Blogger and Journalist are different in terms of knowledge and awareness, Journalist knows all the legal matters specially the rights to privacy and they all knew everything about copyrighted images and plagiarism.
Plagiarism is an act of ‘claiming’ a copyrighted works, if an individual got a copy of any copyrighted work without permission but didn’t claim them as theirs it would never be an act of plagiarism, it would be a violation of copyright law.
Bloggers on the other hand are complicated itself a blogger can be anyone including children they might have lock of awareness towards everything and it has always been the main problem on blogging communities.
Copying and embedding images became tolerable as long as you don’t earn from them, such as personal journals and diaries as long as you share your traffic to them by including a link back.
One reason why it is tolerable is in fact explained by Brad Templeton on the very last paragraph of this article.
But on the other hand if an individual owns a blog which was well monetized then it only means that they already know what they are doing, leaning how to monetize their site means "ignorance is not an excuse".
These are the 6 Big Myths about copyright.
1. "If it doesn't have a copyright symbol, it's not copyrighted."
This was true before april 1, 1989 after the Berne copyright convention, everything after that date was copyrighted the moment an individual finished his works.
2. "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
False. Whether you have been charge or not it will still be a violation., -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property, Specially those photographers who show their photo gallery in public and expect someone will email them and buy it from them but instead someone just took it without permission.
3. "My posting was under fair use!"
The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. (This includes Xerox copying of certain page on books and other learning material.)
But selling them is not or even near under the terms of Fair Use, damage to the commercial value of the work must be consider at all means, this includes posting them online for free but profiting by the use of advertising such as adsense.
4. "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works". These have been fully explained on Creative Commons license. fan fictions are among them.
5. "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests.
-Brad Templeton
6. "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do.
As a blogger and a former software developer, I must frequently deal with copyright issues. For most of my adult life, intellectual property has been my primary source of livelihood and remains so to this day. While some people take issue with the concept of intellectual property and believe that all content should be free, I don’t count myself among them. In fact, for the most part I consider the anti-copyright fanatics rather juvenile and intellectually immature. Too often their utopian language is merely a hollow shell around the desire to get something for nothing.
……
If you ever find a copyright thief generating income from your content, a few emails to their income providers will usually get their accounts banned and their funds seized. For example, if you see someone using Adsense to monetize your stolen content, you can just report it to Google to get the thief banned from Adsense and their existing funds seized. I sort of wonder what Google does with the money that’s been seized though — they certainly don’t give it to the original copyright holder. Do they refund it to the advertisers, donate it to charity, or just keep it? What about the money already paid out? In any event you’ll have to decide whether you want to go that route. I only recommend going after income sources when infringement is clearly deliberate and the person doesn’t respond to a direct request.
In most cases all you need to do to remedy a copyright violation is to expose the copyright thief to such a degree that they realize it’s in their best interest to go legal.
by Steve Pavlina
it must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used.
While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive.
- by Brad Templeton
Just like Steve Pavlina stated above, a lot of them are juvenile and intellectually immature. they think copyright law is as simple as they think, and just like Brad Templeton stated only the most vindictive author would sue when no damages are possible, some of them are ticking time bomb once your blog became popular enough (pra gatasan) that's the time they will sue you, if you don't want this to happen ask permission before you post a copyrighted images if you got a permission save them in a safe place, if they ask for payments always ask for an invoice usually those prof. freelancer has freeshbook account. (i do have one) (if you've have a friend who are a profesional photgrapher, ask them)
Just like what I said on my last post, nakakatuwa ang blog ng TNL, pero umayos kayo.
sa mga nag comment sa unang post ko sa Author og HAY!MEN tunay na lalake?, sa susunod wag puro ego, matutong mag hanap ng fact, nakakahiya naman yung isa galing pa ng UP.
kaya ko maging kagaya nyo in 1 second, WAASSSAAAKK!!! taena mga tunay na lalake kayo!! hahaha.
0 comments:
Post a Comment