Alan C

I was typing this up when the thread got locked, so I couldn't get it down. But listen up.

Copyright infringement is being debated well in the Policy forum..

This link; http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/index1.htm gives you all the heavy law stuff about the UK copyright law and will have you asleep in seconds.

The upshot is, you can't copy artwork or a logo (in this case) designed or owned by someone else and use it in way as to gain profit from it (money, kudos, praise etc) unless you get the express permission from the owner and then say that is the case when you show the item.

SN is not allowed to display these items, as it itself could be held accountable, especially if the owner of the work or logo complains to the BB and it does not get removed.

There are occasions when these requests can be upheld (ignored) if the work is part of a review or critique or is linkled in some way to an authorised dealer.

This is just two of the hundreds of potential pitfalls for both sides that is written into the law in language that is harder than Klingon. But it is just not worth the hassle, especially as this BB is free and run on a volunteer basis.

I'm no mod, but the only way to keep EVERY potential infringement off the BB is to vet EVERY post 24 hours in advance. Impossible in this case, especially if you want to keep this BB as it is.

The guys are going to get it wrong sometimes, or they are going to make a tough call that will annoy someone. Just look at the two goals aginst Villa this afternoon. A good referee, or a biased cheat with a few quid coming from Wenger? Not easy.

The reasons for the owner complaining about his work or property being shown and complaining is down to him. It may seem petty and crap to you and me, but it's his right. And yes, it is unfair that some posts take a little longer to get editied or locked becuase the mods can't vet them all AND to the fact that the owner has not complained about that particular picture or post etc.

Then it's down to the mod to decide if it infringes copyright. If I had a potential day in court to part with a few grand for a decision to leave a post alone; especially doing a job that is supposed to be fun, and I wasn't being paid to do it, I know which side of the fence I'd fall on. I may be wrong, but these guys love cars and enjoy working here, and they are not all top lawyers, so give em a break.

[Edited by Alan C - 1/18/2004 8:10:01 PM]

DJ73

the mod's seem to think j4mou link didn't infringe no copy right but mine and ETS's did, that's the only reason i RTM it(j4mou's topic)IMHO give a **** who copie's what but one rule for him and another for ETS doesn't make f*cking sense, scoobynet seem to make up term's and condition's to suit what ever

Jamo

iTrader: (23)

I understand the stance of the mods, in this case the artwork in mention was actually allowed to be used, therefore no action could have been taken.

I chose to report the link myself, because the discussion was staring to become negative.

I come on here because of the like minded people and the sensible conversations and opinions that the members offer.

jamo

chiark

Thanks for looking into that Alan, most appreciated and very informative. The point about us being held responsible for an infringement, particularly if someone complains and we fail to act, is exactly I take the decisions that I have done and it is the basic principle of the policy to deal with copyright/IPR complaints. Once more, with feeling:

- Obvious copyright infringements are removed immediately
- In all other cases, it is down to the infringed party to complain. The team will look and the complaint, and take action if decided that it is apppropriate.

You are absolutely spot on with the statements on how moderation works in practice. We all do this for "fun" , I am not a lawyer, we do not get paid, and I do tend to fall on the safer side of the fence as, ultimately, Scoobynet could not afford to be embroiled in a court battle over this. I do realise people think that this shouldn't be our battle, but the law is inexact here and we would have a battle to fight even to prove it isn't our battle .

If there are inconsistencies, it's because of two possibilities:
- Different people have different views, no two mods can be absolutely the same. We do, however, have simple guidelines to work to to try to avoid this happening.
- The situations being compared and viewed as inconsistent are not fundamentally the same. We try to explain this, but after banging heads against brick walls for so long, we give up.

Jamo, most people are like minded... I've given up trying to convert the minority.

Thanks again for the post, and research. It takes a lot of time to research and post that, and to have our findings and approach backed up really is helpful.

Cheers,
Nick.

Alan C

No problems Nick.

I do feel that mods get a hard time trying to do a hard job.

The BB got 'duffed up' badly by people not agreeing with Prodrives complaint, and the later ramifications that DJ and J4mou fell foul off, about the use of styling logos etc etc that they thought infringed their ownership rights.

I'm sure the mods have got their own opinions of whether this is right or wrong (as well as the odd £10 Tag watch ), but the BB is the official vehicle for us all and therefore the BB (read Shaun, Simon and the Mods) will be the one's held accountable for ignoring a complaint by the Prodrive giant, or a back street designer who's just lost his livliehood due to being ripped off.

DJ. I can't comment as I didn't see your post. But it comes down to the safety thing. If it was obviously infringing (I don't know), then it will probably go. Borderline? Then it will go (unless Nick trawls through my link above and posts Section 3 chapter 12, Para 35, sub para 6. Yeah right..)

Your best case is to trawl thorugh the above link and tell Prodrive (not this BB) that you have looked at Sect 3 etc etc etc and you feel agieved by their decision. When they write back and say.. 'very sorry.. we were wrong.. post away' then I'm sure the Mods will open it up again.

If not. The BB has no option.

I don't feel it helps to complain about another post becuase you are pi55ed off it got locked (unless it is very obvious) as it's your interpretion of the copyright laws, and not the owners (who may be quite happy for Jamo to post away using their stuff)

Damn this is complicated.

[Edited by Alan C - 1/19/2004 1:59:46 PM]

DJ73

alan,ets put a topic on "logo'd scoop's,what do think of these" locked straight away,so i put topic on logo'd scoop's "if you missed these look here" with a link to his web site again locked straight away,j4mou put a link on his topic to a grafix company also with copyrighted material on but his wasn't locked WHY?,when both link's are to companie's that has copied the same logo,i didn't RTM j4mou's tit 4 tat,pi55ed off, or whatever but HOW can scoobynet justify only locking one and not the other for the same infringement

Alan C

DJ. You're turning me into a mod!

I didn't see your post so cannot comment directly. However, and If I understand the situation right; if it had a link to a company/person selling products that violate the copyright of a company (who have complained about this type of thing in the past) then it will have to be locked/deleted. Simple. The mods haven't got the time or knowledge to investigate that fully to the letter of the law, AND they don't want to end up in court. If you or the company selling those products have a problem with that issue and can prove that it doesn't, in fact, breach the copyright laws, then the problem is with the complaining company and not the BB. So it is best to ring Prodrive and argue the toss with them. if they agree, and you get their consent, then the mods will open up the post.

As with J4mou's post, and if I'm quoting, Chiark said that he couldn't see anything wrong with it. I looked through and apart from a delete of an advertiser who hadn't paid for the priviledge of advertising here, I couldn't see anything wrong either. Unless of course the graphics shown were in breach of copyright AND the owner of the original work complained. It's not up to the mods to check that the graphics shown were legit or not.

You've got to remember that some people/companies won't mind having their products plastered over here, and so won't complain. Madgrip has a PR company and he's be more than happy for you to display his name etc.. They might not mind if you say something that makes you look kinda cool... like J4Mous' graphics on his cars, as he didn't say whose designs these were.

They might get annoyed if he says he did all the work and is selling them to us for a cracking price. But would the mods know that someone was being ripped off? Not easy in this case, unless you were very knowledgeable about such desings.

I've rabbited a bit and gone off track a few times, but I hope this has helped you understand the processes... I can understand your annoyance.. if you feel that it was a close call. But I bet that you (as would us all) err on the side of caution if YOU were the one that was to be taken to court over the decision to leave it up?

Warwick-hunt

j4mou's "artwork" was full car graphics, but he had a link below his "artwork" saying you can buy them here
i followed the link and found sti, oakley, ford, wrc etc.........in fact three pages of brand name logos

this is what dj is saying, his link was locked, the mods give a reason,(sti logos) then chiark says j4mous link had been looked at and was ok,(again links to sti logos)

only part of this is about copyright logos, the other part is about the mods, they go into every reason why they lock something but it only seems to apply when they feel like it, yes they can't vet every post but in certain forums they could, especially in styling as there aren't many replies every day.

yes we all love our cars this is why we are members of scoobynet so we can discuss our cars and where to get parts from, including stickers.

scoobchrissy

iTrader: (1)

Warwick-hunt! Tooshaey nice one!!

sasim

I must admit that I quickly scanned through the Graphix post when it was first mentioned and DID miss the link at the bottom of the pictures (I think the pictures dazed me ) I also did NOT notice the link further down the page because it was not highlighted in blue. The second time it was RTM'd I had another look, found the links and removed them. I can't speak for the other Mods but that is my excuse

DJ73 the reason your post may have been edited/deleted (whichever it was) so quickly was because you were posting a link to a commercial site which contained pictures that had already recently been edited out of other posts because of the commercial/legal aspects, with the reasons why being clearly explained in both cases, and you knew that when you posted it yet again.

I can understand everyone's frustrations about this situation, and I personally really do NOT enjoy having to edit/delete posts, but we have to act in order to protect Scoobynet for the reasons that have been extensively covered in this thread and several others in policy.

Stuart

DJ73

the only reason i put the link to the picture's is when i saw j4mou's link etc was still on with his link ,it looked to me unfair that if scoobynet's taking this approach to logo's etc then it should apply to all not a select few???
ALAN, "it's not up to the mod's to check if the grafix are legit or not" then they should stay out of it
WARWICK,thank f*ck some one under stood what i was saying about the link's

chiark

I think the position is clear here... I do see that you're still frustrated by this DJ, but I cannot explain myself any more - it's all there.

Stuart's posted his thoughts clearly too.

As such, unless there's a different discussion I will not be posting again on this thread. Interested parties can read pages and pages of threads on the subject already, and I cannot think of anything new to say that has not already been said exhaustively before.

Cheers,
Nick.