CCCIV Custom fraud
it leads to a BS member called "amanda100101", here is the full link:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/galle ... anda100101
sure it aint your account? (because) if it aint, this person just steals and is nothing more then a thief.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/galle ... anda100101
sure it aint your account? (because) if it aint, this person just steals and is nothing more then a thief.
Crazy.. i was crazy once.. once they put me in a round room with a dot in the corner i liked that dot i counted that dot... one.. one..one..one ..it drove me crazy!! Crazy?!? I was crazy once!!
I agree with Dunechaser, but I wonder if he's correct in saying that reposting pictures without attribution to the original author violate some sort of licensing laws.
If one posts pictures on a public forum for all to see and share, one should expect those pictures will be seen, downloaded, transfered, reposted, etc.
I dont think it's illegal... however I'll file it under "improper online etiquette"
Luke
If one posts pictures on a public forum for all to see and share, one should expect those pictures will be seen, downloaded, transfered, reposted, etc.
I dont think it's illegal... however I'll file it under "improper online etiquette"
Luke
It violates the terms of service of Flickr which puts the prepetrator in breach of contract and subject to civil action.Lcuan82 wrote:
I dont think it's illegal... however I'll file it under "improper online etiquette"
Luke
It is also a breach of the Copyright Act (or whatever it is called in your country.)
Thus is IS illegal.
[url=http://www.brickwiki.info][img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3102/3139855 ... 180e91.jpg[/img][/url]
- Prince Imdol
- Master
- Posts: 1762
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:11 am
- Location: Massachusetts
it leads to a BS member called "amanda100101", here is the full link:
That's my account, 'ForestJohn' is his.
~Amanda
That's my account, 'ForestJohn' is his.
~Amanda
[url=http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=Lamanda]Bricks & Customs[/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/lamanda2/]My Flickr[/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/lamanda2/]My Flickr[/url]
- Prince Imdol
- Master
- Posts: 1762
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:11 am
- Location: Massachusetts
euhm... brickshelf does not know a "ForestJohn". got a direct link?Lamanda2 wrote:it leads to a BS member called "amanda100101", here is the full link:
That's my account, 'ForestJohn' is his.
~Amanda
Crazy.. i was crazy once.. once they put me in a round room with a dot in the corner i liked that dot i counted that dot... one.. one..one..one ..it drove me crazy!! Crazy?!? I was crazy once!!
- JoshWedin
- Chevalier de Chèvre
- Posts: 4995
- Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 2:35 pm
- Location: Pondering what you are pondering
- Contact:
Its "Forrest-John" and she posted the link in the first post of this thread, but here it is again:DS9 wrote:euhm... brickshelf does not know a "ForestJohn". got a direct link?
LINK
Josh
AFOL and his money are easily parted.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/ak_brickster/8 ... hotostream][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8252/85336074 ... 2a10_t.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.Brothers-Brick.com]The Brothers Brick[/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/ak_brickster/8 ... hotostream][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8252/85336074 ... 2a10_t.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.Brothers-Brick.com]The Brothers Brick[/url]
- Vidgamer838
- Peasant
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:13 pm
Although I don't agree with this (Forest-John's behavior) AT ALL there are some interesting points to consider.Lcuan82 wrote: It is also a breach of the Copyright Act (or whatever it is called in your country.)
Thus is IS illegal.
Last I checked you need to pay a fee to register something as copyright & then you only lease that right for a specified period of time, & then either nationally or internationally (at least in my Country - & we arent that backwards)
I also find it highly unlikely that you could successfully copyright a LEGO design based on the fact that it is not your intellectual property - it is LEGOs.
There is certainly nothing wrong with displaying other peoples images that have been publicly released that don't have current copyright (I find it unlikely that Flickr dishes out the $$$ for every image posted - let alone BS) as long as they are credited, & giving credit is nothing more than good form.
Of course Mr John has gone beyond this - entering them into a folder marked for the comp - his intentions are clear. But I don't think he is breaking any laws, it's defiantely wrong, & low, & underhanded - but he is not a criminal. In fact labeling him as such (a criminal) on a public forum is against the law - it's called slander.
I may be wrong, but I don't think so
Just providing an alternative, less reactionary point of view
~Aaron~
[url=http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=DARKspawn]Brickshelf[/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/8401641@N03/]Flickr[/url]
[url=http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=DARKspawn]Brickshelf[/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/8401641@N03/]Flickr[/url]
- plums_deify
- Knight Templar
- Posts: 834
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:04 am
With Flickr, you have the option to restrict the license on your photos. I've set it so all of mine have restricted rights.
It's the stealing of pictures: the act of taking those pictures is what gives the photographer ownership. The copyright is inherant. You don't need to register yourself or your photos in order to protect them. When you take the picture, it belongs to you. This is why when you have professional photos taken, while it's YOU on the image, the negatives and proofs belong to the photographer, and you have the option to PURCHASE them. (That gets really, really spendy.)
Intellectual property rights laws protect the photographer and the photographer's work. It's not the actual image, so much the picture itself.
It's the stealing of pictures: the act of taking those pictures is what gives the photographer ownership. The copyright is inherant. You don't need to register yourself or your photos in order to protect them. When you take the picture, it belongs to you. This is why when you have professional photos taken, while it's YOU on the image, the negatives and proofs belong to the photographer, and you have the option to PURCHASE them. (That gets really, really spendy.)
Intellectual property rights laws protect the photographer and the photographer's work. It's not the actual image, so much the picture itself.
Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Be Smart. Be evil.
Sister Brick @ [url=http://www.brothers-brick.com]The Brothers Brick[/url]!
Sister Brick @ [url=http://www.brothers-brick.com]The Brothers Brick[/url]!
- Dunechaser
- Councilor
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:11 pm
- Location: The United States of Seattle
- Contact:
My expertise comes from being a professional writer, not a lawyer, but bear with me here.DARKspawn wrote:Last I checked you need to pay a fee to register something as copyright & then you only lease that right for a specified period of time, & then either nationally or internationally (at least in my Country - & we arent that backwards)
I also find it highly unlikely that you could successfully copyright a LEGO design based on the fact that it is not your intellectual property - it is LEGOs.
Regarding your first point, copyright law automatically protects the intellectual property (or "IP," such as images, text, and sound) of the creator, whether the creation has been registered with an official copyright office or not. Paying a fee to the government to register your IP provides improved legal protection, but is purely optional. (It enables you to have an objective third party back you up when you say, "I made that first.")
Regarding your second point, you're absolutely right; there's nothing legally protecting a LEGO creation -- just its picture. A specific LEGO creation would likely fall under patent or trademark law anyway, which does not automatically apply the way copyright protection does. Since LEGO creations are derivative of the original patent and trademarks held by The LEGO Company, I suspect nobody would ever get a patent or trademark approved for a specific LEGO creation, even if they tried.
Now, all of this refers to copyright, which is distinct from a license. The open-source software and anti-digital rights management (DRM) movements have yielded some important decisions in copyright law, as well as alternatives to copyright, such as Creative Commons:
http://creativecommons.org/license/
I choose to release my blog content and LEGO images on Flickr using a Creative Commons (CC) license that requires attribution and non-commercial use of the new work created based on my own work. I still retain the default copyright, but this enables other people to do interesting things based on the text and images I've released using this specific CC license.
However, as I said in my original message in this thread, the only license/copyright applicable to our images on Brickshelf is the "default" copyright I described earlier in this post. Therefore, any copying of those images, with or without attribution, is in fact illegal -- at least in the US jurisdiction that "Brickshelf LLC" operates in. Will I or anyone ever pursue legal action against the people infringing on our IP? No, probably not, but the point is that we could.
Last edited by Dunechaser on Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Andrew B.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dunechaser/]Flickr[/url] | [url=http://www.brothers-brick.com/]The Brothers Brick[/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dunechaser/]Flickr[/url] | [url=http://www.brothers-brick.com/]The Brothers Brick[/url]
This has in fact been used in a legal sort to keep one person from using and making money from the stolen IP of another that posted on brickshelf. Jared "Kaminoan" pursued action against "Monopolybag" (now known as "Customminifig") for posting custom minifigs for sale on ebay using Jared's designs he took from brickshelf. eBay took down the offending auctions and the user was eventually kicked off eBay for repeat offences (although he has obviously created another account, he no longer uses the stolen IP).Dunechaser wrote:However, as I said in my original message in this thread, the only license/copyright applicable to our images on Brickshelf is the "default" copyright I described earlier in this post. Therefore, any copying of those images, with or without attribution, is in fact illegal -- at least in the (you).S. jurisdiction that "Brickshelf LLC" operates in. Will I or anyone ever pursue legal action against the people infringing on our IP? No, probably not, but the point is that we could.
[url=http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=RecluceMage]Custom cast helmets and hairpieces![/url]
[url=http://www.dabelbrothers.com/home.html][img]http://www.maj.com/gallery/RecluceMage/Pict ... banner.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.dabelbrothers.com/home.html][img]http://www.maj.com/gallery/RecluceMage/Pict ... banner.gif[/img][/url]
Thanks for clearing that up, Andrew I had heard of the automatic protection the copyright law allows, although I imagine these instances are far more difficult to pursue legally. I imagine Australian & US laws are very similar in regard to copyright.
Just in case there is any confusion, if it were up to me, Mr John & people like him would be hung, drawn & quartered
Just in case there is any confusion, if it were up to me, Mr John & people like him would be hung, drawn & quartered
~Aaron~
[url=http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=DARKspawn]Brickshelf[/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/8401641@N03/]Flickr[/url]
[url=http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=DARKspawn]Brickshelf[/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/8401641@N03/]Flickr[/url]
- Mr. Shiny & New
- Peasant
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:31 pm
- Location: Canada
I just wanted to chime in on the whole copyright topic.
Copyright is, as mentioned by a couple posters, automatic in many countries. If I recall correctly, any country that signed the Berne Convention has this feature in their copyright laws. Moreover, your work is automatically copyright in ALL countries that are part of that convention.
Furthermore, I'd guess (I'm not a lawyer) that a LEGO creation would be considered a work of art, like a sculpture. I'd go so far as to say that a photo of a LEGO creation would be considered a "derived work" under copyright law. So you could prevent people from distrubuting (but not photographing) photos of your MOCs.
Traditionally you had to sue to get someone to stop violating your copyright. If they are distributing your work for profit you may be able to have the (in the US) Dept. of Justice or FBI investigate them. However, in the US, there is now the DMCA, which allows a copyright holder to request a "takedown" of a website that has copyrighted material. I personally believe this tool is too heavy-handed, however it could be used to have Brickshelf remove photos that violate copyright. But I think if people started issuing DMCA-takedown notices to Brickshelf brickshelf would probably close down.
Anyway, my main point was that a MOC is still arguably a work of art, and any copy of that art (someone re-creating it, photographing it, using it in a movie, painting a picture of it) is considered a derivative work and the distribution of that work requires the permission of the original copyright holder. Note: the original copyright holder does not have copyright over the derivative work; this instead belongs to its creator. But because the work is derivative, to distribute it both the author of the derivative work and the author of the original work must approve the distribution.
Whether or not a photo posted on Brickshelf becomes, effectively, public domain, is arguable, but I think a strong case could be made for it NOT becoming public domain, especially since the photos are associated with a user, who is ostensibly the one doing the redistribution (with Brickshelf as his/her agent).
This is not legal advice.
Copyright is, as mentioned by a couple posters, automatic in many countries. If I recall correctly, any country that signed the Berne Convention has this feature in their copyright laws. Moreover, your work is automatically copyright in ALL countries that are part of that convention.
Furthermore, I'd guess (I'm not a lawyer) that a LEGO creation would be considered a work of art, like a sculpture. I'd go so far as to say that a photo of a LEGO creation would be considered a "derived work" under copyright law. So you could prevent people from distrubuting (but not photographing) photos of your MOCs.
Traditionally you had to sue to get someone to stop violating your copyright. If they are distributing your work for profit you may be able to have the (in the US) Dept. of Justice or FBI investigate them. However, in the US, there is now the DMCA, which allows a copyright holder to request a "takedown" of a website that has copyrighted material. I personally believe this tool is too heavy-handed, however it could be used to have Brickshelf remove photos that violate copyright. But I think if people started issuing DMCA-takedown notices to Brickshelf brickshelf would probably close down.
Anyway, my main point was that a MOC is still arguably a work of art, and any copy of that art (someone re-creating it, photographing it, using it in a movie, painting a picture of it) is considered a derivative work and the distribution of that work requires the permission of the original copyright holder. Note: the original copyright holder does not have copyright over the derivative work; this instead belongs to its creator. But because the work is derivative, to distribute it both the author of the derivative work and the author of the original work must approve the distribution.
Whether or not a photo posted on Brickshelf becomes, effectively, public domain, is arguable, but I think a strong case could be made for it NOT becoming public domain, especially since the photos are associated with a user, who is ostensibly the one doing the redistribution (with Brickshelf as his/her agent).
This is not legal advice.