Define "Copyrighted" material

[islandman]

Hang on a second....let me make sure I understand this.....

Manu's been copyrighted????

 

[pointless]

Hang on a second....let me make sure I understand this.....

Manu's been copyrighted????

no, no. that lapsed like... oh, 4000 years ago give or take half a millennium.

 

[Laurel]

Will someone -- preferably a Lit Mod -- please explain to me exactly what Literotica defines as "copyrighted" material?

Excluding the Amateur Pics threads, I would guess that 95% or more of the images on Literotica do not belong to the people who posted them. Many of them came from such places as Playboy, the Victoria's Secret catalogs (online and in print), or other online magazines or blogs. Aren't these pics copyrighted on those sites? What makes it possible -- and legal -- for us to "steal" them from those sites and post them here?

We allow linking, just as we allow linking to articles. We do not allow uploading of copyrighted material.

Is a pic not copyrighted if it doesn't have a copyright stamp in it?

Incorrect.

What if I use my cropping feature in Paint or Photobucket or Tumblr to remove the copyright and/or web address information before I post it?

If you steal something from the store but remove the price tag, does that mean you didn't steal it?

I don't get it.

This may help:
http://lifehacker.com/5992419/the-best-ways-to-be-sure-youre-legally-using-online-photos

 

[snugglestruggle]

Laurel, it was rumored that the fast did You in. I'm glad to see the rumors were untrue

 

[Mike_Yates]

Corporations have bent and twisted copyright law into something terrible that it was never meant to be.

 

[ishtat]

Will someone -- preferably a Lit Mod -- please explain to me exactly what Literotica defines as "copyrighted" material?

Excluding the Amateur Pics threads, I would guess that 95% or more of the images on Literotica do not belong to the people who posted them. Many of them came from such places as Playboy, the Victoria's Secret catalogs (online and in print), or other online magazines or blogs. Aren't these pics copyrighted on those sites? What makes it possible -- and legal -- for us to "steal" them from those sites and post them here?

Is a pic not copyrighted if it doesn't have a copyright stamp in it?

What if it has the original web address in the corner?

What if I use my cropping feature in Paint or Photobucket or Tumblr to remove the copyright and/or web address information before I post it?

I don't get it.

I suggest that you repost this in the Authors Hangout. There it will be read by some published writers and also a couple of folk who work in publishing. You will almost certainly get a pretty definitive answer.

 

[oggbashan]

I suggest that you repost this in the Authors Hangout. There it will be read by some published writers and also a couple of folk who work in publishing. You will almost certainly get a pretty definitive answer.

You already have had the definitive answer from Laurel in post #28 above.

There is a campaign in Europe, run by Wikipedia, to try to standardise copyright of photos across Europe.

If you take a photo in the street in the UK, perhaps of a famous building such as Westminster Abbey, you own the copyright of that picture.

But in France, your picture of the Eiffel Tower is not copyright. The copyright belongs to the operators of the Eiffel Tower - perhaps, maybe, depending on how much they pay their lawyers...

 

[JohnnySavage]

The rules/laws on copyright vary by country, and how each country has interpreted international agreements.

...

In the US you have to register your work as copyright and pay a fee. If you are not US-based that can be expensive, so if like me, you are in the UK or Europe, we have to accept that our work is not copyright-protected in the US. The USA has a long history of not accepting that copyright in other countries applies in the US - Dickens, Kipling, Gilbert and Sullivan all lost significant sums because of piracy in the US that would have been illegal in the UK.

...

You don't have to register your work in the US to have copyright protection. Registering it gives you damages defined by statute, while not registering leaves you with a multiple of profits made by the infringer. In either case, the actual copyright is exactly the same.

 

[oggbashan]

You don't have to register your work in the US to have copyright protection. Registering it gives you damages defined by statute, while not registering leaves you with a multiple of profits made by the infringer. In either case, the actual copyright is exactly the same.

But in practice, unless you have clever (and expensive) lawyers, the result is the same. You can't enforce your copyright.

 

[MichaelinChina]

lurking - and reading your posts with interest. Great (timely) topic!

 

[girlsmiley]

The stuff with the little c in the circle next to it.

I'm here all night.

 

[Super-Surprise]

http://images.sex.com/images/pinporn/2013/09/11/620/3631356-sexy-naked-babe-big-juicy-tits.jpg?site=sex&user=critter27

 

[ishtat]

You already have had the definitive answer from Laurel in post #28 above.

There is a campaign in Europe, run by Wikipedia, to try to standardise copyright of photos across Europe.

If you take a photo in the street in the UK, perhaps of a famous building such as Westminster Abbey, you own the copyright of that picture.

But in France, your picture of the Eiffel Tower is not copyright. The copyright belongs to the operators of the Eiffel Tower - perhaps, maybe, depending on how much they pay their lawyers...

Og ,the most important part of my original post was the very last symbol. The OP deserves no less.

 

[phrodeau]

It seems to me that the moderators can only deal with the posts that they surf to. A moderator will act if someone complains or if he finds it himself. Otherwise, it gets left alone.

If you scroll down to the bottom of this page, you'll note that it is also copyrighted, although only up to 2013.

 

[Laurel]

Laurel, it was rumored that the fast did You in. I'm glad to see the rumors were untrue

No way! Weighed in today, lost another 1.5 lbs. last week. Total loss since April 14th (when I started 5:2) - 4.7 lbs. Down to 121.4 lbs from 126.1 lbs. :hooray: artytime: :soexcited: My original goal was 115lbs (what I've been hanging around post-30) but am wondering it I might be able to get down to 110 (my college weight), even with the added muscle.

 

[oggbashan]

No way! Weighed in today, lost another 1.5 lbs. last week. Total loss since April 14th (when I started 5:2) - 4.7 lbs. Down to 121.4 lbs from 126.1 lbs. :hooray: artytime: :soexcited: My original goal was 115lbs (what I've been hanging around post-30) but am wondering it I might be able to get down to 110 (my college weight), even with the added muscle.

Congratulations!

Non-fattening:
x 4
Holding one between your teeth has NO calories.


Don't go too far. You need a weight target that you can maintain. 110 might be possible but difficult to keep at.

 

[Laurel]

Congratulations!

Non-fattening:
x 4
Holding one between your teeth has NO calories.


Don't go too far. You need a weight target that you can maintain. 110 might be possible but difficult to keep at.

Yeah, that's true. I guess whatever number I end up at when the unwanted soft bits are gone (but the wanted soft bits are still there) is good enough for me.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If my copyright is better than yours do you gotta gimme all the money you made?