Any attorneys in the house - new copy write disclosure on listings

[TimeToGo]

In surfing Ebay, I noticed a new "copy write" (not copyright) disclosure on Hess Fine auctions. Each picture has a watermark depicting:

"Jeff Hess Rolex Best of Time Hessfineart 727-896-0622. All images are copy write protected, use prohibited. HessFineAuctions."

Comments?!

[Flaxmoore]

If I remember correctly, that is enough to be legally binding. Simply claiming and defending a copyright is enough in some applications.

[TimeToGo]

Recent, another forum member initiated a thread (see below), where in a listing was in question and the string to the listing was provided (no picture). If the member had entered a picture on this site, would that be a violation?

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=63816

[onkyo]

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

Recent, another forum member initiated a thread (see below), where in a listing was in question and the string to the listing was provided (no picture). If the member had entered a picture on this site, would that be a violation?

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=63816

I don't know the answer to the question, but maybe Jeff Hess can answer that question for us?

[Terry Newton]

Interesting.

Terry Newton

[springer]

delete post

[springer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaxmoore
If I remember correctly, that is enough to be legally binding. Simply claiming and defending a copyright is enough in some applications.

You have to file plenty of papers to copyright and register a name, image etc., pay the fees and it doesn't happen overnight.

What you mentioned here is usually placed on items to scare-off would be criminals from copying an image and reusing it for their own unscrupulous purpose.

If it is misspelled, it would be a pretty good clue that it hasn't been copyrighted!!!

[jbjenkins]

Could you elaborate on this? My understanding for years has been that simple creation was enough to claim copyright on many things in the U.S. - supposedly for anything in writing and photographs. If it is different than that I'd like to know the facts.

Originally Posted by springer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaxmoore
If I remember correctly, that is enough to be legally binding. Simply claiming and defending a copyright is enough in some applications.

You have to file plenty of papers to copyright and register a name, image etc., pay the fees and it doesn't happen overnight.

What you mentioned here is usually placed on items to scare-off would be criminals from copying an image and reusing it for their own unscrupulous purpose.

If it is misspelled, it would be a pretty good clue that it hasn't been copyrighted!!!

[2careless]

My belief is that for "copyright" to stick, it has to print with the © character, as well as the wording "© xyz 2009, all rights reserved."

P.S. I stand corrected. http://www.copyright.org.au/informat...ion/basics.htm
copyright is automatic. there is no need to use explicit notice as above - for Australia anyway.

[Flaxmoore]

Originally Posted by springer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaxmoore
If I remember correctly, that is enough to be legally binding. Simply claiming and defending a copyright is enough in some applications.

You have to file plenty of papers to copyright and register a name, image etc., pay the fees and it doesn't happen overnight.

What you mentioned here is usually placed on items to scare-off would be criminals from copying an image and reusing it for their own unscrupulous purpose.

If it is misspelled, it would be a pretty good clue that it hasn't been copyrighted!!!

Not quite. I actually hold the copyright on my Master's thesis. All writing (c) 2009 and so on does is establish a date of first use, which is vital to defend. From the US Copyright Office- "The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright."

Registration makes it easier to defend against copyright infringement, but there is legal standing behind simply saying (c) 2009 (whatever).

[stevemulholland3]

as long as the the originator of the image has been given credit it is not copyright..
but you cannot alter or cut off their text..

[shaggy]

does it not come under interlectual(sp?) properties ???
i know someone copied one of our pictures at work and we defended it on interlectual properties
thats in the uk though

[springer]

U.S. copyright laws: follow the link and read all about it...if you dare have the time.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

Here is a link to copyright a photo in the USA:

http://www.copyright.gov/forms/

Also, there are fair use exemptions to the copyright laws, which one should become familiar with if they intend to use another's photo.

There are lawyers that specialize in copyright laws and it would take a thesis to explain all the laws and loopholes here on the forum. If you are staying awake at night fretting over the possibility of another person using one of your auction photos for legal or illicit purposes, take some time and read-up on copyright laws. The best protection is to watermark the photo with an identifier indicating it is yours.

[tudorman8276]

...notwithstanding whether or not what is on the bottom of ANY picture, by ANY author, infringement appears NOT to exist when used for criticism, comment, and teaching etc as outlined below. OUR Watchout Forum does ALL of these things.

...I call your attention, to Springer's post.

...IAW Title 17, US Code, Chapter 1, Section 107. It reads as follows:

"§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

...hope this helps.

Stan. (I LOVE this little hammerhead guy.)

[TimeToGo]

All right! Business as usual!

[onkyo]

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

All right! Business as usual!

[tudorman8276]

...additionally, I think it would possibly be appropriate, when anyone USES someone's copywrighted info, that out of courtesy, it should be divulged by the POSTER that IS using the material...thus, ACKNOWLEDGING the copyrighted material and owner.

...just my $ .02 worth.

Stan.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Flaxmoore

All writing (c) 2009 and so on does is establish a date of first use, which is vital to defend.

"The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright."

Registration makes it easier to defend against copyright infringement.

This is the most accurate statement of the law stated yet.

[onkyo]

Originally Posted by tudorman8276

...additionally, I think it would possibly be appropriate, when anyone USES someone's copywrighted info, that out of courtesy, it should be divulged by the POSTER that IS using the material.

...just my $ .02 worth.

Stan.

[Terry Newton]

It would severely hamper our abilities to educate, inform, instruct people in the identification of fakes, scams, too-good-to-be-true auctions, etc., if someone were to challenge our ability to post it here for all to see. That would be saying that you could not use anything as evidence as you did not get the person's permission to copy their fake picture to begin with?

Great detective work Stan.

Stan is still my hero.

Terry Newton

[jbjenkins]

Not to belabor the point, but then this is totally inaccurate, eh?

Originally Posted by springer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaxmoore
If I remember correctly, that is enough to be legally binding. Simply claiming and defending a copyright is enough in some applications.

You have to file plenty of papers to copyright and register a name, image etc., pay the fees and it doesn't happen overnight.

What you mentioned here is usually placed on items to scare-off would be criminals from copying an image and reusing it for their own unscrupulous purpose.

If it is misspelled, it would be a pretty good clue that it hasn't been copyrighted!!!

[jeff hess]

i am confused. It's late and has been a long week.

what did I do this time? :)

What is the question? did mi wif mispell copy wrought? :)

Or what?

i will gladly answer the question. I know she has had trouble a few times with people stealing images. So she put this disclaimer on the bottom of the pics.

Is this upsetting someone one here?

Again, i will happily answer whatever it is you want me to. Cheers!
Jeff

[Terry Newton]

No problem here Jeff. There was just some confusion that, if a picture was used here to educate others, that it may be a violation of copyright, as it was used without the originator's permission. That was proved wrong, due to the fact that it was posted, for edification purposes, rather than to render profit from somebody's work.

Terry Newton

[tudorman8276]

...good sir, your C O N F U S I O N is duly noted and we thank you for sharing.

...is there something we can do?? Ship you an aspirin......or something else??

...wishing you the best for the weekend.

...please don't stay gone soooo long from the forum.

Stan.

[jeff hess]

Terry,

Thanks. I get it now.

Cheers!
Jeff

[springer]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

i am confused. It's late and has been a long week.

what did I do this time? :)

What is the question? did mi wif mispell copy wrought? :)

Or what?

i will gladly answer the question. I know she has had trouble a few times with people stealing images. So she put this disclaimer on the bottom of the pics.

Is this upsetting someone one here?

Again, i will happily answer whatever it is you want me to. Cheers!
Jeff

Now that line was funny...what did I do this time? :)

[onkyo]

Originally Posted by springer

Now that line was funny...what did I do this time? :)