Copyright!

iana · Guru

Copyright!

Dougwe · Chief one feather

I put one up earlier Ian and got it courtesy Mr Google so assume everything OK. It was classed as 'Stock' pics.

My understanding is if it's on the open Internet its for anyone to use.

Where's Dmaxer when ya need him :)

iana · Guru

That's what jogged my memory. I was looking for a person throwing a grenade, yep one of those questions biggrin

Robreen · Veteran Member

G'day all. My lovely wife, who I do not argue with, is a proofreader for a national womens magazine, reckons that if a picture or cartoon or drawing from the internet has a watermark on or in it, it is copyright and cannot be used without permission of the copyright owner. She is most definite and I will not argue with her!!!

iana · Guru

That's pretty much the way I understood it, Doug nothing to you on this, it just made me remember to ask the question. Wouldn't want to get Cindy in the sh-t.

Dougwe · Chief one feather

I deleted the pic just in case Ian.

Calling Dmaxer. You got a copy good buddy?

hako · Guru

So that means no more posting Aldi specials taken from the Aldi copyrighted flyer, newspaper reports of caravan accidents, weather reports and warnings, says or quips from any source, bargains on Ebay etc.
The "just joking" section will have to be proven to be the posters own jokes as will any tips in the Techies corner and hints, tips and great ideas.

Is this for real?

Good Luck.

Robreen · Veteran Member

G'day all again. It is only a problem if you get caught.

iana · Guru

It was more the cartoons with the water mark on them, there is so much good art out there, it would be great to be able to use it with out upsetting anybody. I am assuming if there is no identifier, then its public domain.

dorian · Guru

I assume everything is subject to copyright, unless the author specifically states otherwise. Why not just post a link to the picture?

-- Edited by dorian on Friday 23rd of September 2016 06:14:14 AM

jules47 · The Happy Helper

As none of the "pictures, cartoons, etc.," are posted on this forum for profit or gain - it would be a pretty good bet no-one would bother about copyright laws. Of course, if you claimed it as yours, would be a different story. Bit of a storm in a teacup I think.

-- Edited by jules47 on Friday 23rd of September 2016 09:43:59 AM

Wayne Dwop · Veteran Member

When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you write. You can write good and copyright but copyright doesn't mean copy good - it might not be right good copy, right?

Now, writers of religious services write rite, and thus have the right to copyright the rite they write.

Conservatives write right copy, and have the right to copyright the right copy they write. A right wing cleric might write right rite, and have the right to copyright the right rite he has the right to write. His editor has the job of making the right rite copy right before the copyright would be right. Then it might be copy good copyright.

Should Thom Wright decide to write, then Wright might write right rite, which Wright has a right to copyright. Copying that rite would copy Wright's right rite, and thus violate copyright, so Wright would have the legal right to right the wrong. Right?

Legals write writs which is a right or not write writs right but all writs, copied or not, are writs that are copyright. Judges make writers write writs right.

Advertisers write copy which is copyright the copy writer's company, not the right of the writer to copyright. But the copy written is copyrighted as written, right?

Wrongfully copying a right writ, a right rite or copy is not right.

erad · Guru

Robreen wrote:
G'day all. My lovely wife, who I do not argue with, is a proofreader for a national womens magazine, reckons that if a picture or cartoon or drawing from the internet has a watermark on or in it, it is copyright and cannot be used without permission of the copyright owner. She is most definite and I will not argue with her!!!

Is she a poofreader or a proofreader? Seriously, as far as I know, yes pretty well anything is copywrited, but it is difficult to enforce the copywrite laws. If you were to pinch someone's work and claim it as your own then for sure you should be shafted, but simply to re-use something, I generally acknowledge the source and use it.

dorian · Guru

Here is what Gary Larson and his lawyers have to say on the subject:

The Far Side copyright infringement:
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/2007Mar/0000.html

Blues Man · Guru

Wayne Dwop wrote:
When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you write. You can write good and copyright but copyright doesn't mean copy good - it might not be right good copy, right?

Now, writers of religious services write rite, and thus have the right to copyright the rite they write.

Conservatives write right copy, and have the right to copyright the right copy they write. A right wing cleric might write right rite, and have the right to copyright the right rite he has the right to write. His editor has the job of making the right rite copy right before the copyright would be right. Then it might be copy good copyright.

Should Thom Wright decide to write, then Wright might write right rite, which Wright has a right to copyright. Copying that rite would copy Wright's right rite, and thus violate copyright, so Wright would have the legal right to right the wrong. Right?
Legals write writs which is a right or not write writs right but all writs, copied or not, are writs that are copyright. Judges make writers write writs right.
Advertisers write copy which is copyright the copy writer's company, not the right of the writer to copyright. But the copy written is copyrighted as written, right?
Wrongfully copying a right writ, a right rite or copy is not right.

Heck Wayne ,that just about done my head in.