Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Legal Action?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rockergrrl
    replied
    Check out:
    http://www.whatiscopyright.org/

    As soon as the website/graphic/art is created...its copyrighted..

    I know this all from Business law... as well as from being a web/graphic designer for over 8 years now...

    Leave a comment:


  • SugarChick
    replied
    lol that sucks c..I swear u always get shafted

    anyway this site may helphttp://www.rightsforartists.com/siteindex.html

    Leave a comment:


  • krs-one
    replied
    This might help clear things up...

    http://www.webmasterbase.com/article/628/16

    -Vic

    Leave a comment:


  • tubedogg
    replied
    Originally posted by Milliardo Peace
    True for someone who has legally documented his work, which means he has copyrighted it.
    Copyright is granted the moment a work is created. You do not have to apply for an official copyright, although that certainly helps increase damages awarded but it is not necessary to prove copyright infringement and collect damages. Do you have any evidence (i.e. laws, court decisions, etc.) to back up the stuff you are saying? Most of it is completely wrong.

    ...who has taken his work--and actually modified it...
    You seem to think this has some bearing on it. It does not. The right to allow derivitave works being created from something lies, again, with the copyright holder. Anytime one thing is taken and modified to create another thing it is considered a derivitive work which is illegal to sell or otherwise distribute without the copyright holder's consent.

    But as far as going the legal route, it would take a very good lawyer to convince a court that he has legal right to his work.
    Fortunately, again, you're wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • tubedogg
    replied
    Originally posted by Milliardo Peace


    No, I do not mean law enforcers waiting for someone to actually commit a crime, but it has to be that the action committed by the guilty party must have a corresponding violation on the guilty party's country.
    Again, you're completely wrong. Yes, most of the time extradition is only pursued for actions that are so heinous that it is a crime in most countries, but if there is an extradition treaty this is not necessary to extradite.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jake Bunce
    replied
    ugh! give it up already! simply put... that person is wrong for stealing and selling cprompt's layout... it is not possible to see this any other way. there will be consequences here. there is no need to pick at all the legal loop holes like a bunch of sue-happy americans.

    Leave a comment:


  • WizyWyg
    replied
    Originally posted by Milliardo Peace


    True for someone who has legally documented his work, which means he has copyrighted it. I would assume c-prompt here has not done that, since he has not made mention of that fact. That being the case, going after someone who has taken his work--and actually modified it--would be difficult at best. The most he can do is make a complaint at the guy's server, who may or may not take action. But as far as going the legal route, it would take a very good lawyer to convince a court that he has legal right to his work.
    Cprompt doesn't need to say antyhing to us. The rip was of a site he created (macfora.com). That mean its already documented.
    IT ONLY needs to be pulbished somewhere in someform and can be viewed whether its in your hands or via a mechanism (ie Microscope, computer, monitor, magnifying glass etc).

    He has the original files since he created the site. That's his proof. The date on those files prove that he made it. All he has to do is ask the sites owners to produce the original graphic files to create the look on their sites, and if they can't, he can have them pull the site or go through their webspace providers, which btw these sites RESIDE in the US, on servers IN THE US. So, there is no "international" law needed in this circumstance. ITs outright copyright infringement happening on US soil.

    If that is the case then, all of us are, by the definition given here, criminals, for one way or the other we all have copyrighted works with us, which we are using publicly and without any due recognition of the author's consent nor agreement. I would actually like to see what you mean by being "done every day in regards to internet copyright infringement" (aside from the paranoid actions done by Nintendo), since, as I've pointed out, most of us here have some form of work that is copyrighted, which we are using in fact.
    If you mean that we are using Vbulletin, then you're assumption is wrong. WE all have bought a license to use the program and that license allows us to use the program for our site with the graphics provided by the program

    If you mean the images that appear here other than vbulletin's then (avatars) then you're assuming wrong again. Not everyone is violation of copyrights if they are the ones who created those images.

    As in avatars (ie the simpsons stuff or any other avatar), since the images are not being used in a "commercial" way, its been well known that companies are being lenient about it. We are not "exempt" from the violation, but companies are allowing their images to be used if its not for commercial purposes

    Ie if go out and use Disney graphics on buttons and logos for a vbulleting layout and sold it, then Disney has every right to come after me and what I've earned on that.

    This is the case with Cprompt. He created a layout for another site to use (and probably got paid for it) and now his design is being "touted" byt another individual as "his/her" creation and selling it to other sites. He has everyright to go after the individuals invovled to protect his interest.

    The avatar i use is part of series of images that Im allowed to use because I went out and asked permission to use images from the copyright holders.


    I am not against c-prompt; in fact, I sympathize with him, and if I were in his place, I would also be rightfully angry about it. But there must be legal basis for what he is about to do.
    Yes, there is a legal basis:

    Someone out there is selling HIS design which HE created, without giving him ANY money in return for that design.

    its a form of piracy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Milliardo Peace
    replied
    Originally posted by tubedogg
    That is completely wrong. The US works with foreign law enforcement to find the individual for extradition (assuming such a treaty exists) but there has never been a standard that the individual has to be caught committing a crime in the foreign country to be arrested. That would be assinine and completely override the whole point of extradition. If you had to wait for an individual to commit a crime to extradite him no one would ever get extradited.
    No, I do not mean law enforcers waiting for someone to actually commit a crime, but it has to be that the action committed by the guilty party must have a corresponding violation on the guilty party's country.

    Leave a comment:


  • Milliardo Peace
    replied
    Originally posted by tubedogg
    Most of the larger countries are party to the Berne Convention which means right there you have a pretty good chance of being protected from the get-go.
    True for someone who has legally documented his work, which means he has copyrighted it. I would assume c-prompt here has not done that, since he has not made mention of that fact. That being the case, going after someone who has taken his work--and actually modified it--would be difficult at best. The most he can do is make a complaint at the guy's server, who may or may not take action. But as far as going the legal route, it would take a very good lawyer to convince a court that he has legal right to his work.

    You aren't governing the internet you are governing individuals which is still very much possible and is done every day in regards to internet copyright infringement.
    If that is the case then, all of us are, by the definition given here, criminals, for one way or the other we all have copyrighted works with us, which we are using publicly and without any due recognition of the author's consent nor agreement. I would actually like to see what you mean by being "done every day in regards to internet copyright infringement" (aside from the paranoid actions done by Nintendo), since, as I've pointed out, most of us here have some form of work that is copyrighted, which we are using in fact.

    I am not against c-prompt; in fact, I sympathize with him, and if I were in his place, I would also be rightfully angry about it. But there must be legal basis for what he is about to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheComputerGuy
    replied
    Cpr0mpt,
    Burn their @$$, I am not playing, www.egehost.com (Not their current design)ripped a design from WebDefinity,and he claims its his obligation to use such things, and because he didnt pay for it he thinks why should it go to waste... I had to email them 500 times, and their host, 10 times to get a response

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott MacVicar
    replied
    that copyright wasn't there earlier, it stopped at that coloured text just above it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Goldfinger
    replied
    c-prompt :\ make a layout that i can rip . make it gold and shiny like?

    Leave a comment:


  • c-prompt
    replied
    tubedogg = smart

    Just found another ripper of my work coming here for support.

    http://home.kimo.com.tw/ezbbs19/5.JPG

    Must be rippers week. LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • Jake Bunce
    replied
    errr... what tube said

    Leave a comment:


  • tubedogg
    replied
    Any country that is a party to the Berne Convention upholds copyrights in turn for other countries.

    As you may have noticed, the U.S. has to work with another country's law enforcement to catch a suspect, because the understanding is that the man must be caught violating his country's law, or else there is no case.
    That is completely wrong. The US works with foreign law enforcement to find the individual for extradition (assuming such a treaty exists) but there has never been a standard that the individual has to be caught committing a crime in the foreign country to be arrested. That would be assinine and completely override the whole point of extradition. If you had to wait for an individual to commit a crime to extradite him no one would ever get extradited.

    Leave a comment:

Related Topics

Collapse

Working...
X