• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Speaking of copyrights - trouble in OZ

Share this page

Steve said:
I wondered how long that would take. The floodgates are open, watch for other copyright holders to start lining up now.
Click to expand...

I have been threatened about a copyright infringement once before, which is why I'm rather sensitive to the topic.
 
It is interesting that Viacom is suing now. I’d bet You Tube was in violation long before Google bought them.
 
Not long ago, I had a beautiful MG logo that I copied from another web site...owner of that web site contacted me & told me to remove it or face legal action as he had not given me permission to use it (though his site also did not say I couldn't)....I removed it but also learned that most anything MG put on the web without specific restrictions is pretty much free game. Of course that's different than copying copyrighted material off the TV or live concerts...

....& that's one reason "theList" on my site has a disclaimer that "the information contained herein is designed to be used expressly by the members and should not be duplicated or used by any person or business entity not a listed member for any purpose not expressly outlined in the above."
 
Copyright law is such that the "originator" of the work is implicitly the legal "owner", and that ownership begins at the time of origination... The disclaimer may, or may not need to be included. Tho any prudent "creator" should use it, as it makes clear there ~is~ an owner.

The internet is rife with theft of this type, it'll be messy to sort as a result.
 
A lawsuit will only go as far as the depths of the pockets of the parties involved. In this case we are dealing with 2 very DEEP pockets.
My company was involved in a legal battle on the design of a sign. We did what you just mentioned Steve, changed it a little and we've had no problems since.
 
DrEntropy said:
Copyright law is such that the "originator" of the work is implicitly the legal "owner", and that ownership begins at the time of origination... The disclaimer may, or may not need to be included. Tho any prudent "creator" should use it, as it makes clear there ~is~ an owner.

The internet is rife with theft of this type, it'll be messy to sort as a result.
Click to expand...

You are right in your analysis, there need not be a (c), copyright notice or the registration of any material for it to be protected.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]Tony, just change the logo a little and you're in the clear.[/QUOTE]

Nah, there are too many MG logo's out there for some guy to think he owns a particular one...
 
lawguy said:
You are right in your analysis, there need not be a (c), copyright notice or the registration of any material for it to be protected.
Click to expand...

Thanks, James, for watchin' my six. Been a photojournalist a long time, learned at about age 14 what could and couldn't be considered ~illegal~. "Photography and the Law"... had to read it. My mentor was a stickler! I believe that's still in print and updated regularly.

As an odd aside: going through college photojournalism courses there was NO class on it or copyright law! I found that to be just DUMB... but, hey: I had already been earning my gas money as a news photog for a few years by then. My first 'teachers' were pro's. *shrug*
 
Many times the lawsuits are legitimate,
but most times (as in Tony's case),it's just
a waste of everyone's time.
I remember when Lotus was going after everybody,
it got out of hand.At least their lawyers made money.

- Doug
 
Yeah, like I said, most everything MG on the internet is probably free by now or we're all using it illegally &, since there's been nobody trying to stop us for low 30 or so years, well....

I seem to remember something from one of my MBA classes that if a logo/sign,etc isn't used by the original owner & nobody challenges people for using it after some number of years, it becomes available for general use.
 
I remember when Jeep was fighting the fact that it's name had practically become synonymous with an off-road vehicle, which ordinarily would be good except that they were afraid of the name becoming common domain or something.
 
Same with "Coke"...they religiously fight to maintain their unique identity, going after restaurants where you can order a "Coke" & the waiter doesn't tell you you're getting Pepsi or some other product.
 
As a teacher I am often faced with the "copyright" question. I remeber several years ago when we were warned about movies and videos we chose to show in our classes. By showing them we were told we were in violation of copyright law. Same with photocopying books or worksheets or for that matter sheet music for choir or band...unfortunatley I can't afford to purchase the rights to this stuff, so I risk it hoping that no big name lawyers will visit my little burg on the day I am in violation and slap me with a lawsuit.
 
I can't imagine the hugeness of negative publicity someone would be subject to if they were to sue a music teacher for photocopying music sheets for a class lesson. If the person was ever caught in public they would get punched in the nose.
 
Didn't Disney start an uproar several years back by going after Daycares for showing their movies without license? Or was this just one of those urban legends?
 
I thought "OZ" was slang for Australia. Does it have another meaning?

Besides the usual definition, that is!
 
Back
Top