Alan, I was just asking the question because a blanket agreement like that might not suit everyone. My stuff is all free too, but I admit I’d hate to see something show up on a commercial site without at least giving me credit, not that it would ever happen.
Hopefully Hoopla will make it so you can search your own posts with images to help expedite removal of an problematic pictures. Right now it’s nearly impossible to find them all.
Strummer posted:Okay, so I just wrote a response to a post, using a "quote" that included a photo. I instantly got a notification of this copy write issue.
That's great! Will eliminate threads with the same pics repeated over and over, making navigation tedious, because people don't know how or can't be bothered to edit a Reply With Quote.
What, me worry?
MartyE posted:Hopefully Hoopla will make it so you can search your own posts with images to help expedite removal of an problematic pictures. Right now it’s nearly impossible to find them all.
Don't count on it....
Is there any way to get a list of the graphics you've posted? Failing that, it's a near impossible task to review every thread you've participated in over the years to find any suspect graphics!
OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:MartyE posted:Hopefully Hoopla will make it so you can search your own posts with images to help expedite removal of an problematic pictures. Right now it’s nearly impossible to find them all.
Don't count on it....
I know Rich inquired and it’s under consideration.
Otherwise it will be almost impossible to find all the images one has posted and check them.
And I remember not so many years ago Rich admonished everyone to include the photos, etc. instead of mere links. Now, here we are!
Professor Chaos posted:rtr12 posted:I'm not sure I get this one, if someone was trying to protect their copyrighted images, why would they post them on a public forum? Copying an image from someone's website, book etc. without the owner's consent would definitely surely be a violation here. However, when some one posts one of their photos or written material in a public forum doesn't that put it into the public domain? I would say that if you want to protect your copyrighted images, you probably should not be posting them in any public places, including public forums commercial or otherwise.
Also, as far as schematics and things from product manuals or repair documents by the manufacturer for our train items, would it not be to the manufacturer's best interests to allow folks to help others with their products? If it's proprietary information I can see where they would not want that posted anywhere, but they wouldn't be putting that in their user manuals either.
I am not a lawyer or legal expert, nor do I know much about copyright laws, but to me this just seems like common sense. Of course laws do not always seem to follow the path of common sense.
Though it might seem like common sense, posting your work on a public forum does not put it in the public domain. No more than publishing your book, or putting your art on display puts it in the public domain. Copyright gives the author the exclusive right to reproduce, display, or distribute his or her work, and the author does not relinquish those rights just by posting a copy of the work in a public forum.
The author's posting might give rise to an express or implied license for others to use the photo in certain ways (e.g., quote in a reply), but that's hard to say, and in any case would not be the same as putting it into the public domain.
I'll buy that and I guess it somewhat makes sense. I have no desire to intentionally break any laws or forum rules. Your explanation is a good one as are others posted after this and I get the point. Lots of good knowledge here on the forum, even in non-train related fields!
For further discussion, and I'm probably way off base here too, but I think anyone posting their work in a public forum should at least identify it as copyrighted, maybe add a watermark or other type of ID or something to claim their work. However, I suppose they wouldn't have to do that in order to be able to claim a copyright violation? I guess that is the part that doesn't seem fair to me? An innocent and unsuspecting person could copy something to another thread or post it elsewhere and end up in a lawsuit or having to make a settlement of some sort.
Not to fear though, my plan is to not copy or post anything I don't personally own or know the owner of (with their permission of course) from now on. Don't want to get ever anyone here in any trouble, including me.
MartyE posted:Hopefully Hoopla will make it so you can search your own posts with images to help expedite removal of an problematic pictures. Right now it’s nearly impossible to find them all.
If you used the word “photo” in your posts, you can kind of get there using Advanced Search looking for posts that Contain the word “photo” and are Posted By you.
DoubleDAZ posted:If you used the word “photo” in your posts, you can kind of get there using Advanced Search looking for posts that Contain the word “photo” and are Posted By you.
However, how many people took the time to say "look, here's a photo". I would just post the picture, as I'm sure most others would.
Alfred E Neuman posted:Strummer posted:Okay, so I just wrote a response to a post, using a "quote" that included a photo. I instantly got a notification of this copy write issue.
That's great! Will eliminate threads with the same pics repeated over and over, making navigation tedious, because people don't know how or can't be bothered to edit a Reply With Quote.
What, me worry?
I'm totally with you on the repeated pictures thing, which is why I limit my quotes to just the photo I want to comment on and the wording that applies to it. I always (try) to do this to keep things "to the point".
Still asking, however: do I need to contact the original poster that uses a picture in their post before commenting on it? Again, in this case it was an older photo, taken (I believe) from a '40s vintage catalog of a now defunct manufacturer. So the fact that the guy who posted it first got the "ok to post" (so to speak) would mean that photo is now "fair game"; especially if used in a quote from that same person, right? 
Mark in Oregon
Just so folks know.
I realize this is probably even more "out there" in terms of a request/feature to look into, but if there could be an option under "advanced search" to include source code tags, that would be very helpful in this regard.
Most images will include the <img> tag, I believe (though I may be mistaken as html has evolved over the years).
When I composed this response, I clicked on the "Source Code" format control (all the way to the right after the bullets/numbering, looks like "<>").
The pop up window that showed me the source showed me the "img src=" start of the tag that lets the OGR logo show up in my post. I had simply done a screenshot and used <ctrl-C> to drop it in the post. (hoping OGR won't sue me for using it as a demonstration, if it was anything else, I'd obviously evaluate it more thoroughly 
)
So the point is, if advanced search could scan for "img src=" and only show those posts, it would seem we could search for any posts we have made with photos included.
I know that's totally outlandish into today's world, but I sometimes think back to simple html coding I did over 20 years ago when web sites could exist being much simpler. Some of the basics are still there, even though so much has become so much more advanced.
-Dave
Attachments
Images (1)
gunrunnerjohn posted:However, how many people took the time to say "look, here's a photo". I would just post the picture, as I'm sure most others would.
Many say something like here’s a photo of such and such or in the first photo, etc. If you don’t, then the tip won’t help you, but it might help others who do. Sorry I tried to be helpful. ☹️
Mark from Oregon,
The problem with that is you won’t know if the photo is okay or not unless the poster says it is. If they don’t, it may take the copyright holder days, weeks, etc., to find out it’s been posted and complain about it.
Why not just refrain from repeating stuff? Nested quotes are useless anyway - who wants to read all that stuff multiple times.
I wonder what this is going to do to that great trolley thread?
Now I see what’s going on. I thought the notice I got was the result of a complaint, but now I see I’m getting a notice any time I post an attachment. I’m a little perturbed that I may have deleted my posts needlessly and I might be upset with a company for no reason. Oh well, guess I’ll see how long this lasts and then decide what to do. Flooding my inbox seems like an overreaction, but then it wasn’t my money. Maybe there should be a box in the Add Attachment dialog that has to be checked before an attachment gets posted. I’m still surprised that someone took legal action without giving the offender a chance to delete the photo or whatever it was and I suspect there’s more to the story.
Dave
There are levels of infringement meaning that the worst and the most likely to get you in a federal court is if you infringe and make lots of money on the infringement and then refuse to remove it.
If you are an innocent infringeR and you immediately remove the copyrighted work when asked then if the author gets you before a federal judge more than likely the judge will ask what's the harm?
However, with the way federal judge are appointed for life these days maybe not so much.
BOB2, quoting keeps folks from having to scroll back and forth to follow what someone is saying. One problem is that this forum “nests” successive quotes when it should only quote the last comment. The same thing happens with email chains.services keep buying more storage rather than educate users. And this is a drop in the bucket compared to all the Sharing and Retweeting that goes on with Facebook, Twitter, etc. I’m old school and remember the early days when we worried about how many byte we were sending and how much time we were online.
I get it Alan, but I’m having a problem believing someone here was asked to removed something and refused or that someone went straight to legal action, though I believe that might be the case here. I get how upset the owners are, just not sure flooding my inbox is the solution. 🤪
Is there anyway I can just delete ALL my posts 100 % ???
Clem
gunrunnerjohn posted:Is there any way to get a list of the graphics you've posted? Failing that, it's a near impossible task to review every thread you've participated in over the years to find any suspect graphics!
Nope....and that is the problem. Thousands of pictures, etc. that are nearly impossible to find in any reasonable length of time.
MartyE posted:OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:MartyE posted:Hopefully Hoopla will make it so you can search your own posts with images to help expedite removal of an problematic pictures. Right now it’s nearly impossible to find them all.
Don't count on it....
I know Rich inquired and it’s under consideration.
Otherwise it will be almost impossible to find all the images one has posted and check them.
So far....nothing so again...don't count on it....
Big Jim posted:And I remember not so many years ago Rich admonished everyone to include the photos, etc. instead of mere links. Now, here we are!
Well "Big Jim" and am sure you must realize that he was not encouraging folks to post copyrighted photos... If the material is one's own or permission from the owner, then no problem with posting it here...but links should be used for material in doubt....
DoubleDAZ posted:Now I see what’s going on. I thought the notice I got was the result of a complaint, but now I see I’m getting a notice any time I post an attachment. I’m a little perturbed that I may have deleted my posts needlessly and I might be upset with a company for no reason. Oh well, guess I’ll see how long this lasts and then decide what to do. Flooding my inbox seems like an overreaction, but then it wasn’t my money. Maybe there should be a box in the Add Attachment dialog that has to be checked before an attachment gets posted. I’m still surprised that someone took legal action without giving the offender a chance to delete the photo or whatever it was and I suspect there’s more to the story.
GHEEEZZZZ...how many times do I need to tell the story! Yeah, there IS more to the story and I told it all not only here but in the featured topics and a couple of other threads/posts going on right now on this forum. I don't know why you would be surprised that someone took legal action...it is the way of the world these days. One more time: OGR received notice to take down two pictures from two members of this forum and the demand letter spelled out how much we needed to send them for the damages to their client. That is pretty much how this went down. Over the next few days, we are going to take down the frequency of these warnings and notices you all are getting but we are doing it this way right now for maximum affect and coverage. Please try to be understanding and patient.....
clem k posted:Is there anyway I can just delete ALL my posts 100 % ???
Clem
Yep....go to your profile, click on posts you have made, and then start doing so manually. That is the only way right now. Depending on how many you have made, it could take a LOT of time. Even the admins can't delete all of your posts....we have to do so individually.
OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:GHEEEZZZZ...how many times do I need to tell the story! Yeah, there IS more to the story and I told it all not only here but in the featured topics and a couple of other threads/posts going on right now on this forum. I don't know why you would be surprised that someone took legal action...it is the way of the world these days. One more time: OGR received notice to take down two pictures from two members of this forum and the demand letter spelled out how much we needed to send them for the damages to their client. That is pretty much how this went down.
The operator of a board is not supposed to be liable for damages at all if it did not have knowledge of the infringement, promptly responds to a takedown request from the copyright owner, and meets the other requirements of the DMCA safe harbor statute [17 USC 512(c)] . . . that law was enacted so that board operators would not be liable for copyrighted material posted by users.
But I'm sure the whole story was more complex.
Even as a Science Fiction Author copyright law is quite complicated to me. I know some and I will share what I do know. Do not take it as legal advice I am not an attorney of copyright law, trademark, and/or patent law.
Facts can not be copyrighted, like a TW is a dual 80 watt core transformer.
Intel famously tried to trademark 486, but numbers can not be trademarked so created the Pentium brand for the 586. Then got into trouble for copying the layout of the CPU core of the Cyrix 5x86 for their 686 Pentium Pro and Pentium II line and was sued for patent infringement.
Image copyright is different from written text copyright law.
Normally if you properly reference your source and give full credit, most do not get angry, and taking it down we solve the issue. Copyright must be clearly marked and the type of copyright on the document, images again are different. Something I learned self publishing from my online provider.
Images and text can also be trademarked. This is a point of confusion because of the overlap of trademarks and copyrights. Trademarks then run into anther set of laws pertaining to public image.
Blueprints and diagrams run into patent law. Technically the commands could be put under copyright. Computers are a weird space where you can copyright a patent. Which lead to the lawsuit between Apple and Microsoft over the Graphical User Interface where the end result was XEROX won. There were some other lawsuits over what is etched onto computer chips when it come to the BIOS, Basic Input Output System, chips of computers, since etching is a form of writing things become complicated.
Movie copyrights are really strange, you can file them, but you can end up with cases like "Night of the Living dead" where they filed but the notice is missing from the film leaving it in the public domain.
For the most part I don't think MTH or Lionel LLC will get very upset with us sharing information on their products it is free advertising, and saves their consumer relations and repair departments a fortune.
If it is rare or threatened to be lost or has been abandoned that is anther case. When it comes to computer software and you make a single copy of something rare for personal use only you should be fine.
There are strange cases like Zoro, public domain, but is still effectively under copyright from all the lawsuits from the company that claims it. The Dwarves in the Hobbit, they used to be public domain in Icelandic sagas, technically still are, but you cannot use the names for Dwarves anymore. These exceptions make things rather confusing at times.
There was the I don't recall very well trademark lawsuit between Union Pacific Corporation and Lionel LLC and a few other companies over the the multiple trademarked road names. Lionel LLC defense was in the past toy train manufactures had been paid to use the trademarked brands, I don't recall more details than that.
Post war wiring diagrams are not an issue since the patents have long expired, even the 10NES chip that provided the DRM protection on the NES patent has expired, so now you can legally disable it, so your legal cartridges work better. Patents expire in 20 years if I recall correctly so the information from 8/17/1999 and earlier should be legal to share.
I have tried to provide some examples where you can look up what I am talking about. I may not have all the facts correct on the cases, it has been a few years since I read up on them. Given our modern trains have computer parts, but still interface with analog components things are complicated and why I provided examples from the computer world. The whole trademark, patent, and copyright laws are all intellectual property laws, and they are in a constant state of flux. For the most part, check with the holder and ask them for permission if possible.
Professor Chaos posted:The operator of a board is not supposed to be liable for damages at all if it did not have knowledge of the infringement, promptly responds to a takedown request from the copyright owner, and meets the other requirements of the DMCA safe harbor statute [17 USC 512(c)] . . . that law was enacted so that board operators would not be liable for copyrighted material posted by users.
But I'm sure the whole story was more complex.
Correct, that is why that perhaps understanding what unfolded would be useful. Obviously, without knowing the whole situation, we can never be sure of what actually happened, or why it escalated into what Alan describes.
So correct my mis-impression, but wouldn't it be sufficient for OGR to simply and promptly remove any graphic upon receiving the initial copyright complaint? If so, what made this particular situation blow up into such a big deal? I get the feeling we're killing flies with a sledgehammer.
FWIW, I see a TON of obviously copyrighted stuff on FaceBook, and they don't seem to be doing anything about it being posted. If that is a big problem, they're sure handling it under the radar, because I haven't heard anything about it.
Professor Chaos posted:OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:GHEEEZZZZ...how many times do I need to tell the story! Yeah, there IS more to the story and I told it all not only here but in the featured topics and a couple of other threads/posts going on right now on this forum. I don't know why you would be surprised that someone took legal action...it is the way of the world these days. One more time: OGR received notice to take down two pictures from two members of this forum and the demand letter spelled out how much we needed to send them for the damages to their client. That is pretty much how this went down.
The operator of a board is not supposed to be liable for damages at all if it did not have knowledge of the infringement, promptly responds to a takedown request from the copyright owner, and meets the other requirements of the DMCA safe harbor statute [17 USC 512(c)] . . . that law was enacted so that board operators would not be liable for copyrighted material posted by users.
But I'm sure the whole story was more complex.
Yep...more complex for sure. The pictures were from years ago so the interpretation was that OGR should have known by the shear number and the length of time that these pictures should have been taken down. We do however have the option of coming back to the poster and suing them for any damages we have incurred which from what I understand.
gunrunnerjohn posted:Professor Chaos posted:The operator of a board is not supposed to be liable for damages at all if it did not have knowledge of the infringement, promptly responds to a takedown request from the copyright owner, and meets the other requirements of the DMCA safe harbor statute [17 USC 512(c)] . . . that law was enacted so that board operators would not be liable for copyrighted material posted by users.
But I'm sure the whole story was more complex.
Correct, that is why that perhaps understanding what unfolded would be useful. Obviously, without knowing the whole situation, we can never be sure of what actually happened, or why it escalated into what Alan describes.
So correct my mis-impression, but wouldn't it be sufficient for OGR to simply and promptly remove any graphic upon receiving the initial copyright complaint? If so, what made this particular situation blow up into such a big deal? I get the feeling we're killing flies with a sledgehammer.
FWIW, I see a TON of obviously copyrighted stuff on FaceBook, and they don't seem to be doing anything about it being posted. If that is a big problem, they're sure handling it under the radar, because I haven't heard anything about it.
John...your interpretation of what happened once again is based on you feeling of what should or should have happen...it is not reality. Again, I have explained several times in detail what happened and how it happened....do I need our attorneys to contact you and explain it? To make it as simple as I can: we were served without warning paperwork that demanded OGR to take down the pictures. We complied immediately. Included in the take down command was a demand for payment of damages to their client since the pictures had been up for years and their implication was that OGR benefited financially from those pictures. I handed this situation over to our legal representatives. They spent several months conversing with copyright experts at the Federal court level. The conclusion was that we could ask for a trial by jury and would likely win...and at the same time we would have to share the contact information of the two members that posted the pictures. You must understand what that would have meant. After consideration of the total cost to us for a Federal trial and the fact that all fees would not have been likely paid by the other side, it was less expensive to just write them a check rather than several more months of this process. Keep in mind that there could be future situations like this because you and many others here might have material posted that COULD be singled out as suspect. Those of you that have never gone through a situation like this may not realize that in many cases, the other side counts on the cost of settlement being less than the trial. They see that as a win for their side. Just watch all of the TV commercials from law firms that live off of cases like this. Most are settled out of court since they threaten to ask for damages a 100 times of what they offer in settlement....
This thread has run its course. Some of you don't get it and imply that either I am not telling the whole story or somehow OGR is wrong in sending the warnings/emails to the membership. If you don't want to, or can't, or simply don't like what is going on....then you certainly have the right to enjoy the hobby without the forum. Topic closed....
