I always enjoyed reading Kurt's contributions and miss his presence but, quite frankly, unless one encounters a lack of cooperation in such matters, the threat of a lawsuit seems unjustified. Below is a simple example of how I believe discussion about infringement should ideally start and end (in reverse order, of course) . . . I was fortunate to have a rational, cooperative person on the other end. If I didn't, well then, that's when one should step it up. I think we all owe it to each other to act like big boys and girls before turning adversarial.
@ToughCOINS nice example of Hanlon's Razor in action... "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by {ignorance | stupidity}" Word choice depends on which side of the bed I woke up on...
I looked back through my posts and couldn't find where I claimed it wasn't a violation of copyright law. What I said was, unless you can demonstrate damages (monetary or otherwise) most courts aren't going to look favorably on you wasting their time over frivolous matters when they have the likes of murder, rape, theft, drugs, and domestic violence to deal with. And especially if you haven't first tried to remedy the problem with a cease and desist action, which only requires a letter, not a lawsuit. The primary intent of copyright law is to protect the rights of owners of intellectual property that represents value to those owners. Just because you get your panties in a bunch over Joe Blow borrowing the vacation photo you posted to Instagram isn't necessarily going to get the justice system racing to your defense. Again, let it go.
My older brother was arrested for jaywalking. It is illegal to jaywalk and can land you in jail overnight, so it is pretty serious. Violating copyright law is a criminal act, and those who do it are criminals. Period, no question. I never stated you claimed it wasn't a violation of copyright law. These sophist arguments of yours are not winning you the argument.
I disagree with Hanlon's razor. There can't be that much stupidity rampant in the world, if there were it would look like the movie "idiocracy". people are basically malicious at heart, not stupid.
Ah, you see, there's the difference between you and me. I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm simply trying to share information with fellow CTers so that anybody reading this thread comes away with an accurate understanding of how copyright law works in the real world with respect to the majority of worthless photos people like us post on the Internet. I think that's been accomplished, so no need to continue this discussion further. Unless, of course, you feel compelled to have the last word, which I'm happy to grant you.
@ToughCOINS, I commend you for the wording of the letter. Civility often encourages civility (or as one good book says, a soft answer turns away wrath). We need way more civility in our lives, including here on CT. STEve
How very noble of you! Of course each case must be judged on its own merits, so it's never good to summarily dismiss copyright infringement cases as you did in your first post that I replied to. I fully agree that if there are no damages, there is no case, so simply posting a photo, while illegal, is not worthy of litigation. But what is said when the photo is posted? What is said in later posts? What are the consequences of these posts or other actions taken? Was there defamation/libel involved? Did the publication cause a loss of business or revenue? It is these extenuating circumstances that can make an illegal posting of a copyrighted item have merit in litigation.
Thanks Steve, I just wish we could all find reason enough to commend each other for all of our actions. Undoubtedly, there have been occasions enough when someone cursed me under their breath for something I did. - Mike
Unless there is a copyright lawyer on this thread, no one here is an expert on this vast and complicated subject and is in no position to give advice. Go to the sources instead. I did take a legal class on copyright some years ago, but even an entire semester only scratched the surface. There are some basic concepts that the links below cover, but this is not a topic that's easily mastered. The class did teach me this: never take copyright advice from anyone who is not a copyright lawyer. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/ https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/index.html https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/
Just because someone claims someone else broke a law doesn't make them a criminal, being convicted in a court of law makes them a criminal. Also, copyright law is a CIVIL law. It is not criminal. If you tried to call the police on someone who stole your copyrighted material the police would laugh at you and say take it up in a civil Court. It is not a misdemeanor or felony...it is a purely civil matter. My 2 cents.
