TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:They just need to credit sjfcontrol for the source and that pretty well would cover it.

Um, no; not really. Simply citing or crediting a source does not remove copyright ownership rights or imply legal use.

Been there, done that. http://www.copyright.gov/

Bladed wrote:

Canon1d4 wrote:I would still send a take down notice to Face book. I don't that site has any educational value.

Criticism alone can be enough to fall under the "fair use" exemption.

Um, that's not entirely correct. If you look below the mention of "fair use" and "criticism" in 17 USC §107, you'll find:

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.

All four factors are evaluated and, while "purpose and character of the use" is the most important, notice factors two and three.

In copyright law, photographs are a very different animal from the written word. In large part that's because you seldom see only a small ("de minimis") portion of a photograph used without permission. And while I don't think it applies in this instance, one of the seemingly few things in copyright case law that's pretty consistent is that a photographer has full control over the first time an image is made public. If you take a photo and never, of your own volition, allow it to be shown publicly or published, then you have a pretty solid case for a cease-and-desist order...maybe even a lawsuit depending upon the circumstances.

Gets a lot messier, though, once an image is "in the wild." If you're an Ansel Adams and make a living from your fine-art photography and someone snags an image to post for a purpose related to commercial gain...you call your attorney. In sjfcontrol's matter, though, snapping a public city scene and posting it online without a commercial purpose doesn't make it fair game...but it does make a case against "fair use" much, much less tenable.

And I'm not a lawyer; I've just dealt with a lot of intellectual capital stuff over the years.

Back on topic...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Thanks to OCT/OCTC we will have to expend political capital to defeat the repeal or watering down of TPC §30.06. We will win, but it will be a battle we should not have had to fight. However, nothing can be done to stop MDA and other anti-gun people from continuing to "educate" business owners on the requirements of TPC §30.06.

Thank you, Charles.

"Mothers Against Everything" is rubbing all of us the wrong way.

Just sayin'.

Bladed wrote:

Skiprr wrote:

Bladed wrote:[ Image ]

We all know that's patently false. So you're point is...

My point is that this is one of the tactics employed by gun-control activists in the run-up to the 2015 Texas Legislative Session and that our side benefits a good deal more from being aware of what tactics and arguments our opponents are utilizing than from debating what Chief Acevedo meant when he warned about "gun enthusiasts" or what might happen if Muslims embrace open carry.

What is your point in being so antagonistic toward me and my attempts to make others aware that MDA is making an issue of this and that the Austin American-Statesman ran a story on it? Am I distracting from more-pressing issues?

Whoa. My friend, you need to calm down.

We're on the same side.

I noted the information was seven-months old--with links provided--and you responded with only a dated MDA poster; no text. Context is important.

Bladed wrote:[ Image ]

We all know that's patently false. So you're point is...

Bladed wrote:Now Moms Demand Action is going after PC Sec. 30.06:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busines ... 905.735595" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Austin American-Statesman is a bit over seven months behind the curve with this "news":

http://www.click2houston.com/news/group ... s/26083696

http://cw39.com/2014/05/20/moms-demand- ... sign-laws/