You ought to try reading the links Riff, they come from universities, lawyers, and people who make their living know what's what with copyright law.
http://rising.blackstar.com/understanding-fair-use.html This link by Carolyn E. Wright seems to be objectively fair, which is a surprise since she has attacked many institution in losing lawsuits and is actively one of these copyright pests who bring suits willy nilly as a money extraction scheme. Her link to Stanfords website is useless and very biased. Mandy
I would think that there are some of us here that were born before 1957. If by the last few years you mean thirty or so, because I know the subject has been coming up at least that long
Those links are fairly accurate, although many lawyers in the copyright sphere on as dead stupid about the law as the magazine editors. So many of them spent so many years as corperate lawyers for Time Warner and Disney that they can't tell left from right any longer.. hear is food for thought by copyright experts and lawyers http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/ enjoy BTW Riff, you keep kicking the mods the mods will kick back. I'm not found of your icon either, but that is just my own opinion. Oh - BTW under the DMCA the method for take down is A) Notice to IPS and website owner (which much include an explanation of how the use is not fair use) B) response by website owner or removal of the offending content. That is the DMCA safe haven provision Continual copyright infringement or the specific case or in general can result in a punitive law suit and so most websites have explicit copyright policies to shield them. The bottom line is that its Peter's site and testing the limits are fair use in entirely up to him and in his rights.
nobody is kicking a mod. but the bottom line is that commentary IS protected, and he is wrong. this is commentary. i can find find you a hundred links that will support or refute any subject you can think of. tell you what, next time you are sick, come on here and have someone post some links to web MD articles, and i will go to an actual doctor. see how that works out. i am not going to shy away from the truth because a mod says different.
17 U.S.C. § 107Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
No, the constitution is pretty vague and the Supreme Court is the interpreter of it when it comes to the law, in which they've interpreted many times, including Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 stating: That's pretty much the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution and establishing what even Jefferson himself wrote of the "wall of separation". I can cite more that pretty much say the same thing, establishing the intentions of the establishment cause, which becomes law when the Supreme Court rules.
Unfortunately, you (used as a word in general that describes a person, any person other than myself and not used as a word to describe "you", i.e., the person I'm responding to, personally) run into people who are so entrenched in their own rightness, that they cannot comprehend that their viewpoint is or could be just an opinion based on the way they were brought up. Allowing people to hold opposing viewpoints and treating those viewpoints as valid makes is difficult, because their 'rightness' cannot be right if other diametrically opposing views are also "right". Therein lies the crux of the problem, I think. You will find many topics and people who cannot agree to disagree. As far as In God We Trust on our money, it reflects the US. Historically (collectively), we place "God" as the person/entity we believe in. That may change as demographics change in a country. The country has changed a lot since it was 'created' over 200 years ago, when there were only about 4 milllion American people in the US and those people had originated primarily from northern European countries and the British Isles.
I must be writing in a foreign language or something. I never said commentary was not protected. Go back and look at what started all of this Riff, we were talking about pictures ! We were talking about the difference between how fair use applies to pictures as opposed to how it applies to text. Yes, you can absolutely use a limited amount of copyright protected text, I have never once said you could not. But when it comes to pictures everything changes because of item #3 in the law. A picture, all by itself, is the entirety of the protected work - 100% of the protected work. And that is why you cannot use pictures under the fair use clause. You apparently think I am saying one thing when I am saying something entirely different. We allow posting of copyrighted material, under the fair use clause, on this forum all the time. But we only allow it within the limitations of the fair use clause, and how WE, not you or anybody else, interpret those limitations.
Rodeo - I think maybe you should go and review all of the court cases regarding the use of In God We Trust on our coins. Every single one of them has either been tossed out of court or the side wanting to remove the motto lost the case. In this discussion that is the only thing that matters. You can preach to the heavens from now to the end of time that the motto should not be allowed on our coins and cite every reason you want. But the courts disagree with you.
Just saw this in another forum: http://www.nicaraguadispatch.com/news/2012/09/minting-mishap-or-economic-heresy/5301 Seems that there is another country, also in the Americas, that has references to God on its coinage, and where leaving it out results in controversies. By the way, that Nicaraguan piece is a commemorative coin, and thus a one-year issue, I suppose. This article (n Spanish) has more info, and also shows the issue-specific other side: http://www.nicaraguahoy.info/dir_cgi/topics.cgi?op=view_topic;cat=Opinion;id=1384699635 Christian
And back to the original question, here's a link in case anyone wants to read the rest of the story on "In God We Trust." http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx
That is too funny, I was going to mention that "In God We Trust" dated back to one of my favorite U.S. coins the Two-Cent Piece!
A long time ago maybe. Guess that was back in the days when the Sandinistas had come into power and the US supported the Contras. Today's government ... well, according to that article they seem to refer to God, and not just on coins. I don't have any detailed info though. Christian
