TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:We need a facebook page where we can list the lies told by the antigun people and post the truth.

If people realize that those people constantly lie and most of the time the media reports are wrong maybe they will quit taking them seriously.

I own BradyCampaignLies.com but I never set up a website. I like your idea, but I don't want to put it on Facebook in case Z decides he wants to delete it or some posts, so I just registered AntiGunLies.com. I can set up a website, but I don't have time to keep it updated. If some folks will volunteer, I'll get it going. It will have to stay clean so it will be viewed as a reliable resource to debunk the garbage that any anti-gun group or person publishes. I want links to corroborating proof of anything we say. Again, this will not be an editorial page, nor will it be a place for rants. I want it to be an honest version of Snopes.

Chas.

Dave2 wrote:

Bladed wrote:As I said, the fact that a work is reproduced for the purpose of criticism CAN be enough to qualify the reproduction as "fair use," particularly if--as in this case--the use is noncommercial, and the original work is not artistic or commercial in nature.

How does that apply, since it's being used to slander and mischaracterize us, rather than to criticize us?

Skiprr wrote:

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...

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

sjfcontrol wrote:

Canon1d4 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Oh MY! That was my post and picture... Not sure what to think about that.

If you actually took that photo, YOU own the copyright. You can sent a take down notice to Facebook and they have to honor it. You can also get whoever posted it for a copyright infringement, especially if you register it with the copyright office.

I took the picture. How do I do that?

AndyC wrote:The basis of their complaint seems to be that they want a complete reversal of current law - in other words, that businesses etc. should only have to post a sign if they WILL allow concealed firearms inside their premises. The MDA fans don't want to have to go to any effort to keep guns out - they want "keep out" as the default.

Current Texas law doesn't contain any prohibitions on publicly carrying long guns unless they are displayed in a manner "calculated to alarm," or brought into an establishment displaying a "30.06" sign, a reference to the statute that allows Texas private-property owners to ban firearms on their premises.

Skiprr wrote:

Bladed wrote:[ Image ]

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

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America isn’t the first group to suspect that a lawmaker wrote a law to be more cumbersome than it has to be.

They argue that the Legislature intentionally crafted an ugly, eye-glazing, space-zapping warning sign that Texas business owners must post at every entrance if they don’t want their customers legally packing a concealed handgun on the premises.

....

The Moms Demand Action members say some gun owners are “gaming” the system by ignoring a property owner’s wishes if the sign doesn’t fit literally the one-inch letter of the law or violates other specifics.

They showed me numerous screen shots listing establishments with allegedly illegal signs. The assumption, at least based on the Internet conversations, is that an armed customer can’t be convicted of criminal trespass if the sign isn’t technically correct.

....

Volunteers with Moms Demand Action have quietly begun warning businesses with signs that might not comply with the law.