HOLIDAY DONATION DRIVE - SUPPORT MSW - DO YOUR PART TO KEEP THIS GREAT FORUM GOING! (Only 36 donations so far out of 49,000 members - C'mon guys!)
×
Farawayman
-
Posts
13 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Recent Profile Visitors
678 profile views
-
Don reacted to a post in a topic:
Fair American by figuerres - Model Shipways - 1:48
-
trippwj reacted to a post in a topic:
Intellectual Property Rights on build logs, "How To" articles and gallery photos
-
I am not trying to advocate controls or enforcement - my proposal is based on the following logic: When joining, a subscriber should have to accept certain rules; These rules should require the subscriber to: respect the copyright of third parties - by putting the onus of refraining from posting copyrighted material on the subscriber, not on the website administrators / owners; agree that images / articles / material is provided to the website under a creative commons license which affords the subscriber as well as the website certain protection under international intellectual property rights law; Because of the crash and data loss, we now have a relatively small database - if we intend taking any action it must be now. Its impossible to implement any rules retrospectively once subscribers have posted images / articles / material under other or no conditions; Although many above comments tend to imply that intellectual property rights can never be enforced...... they can! And its better to have some form of defense / protection in the unlikely event of such an incident!
- 20 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- IPR
- right of use
- (and 1 more)
-
See if you can spot the copyrighted images: Here Here Here Here Here
-
The issue is not enforcement - we all know that once something hits the web... it becomes almost impossible to control. However, the issue / aim is to provide some form of legal protection - to the website administrator / owners as well as to the party submitting the material. Some examples: a contributor posts a copyrighted image without the administrators knowing the image is under copyright. Without any such statmeent, the website / owners / administrators are guilty of copyright infringement; a contributor posts a "how to" article. Six months later he finds his text and images published in a book by some obscure author now being sold in his local hobby shop. Without this type of licence, he could have some recourse to the website "owners/ administrators" for not properly controlling the material he submitted in good faith. There are many more examples why this is a good practice.
-
trippwj reacted to a post in a topic:
Intellectual Property Rights on build logs, "How To" articles and gallery photos
-
As we now have a new website and new data, is this not the right time to clarify the intellectual property rights of material added by users? I strongly recommend that when subscribing / joining a user (or new member) is required to confirm a couple of issues: That all material submitted becomes available in the public domain under a Creative Commons licence (there are a number of different licence categories - see here for an example); I recommend the license to be that of "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported" which is represented by the license symbols represented in the below image. This license means that: You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work but only if they give you credit. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work for noncommercial purposes only. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it. This protects the contributor's rights and also, protects the "owners" of the website from potential claims from contributors regarding improper control over works submitted via the forum(s); This should apply to images, "How to" descriptions, techniques and any item considered having intellectual property value. Views?
- 20 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- IPR
- right of use
- (and 1 more)
-
Figuerres - did you have any problems with the length of the laser-cut keel length? I bought this kit and while planning the build, I found the laser cut centre-keel was 4mm shorter than that showed on the plans. The slots for the bulkheads also didn't correspond with the plans. Initially, I thought it was caused by the plans not being copied correctly - I.e. the x dimension was not correct in proportion to the Y dimension of the plans. I mailed the manufacturer and included photos of the discrepancy asking them if they could send me new plans which were copied in the correct ratio. Within one day Model Shipyards had replied saying that the plans were correct but that there was a problem with the dimensions of the keel and that they would be sending me a new one. Awaiting their package. I was just wondering if this was a one-off error or whether it was more prevalent in a batch of kits? I will be following your log closely, as I am very much a newbie to this!
Our Emblem ®
