Pop Culture and Copyright

[AsylumSeeker]

Dude, do you realize that, if one was to abbreviate your handle, that it wouold spell KKK?

Not cool, and I'm sure it's not intentional, but just so ya know. Was watching a movie about Mississippi Burning and the terrible things that happened there.

Just an FYI.

 

[knighttakesrook]

Dude, are you talking to me? I don't mean to be rude, but the hell are you talking about?

Seriously, K is a letter in the alphabet of many nations. It even exists in Cyrillic, and I know the fact that the sound is there in Japanese although the kanji is probably different.

We should not strike K from the alphabet or even count the K's in our words just cause a group of idiots did not know how to spell the word "clan" properly.

Also, where did you go to school? Normally, we abbreviate things by taking the first letter of each word, not the 1st, 3rd, and 4th letter of a word. Do you think that's some sort of mathematical sequence?

You could create some pretty crazy abbreviations used those. I'm sure little kids would be saying "fuck you" to their parents all the time, and everyone would be fired for sexual harassment or hate speech.

 

[driphoney]

Dude, do you realize that, if one was to abbreviate your handle, that it wouold spell KKK?

Not cool, and I'm sure it's not intentional, but just so ya know. Was watching a movie about Mississippi Burning and the terrible things that happened there.

Just an FYI.

Sweetie, do you need stronger glasses?

[Drip re-adjusts her own glasses]

Noo ... noo ... Knight takes rook.

I think chess ... that leads to chest ... and that leads me to think he should post, post, post so he can put up an AV of his!

Okay, okay, I have a nasty bad habit of nosing in here where I don't belong. But I like this place. It was my Lit kindergarten.

I'm going.

 

[CopperSkink]

When I was in kindergarten, whilst everyone else was learning to spell, I was in a niche in the back with one of those huge triangles on my pencil, trying to learn to write legibly.

Now everything it typed anyway and I still can't spell.

Thanks, kindergarten.

 

[LadyCibelle]

Sweetie, do you need stronger glasses?

[Drip re-adjusts her own glasses]

Noo ... noo ... Knight takes rook.

I think chess ... that leads to chest ... and that leads me to think he should post, post, post so he can put up an AV of his!

Okay, okay, I have a nasty bad habit of nosing in here where I don't belong. But I like this place. It was my Lit kindergarten.

I'm going.

Drip,

I love you!!!! That was the funniest post I read in a long while, thank you for it.

 

[knighttakesrook]

The Letter K

The birthplace of western democracy, ancient Greece used the letter K. The Phoenicians and Etruscans did too, only backwards.

The letter K has sponsored episodes of "Sesame Street."

As well, it represents the element potassium which is essential to the human body.

Did I mention that the letter C sometimes steals K's sound?

 

[knighttakesrook]

I would put up a pic of my chest, my lady, but I am not sure who owns the rights to the image.

 

[driphoney]

I would put up a pic of my chest, my lady, but I am not sure who owns the rights to the image.

Oh, I think you should press the boundaries of the law. Set precedent, if required.

 

[CopperSkink]

C is for cookie, that's good enough for me...

Mmm monsters are sooo hungryyy

We'll just eat this big letter M.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

CopyCarver

Don't worry - titles can't be copyrighted. You could title it War and Peace if you wanted to, and nobody could give you any legal grief.

He is right. A trademark protection covers commercial exploitation of a brand. Articles reporting Super Bowl action fall under this but a lit fantasy saying the Super Bowl was on TV is OK. Trademark protection is only dependent on commercial damage.

Sr71plt

Again, you are confusing copyright with trademark. You couldn't name it just anything you like. "Star Wars," for instance, is trademarked. You couldn't use that name in any commercial mode except for literary criticism.

Yes you could. Many op-ed writers have made commercial advantage by using Star Wars as a cover name for stories about missile deployment. Totally unactionable.

sr71plt

And this is all in U.S. terms. The UK system of intellectual property rights protection is completely different from the U.S. system. The UK doesn't have formal copyright procedures at all.

Please ignore this completely inaccurate comment. The UK system is stronger than the US system because every work is automatically copyrighted without need of registration. In any case, after the global agreement with the Berne convention of April 1, 1989, all private creations are automatically copyright without registration or ‘assertion of rights’.

CopyCarver

OK, I'll respond this time--and this time only, mainly because I am concerned that someone might actually think you know what you're talking about and be led astray.

(1) The UK not only formal copyright but also originated the entire modern concept of copyright inThe modern concept of copyright originated in the United Kingdom, in the year 1710, with the Statute of Anne. Current copyright statutes of the UK are contained in the Amended 1988 Copyright, Designs, and Patent Acts of 1988. Penalties for violating UK copyright are every bit as severe as are the penalties of the US.

Enough said.

Sr71plt

The UK does have copyright protections, but it has no copyright registration.

See above. The UK actually has stricter copyright protection than the USA. The Berne Convention adopted UK law to help stiffen the weaker copyright protection in the US. The UK ‘Fair Dealing’ provisions on copy right infringement are more draconian than the US ‘Fair Use’.

Just two points to ponder;

Andy Warhol’s painting of a Campbell soup tin broke no copyright of trademark laws, even though he earned a fortune.

There is a movement called ‘found poetry’ that asserts that taking written pieces and plagiarizing them in the name of poetry is permissible.

Sr is not exactly a source to trust on this complex issue.

 

[sr71plt]

Point out where I've ever said the UK system wasn't stronger than the U.S. system, Elfin. (More of your misdirection?) I said it didn't have formal copyright. The U.S. system requires a formal copyright to go to court. The UK system doesn't. So, why do you get from that that I'm saying the UK protection is less than the U.S. system?

Boy, when you go on a campaign, you through all honesty out the window, don't cha?

The legalities of visual art are a whole nother matter which weren't discussed here--so your reference to Andy Warhol's art is irrelevant to what has been discussed thus far. You're as shallow in understanding copyright/trademark as you are on writing technique, hon.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

Point out where I've ever said the UK system wasn't stronger than the U.S. system, Elfin. (More of your misdirection?) I said it didn't have formal copyright. The U.S. system requires a formal copyright to go to court. The UK system doesn't. So, why do you get from that that I'm saying the UK protection is less than the U.S. system?

Boy, when you go on a campaign, you through Did you mean "throw"? all honesty out the window, don't cha Did you mean "you"??

The legalities of visual art are a whole nother Did you mean "other"? matter which weren't discussed here--so your reference to Andy Warhol's art is irrelevant to what has been discussed thus far. You're as shallow in understanding copyright/trademark as you are on writing technique, hon.

For someone who claims to be an expert author and professional editor you seem very careless about your communications on serious topics. I was considering taking you off "Ignore" but on balance I don't think so.

 

[sr71plt]

For someone who claims to be an expert author and professional editor you seem very careless about your communications on serious topics. I was considering taking you off "Ignore" but on balance I don't think so.

Not being American, I guess you wouldn't recognize the purposeful use of American folk talk. (although you got me on the "through." I like, most everyone else, do this sort of thing occasionally. And I don't claim that I don't--or that most anyone won't do it from time to time. That's not one of my insecurities.)

You've got back biting down real well, though.

By all means, put me on ignore. I have no trouble talking about you behind your back if you've chosen to turn your back on your own.

Perhaps YOU can point to where I've posted that the UK copyright system had weaker protections than the U.S. one does?

 

[elfin_odalisque]

sr71plt
And this is all in U.S. terms. The UK system of intellectual property rights protection is completely different from the U.S. system. The UK doesn't have formal copyright procedures at all.

Is this sufficient to prove you talk out of your ass, you mislead people, and generally, your opinion is worth nothing because it blows in the wind and you lie.

 

[sr71plt]

sr71plt
And this is all in U.S. terms. The UK system of intellectual property rights protection is completely different from the U.S. system. The UK doesn't have formal copyright procedures at all .

Is this sufficient to prove you talk out of your ass, you mislead people, and generally, your opinion is worth nothing because it blows in the wind and you lie.

No, of course it isn't sufficient.

Read it again, Elfin--perhaps without your "get sr71plt" glasses on. It doesn't say anything about relative protection. Just as I posted, in the United States you have to have a formal copyright registration in hand to prevail in court (even to take it to court). The UK, which doesn't have formal copyright, doesn't require formal copyright in hand to prevail in court. Ergo, the protections are stronger in the UK (and the creator of the work doesn't have to take the steps for protection that the creator in the United States needs to do).

Fact is that the UK signed the Berne Convention and has adopted its provisions wholesale; the U.S. (finally) signed the Berne Convention but didn't enact laws that put it into effect--and U.S. law supersedes provisions of an international treaty (for the United States) in U.S. jurisprudence.

Once again, your limited cognitive powers--and your bald hatred--have gotten in your way.

And I don't mind you demonstrating that.

 

[_Lynn_]

For someone who claims to be an expert author and professional editor you seem very careless about your communications on serious topics. I was considering taking you off "Ignore" but on balance I don't think so.

So we have to make sure every post is perfect now too? Bullshit.

If you 'considered taking him off ignore', that means he's still on ignore. How did you read his post then?

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

So we have to make sure every post is perfect now too? Bullshit. ...

Not you, nor I, ML. Only those who claim, albeit implicitly, to be perfect and to know everything.

... If you 'considered taking him off ignore', that means he's still on ignore. How did you read his post then?

I see her(him) quoted by others and, as a part of the process of considering, I clicked on "View Post" top right of the "This user is on your Ignore List" entry.

My apologies to knighttakesrook for indulging myself on someone else's thread.

As to UK copyright, the position is complex. It is not actually a legal requirement to register a copyright in a work of literature (e.g. a Lit story) but it is possible (see http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p02_protecting_copyright). It is important to mark all copies with a copyright declaration (see http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law) as the absence of a mark may be construed as putting the work in the public domain.

© 2009 snoopercharmbrights. This posting may be freely quoted on Literotica only.

 

[_Lynn_]

Not you, nor I, ML. Only those who claim, albeit implicitly, to be perfect and to know everything.

I see her(him) quoted by others and, as a part of the process of considering, I clicked on "View Post" top right of the "This user is on your Ignore List" entry.

My apologies to knighttakesrook for indulging myself on someone else's thread.

As to UK copyright, the position is complex. It is not actually a legal requirement to register a copyright in a work of literature (e.g. a Lit story) but it is possible (see http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p02_protecting_copyright). It is important to mark all copies with a copyright declaration (see http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law) as the absence of a mark may be construed as putting the work in the public domain.

© 2009 snoopercharmbrights. This posting may be freely quoted on Literotica only.

So I'm not perfect? Well!

Odd, but I never read where sr claimed or implied he was perfect or knew everything. Then again, I'm not jealous/irritated of anyone with more knowledge than I have. I find they are a great source of information.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

So I'm not perfect? Well!

Odd, but I never read where sr claimed or implied he was perfect or knew everything. Then again, I'm not jealous/irritated of anyone with more knowledge than I have. I find they are a great source of information.

Well, actually, Lynn, he does a bit. He tends to pontificate as if he was on Mount Olympus.

He does frequently imply that anything many, including me, or Jenny J, or even you, say about writers who post on SF is beneath his contempt and only his view on creative writing is worthy of being considered. He can do this without reading any stories.

Just here, on EF, where he is clearly out of his depth on international copyright law, and slanders CopyCarver, he takes the role of bully, not wanting to discuss or debate - just blanket opinion with vitriol.

If you want, I'll go find the references, but sr has proclaimed his inordinate supremacy quite a few times.

A good debate is fine, but it must be civil and inclusive. sr works to a different agenda.

 

[_Lynn_]

Well, actually, Lynn, he does a bit. He tends to pontificate as if he was on Mount Olympus.

He does frequently imply that anything many, including me, or Jenny J, or even you, say about writers who post on SF is beneath his contempt and only his view on creative writing is worthy of being considered. He can do this without reading any stories.

Just here, on EF, where he is clearly out of his depth on international copyright law, and slanders CopyCarver, he takes the role of bully, not wanting to discuss or debate - just blanket opinion with vitriol.

If you want, I'll go find the references, but sr has proclaimed his inordinate supremacy quite a few times.

A good debate is fine, but it must be civil and inclusive. sr works to a different agenda.

It's all a matter of opinion. What you 'read into' certain words, I don't. Simple as that.

As for the threads he posts in here or the SF, I follow them. So you and I disagree. It's allowed, you know?