he did' as if it could be an incontrovertible observation - "Look everyone, DW is taking his IP !!"

You fail not only to understand the subtleties but now seem determined not to do so.
 
Poecheng said:
No you are not.

To say someone took another person's IP is a mixed question of law and fact.

It is not 'what he did' as if it could be an incontrovertible observation - "Look everyone, DW is taking his IP !!"

You fail not only to understand the subtleties but now seem determined not to do so.
Click to expand...

Would you settle for "used another person's IP"?

By the way, how do you feel about the use of copyright music without payment or permission within videos? Is that OK?
 
JumbleDuck said:
Would you settle for "used another person's IP"?
Click to expand...
No, because that could mean it was taken with permission and therefore becomes meaningless in context; 'took' means it was nicked which is what you actually mean.
I have to get off my train now but your next post will be wrong as well:encouragement:
 
interloper said:
So, have I violated copyright laws if I make a post in this forum with a linked video that was produced by somebody else?
Click to expand...

You can set Youtube videos to be non-embeddable, which I'd have thought - though as Poecheng has to eleoquently pointed out, IANAL - means that when embedding is not forbidden, you can do it, the creator having by default given permission.

r74Bbji.png


Has there been anything definitive about deep linking in UK law more recent that Shetland News vs Shetland Times? As I recall, that was settled anyway, with the Shetland News agreeing not to do it any more. "It" in that case was displaying material on the Shetland News website which actually came from the Shetland Times website.
 
Last edited:
Poecheng said:
You keep saying this and you are wrong. See #22-27 on this thread.

I have already mentioned that you are wrong about it. It is no excuse that you do not understand the subtleties of it if, when told you are wrong, keep repeating it as if that will somehow make it true.
.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you are doing exactly the same. You keep repeating that Jd is wrong and Dylan broke no laws.
That does not make it true either.
Jd has at least laid out what he thinks happened and hence his views.
If you know he is wrong, then why not lay out exactly why he is wrong?

Regarding the incident in question, I don't care either way really, it I'm glad to hear that Dylan did not have to pay up. I personally thought the other party should be done for abusing court time and services personally, and that a convicted fraudster found a way to make money from the law.
 
JumbleDuck said:
You can set Youtube videos to be non-embeddable, which I'd have thought - though as Poecheng has to eleoquently pointed out, IANAL - means that when embedding is not forbidden, you can do it, the creator having by default given permission.

r74Bbji.png


Has there been anything definitive about deep linking in UK law more recent that Shetland News vs Shetland Times? As I recall, that was settled anyway, with the Shetland News agreeing not to do it any more. "It" in that case was displaying material on the Shetland News website which actually came from the Shetland Times website.
Click to expand...

I did a search on the Shetland News vs. Shetland Times case and found the following link.

http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-87.htm

A key component of the legal argument against linking was that the headlines themselves were copyrighted. This suggests that it might have been legal to provide a link provided that the original headline (or any other text from the original article) was not copied.

I am perplexed by this case. Everyday I visit Yahoo among other news websites. Most Yahoo articles consist of a headline with perhaps a photo and a few paragraphs followed by a link to some other website that originated the story. Huffington Post operates in a similar manner. Perhaps they have special agreements with the websites to which they link.
 
interloper said:
So, have I violated copyright laws if I make a post in this forum with a linked video that was produced by somebody else?
Click to expand...

The issue with Copygate was Dylan didn't pay the licence fee to use the image on his business website (irrespective of where it was hosted). The guy had huge warnings all over his site, I argued that Dylan might not have seen by linking the image from Google. The copyright side if it was another angle the photographer used to scare people into coughing up.

As I've said before, I was very surprised that Dylans next video was full of lifted images from google (even showing copyrighted watermarks) I would have thought he would have been more careful with a court case hanging over him.
 
Last edited:
interloper said:
I did a search on the Shetland News vs. Shetland Times case and found the following link.

http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-87.htm

A key component of the legal argument against linking was that the headlines themselves were copyrighted. This suggests that it might have been legal to provide a link provided that the original headline (or any other text from the original article) was not copied.
Click to expand...

Co-incidentally, I have just quoted text by Jonathan Wills, one the protagonists in the Shetland case on another thread - http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...-the-MAIB-investigation&p=6299460#post6299460.

The link to his article about the MAIB's handling of the Braer oil spill is well worth a read, IMHO.
 
On the issue of copyright, I've seen opinions that are all over the place.

On another forum, there was a gentleman who insisted that the moderator should delete any posts that contained links to copyrighted material regardless of whether the copyrighted material was actually quoted in the post.

On yet another forum, a gentleman posted a photo taken by a third party and stated that none of the forum members should save the photo because it was copyrighted.

I've been admonished that I should never quote a news article in full. My recent practice has been to quote just a few key sentences and perhaps include a photo and then end the post with a link to the original source. I've been advised that event his could be going too far.
 
interloper said:
I did a search on the Shetland News vs. Shetland Times case and found the following link.

http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-87.htm
Click to expand...

That's the report of the hearing leading to an interim interdict (Scots for "injunction") which stopped the Shetland News website using Shetland Times articles while the matter was resolved. The case never went to court and both the Shetland News and Shetland Times exist today.

A key component of the legal argument against linking was that the headlines themselves were copyrighted. This suggests that it might have been legal to provide a link provided that the original headline (or any other text from the original article) was not copied.

I am perplexed by this case. Everyday I visit Yahoo among other news websites. Most Yahoo articles consist of a headline with perhaps a photo and a few paragraphs followed by a link to some other website that originated the story. Huffington Post operates in a similar manner. Perhaps they have special agreements with the websites to which they link.
Click to expand...

As I recall - it's a long time ago and IWNALTE - the issue was that when you clicked on a reproduced Shetland Times headline, you were shown the story within the Shetland News website, with no indication about where it had actually come from. Effectively the Times was being used to supply copy for the News and was understandably unhappy about it. Links from Yahoo, HuffPost, Fark and so on take you to the originating website, which is a different thing.

The case caused a lot of concern at the time. We - my employers - were advised while it rumbled on that even URLs were subject to copyright, so we couldn't even say "Click on http://www.bbc.co.uk to find out more", let alone "Click here to find out more." Of course that would have brought the entire web down, and our lawyers relented after a while
 
Yellow Ballad said:
I argued that Dylan might not have seen by linking the image from Google.
Click to expand...

It's possible to restrict GIS by usage rights, but it's not wholly reliable. That's how I generally find images for public-facing stuff at work, but even then our rights people climb over them to check. And, of course, many photographers do not give the information, though 197 Aerial photographs do not appear if you specify commercial re-use.
 
interloper said:
On the issue of copyright, I've seen opinions that are all over the place.
Click to expand...

It is, and IHNQAALSTLTIP, a dreadful mess. I've seen that "you can view but not save" notion before, but since the viewed image will almost inevitably have been saved in the browser cache, it's hard to see how it could stick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top