• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

3 minutes of your time *please read*

Mark Hinkley said:
So Billy what are your rising costs with your site?

Are you going for goggle ads or do you have MFGs/Businesses who want to put up $$s for banners.

hinkley
Click to expand...

It's not so much rising costs, but depleting funds :D The plan is "Google AdSense" style ads using my own engine for "cost per click" advertising. Hopefully supporting smaller venders like the ones around NAXJA.
Billy
 
I understand where both jeepfreak and beezilboi are coming from, having taken a few credits ;) of criminal justice classes, I know that there ARE people that care if their pics are used, I have came accross some sites that absolutely WILL NOT let you copy their pics (when you right click it wont let you save them)

It doesn't mean I understand WHY they don't want people using their pics...

I would be flattered if I saw my Jeep on your site jeep freak, but as it sits now its not custom enough to park next to most of those rigs...however that will be changing this winter...:D:D:D

I cast my vote! :) :cheers:
 
Eagle said:
IANAL but I was in a previous existence a semi-pro photographer and I knew enough about copyright law to get myself in trouble. If someone openly posts their photos on the Internet with no disclaimer, then the pictures have effectively been released into the public domain and anyone can copy them onto another site, and even use them to make money, and the original photographer has no valid claim for compensation.
Click to expand...

(Note: I added the emphasis to the word 'effectively' above because it makes a serious modifcation to the impact of Eagle's statement.)

Speaking as someone else with a few semester credits of law as well (but is not a lawyer by any means), Eagle has a pretty valid point. Key to what he's saying is the word 'effectively'.

If I publish a picture on a personal website, regardless of whether or not I make an explicit claim of copyright to it, it's still my property.

The corollary to this: by publishing it in a medium that can be linked to and/or reproduced electronically (including modification and reposting of same), I've given up a reasonable expectation to not having it passed around or altered. It's an occupational hazard of posting things on the Internet that they may end up in places or forms that you never intended them to be in; this is where the word 'effectively' has its impact. Hell, people still photocopy magazine articles and pass or post them around the office. The medium may be different, but the end result (and infringement) is still largely the same.

Now, having said that: I still have the right to request a cease & desist of anyone using it in a manner that I find unacceptable - the above does not overrule my ultimate ownership of the content. Whether or not the person hosting it chooses to comply or not is a secondary matter, but beyond the scope of the discussion here.

As this relates to Billy, he's probably in a fairly safe position to repost content that he finds elsewhere under Fair Use doctrine. If someone complains and requests its removal, I'm pretty sure that as a decent human being he'll comply with their wishes. The important thing is that they supply direct URLs to all 'offending' images so that any content he may be hosting without objection isn't removed. Simply saying, 'hey u put my black xj up on teh intarweb and i want u 2 take it off' isn't specific enough. Saying, 'yeah, you've posted a picture of my XJ at http://www.xjdb.com/modules.php?set...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php and I'd like you to remove it' is the approach that's required.

(Note: that URL above was an example, not a specific complaint.)

Anyone who resorts to legal threats first is almost certainly a crank, and should be dealt with accordingly. Ask their lawyers to provide the same information regarding what content is actually objectionable and you should be fine. Just remember that lawyers generally bill their clients the same for email as for letters, so the more of them they have to send the more it makes the complainant's life unpleasant through wallet-lightening ;)

An interesting reverse approach to this may be GoJeep's recent thread where he reproduced the article in its entirety - IMHO, he's entitled to do so under fair use, but it may be seen otherwise by other people.

I've had to deal with issues like this before at work :)puke: RIAA) so can give a bit of insight on how we've successfully approached them in the past. To reiterate, though, I am *not* a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
casm said:
(Note: I added the emphasis to the word 'effectively' above because it makes a serious modifcation to the impact of Eagle's statement.)

Speaking as someone else with a few semester credits of law (but is not a lawyer by any means), Eagle has a pretty valid point. Key to what he's saying is the word 'effectively'.

If I publish a picture on a personal website, regardless of whether or not I make an explicit claim of copyright to it, it's still my property.

The corollary to this: by publishing it in a medium that can be linked to and/or reproduced electronically (including modification and reposting of same), I've given up a reasonable expectation to not having it passed around or altered. It's an occupational hazard of posting things on the Internet that they may end up in places or forms that you never intended them to be in. Hell, people still photocopy magazine articles and pass or post them around the office. The medium may be different, but the end result (and infringement) is still largely the same.

Now, having said that: I still have the right to request a cease & desist of anyone using it in a manner that I find unacceptable - the above does not overrule my ultimate ownership of the content. Whether or not the person hosting it chooses to comply or not is a secondary matter, but beyond the scope of the discussion here.

As this relates to Billy, he's probably in a fairly safe position to repost content that he finds elsewhere under Fair Use doctrine. If someone complains and requests its removal, I'm pretty sure that as a decent human being he'll comply with their wishes. The important thing is that they supply direct URLs to all 'offending' images so that any content he may be hosting without objection isn't removed. Simply saying, 'hey u put my black xj up on teh intarweb and i want u 2 take it off' isn't specific enough. Saying, 'yeah, you've posted a picture of my XJ at http://www.xjdb.com/modules.php?set...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php and I'd like you to remove it' is the approach that's required.

Anyone who resorts to legal threats first is almost certainly a crank, and should be dealt with accordingly. Ask their lawyers to provide the same information regarding what content is actually objectionable and you should be fine. Just remember that lawyers generally bill their clients the same for email as for letters, so the more of them they have to send the more it makes the complainant's life unpleasant through wallet-lightening ;)

(Note: that URL above was an example, not a specific complaint.)

I've had to deal with issues like this before at work :)puke: RIAA) so can give a bit of insight into how to apprach them. To reiterate, though, I am *not* a lawyer.
Click to expand...

I've heard a number of different "interpretations" of the law, but the way I understand it is that I was covered under the fair use docterine when nobody could claim that I was profiting from the site in anyway, but now that there's a slight chance somebody could argue personal gain, I need to cover my butt. See this site for more info:
http://www.benedict.com/info/Law/FairUse.aspx
Billy

PS - Does this even need to be discussed any farther? :gag:
 
Safari Ary said:
Beez as much as I agree with you, it was a stupid freakin cup of *GASP* HOT coffee *GASP* that cost mcdonalds millions of dollars in lawsuits. I admire Billy for trying to keep this site up and running as I think it is a great service to us in the XJ community. Particularly as a place to send newbies who ask too many stupid questions.

Ary
Click to expand...

you coward. you would cite pure stupidity to justify the endurance of even more stupidity.

I despise those who would serve shit warm coffee because others have been taken advantage of for doing so. The analogy is facile.

Billy has a hobby and it is jeep picture collecting.

he is sharing his pictures.

that is all.

The napster debate is old and busted.
 
JeepFreak21 said:
I've heard a number of different "interpretations" of the law, but the way I understand it is that I was covered under the fair use docterine when nobody could claim that I was profiting from the site in anyway, but now that there's a slight chance somebody could argue personal gain, I need to cover my butt. See this site for more info:
http://www.benedict.com/info/Law/FairUse.aspx
Click to expand...

No, agreed - and you're right to be cautious. But Fair Use does not supercede ultimate ownership, profit motives or otherwise regardless.

PS - Does this even need to be discussed any farther? :gag:
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly doesn't hurt to know what you're potentially dealing with. Lawyers have a good way of twisting the most straightforward issues into something completely unrelated to fact and reality.
 
Mark Hinkley said:
So Billy what are your rising costs with your site?

Are you going for goggle ads or do you have MFGs/Businesses who want to put up $$s for banners.

hinkley
Click to expand...

hinkley, go fight a war that needs fighting.

fucking with bill for a picture site is stupid.
 
Chances are, you would likely never run in to a legal battle. Be receptive to a request to remove content by an "owner", and life will normaly be fine. Usualy the next step is a formal DMCA submission to the service provider, and then stronger stuff....if somebody really wanted to persue it.:eyes:

Again, likely you would not have any problems. Always better to "ask first", of course..... just do the best ya can at this point. You are being proactive, and that is a good thing. :)

Carry on. :)
 
better yet billy, dump your entire fucking site........

just shitcan the thing.

and when people e-mail you and ask what happened, explain to them that you did it, because some naxja girlscout convinced you some asshole jeeper might sue you for some violation of ownership rights.
 
JeepFreak21 said:
You must have missed the last thead! :anon:
Billy
Click to expand...

OK... Which one would that be?

Linkage, por favor. :)
 
Best just left to fade away.......... ;)
 
Beezil said:
hinkley, go fight a war that needs fighting.

******** with bill for a picture site is stupid.
Click to expand...


WTF are you talking about here, maybe some explanation, BC it if you have to but you're not making any sense.

And why are you typing that language out of the Den, getting stupid as you grow old?

Now I have supported Billy and his pictures from the beginning, that is fact go search it. In fact he has a lot of "support" for that "site". So I was just wondering why he was going to do the adverting thing which now will make him look like he's making money from other's work (Pictures). Just a legit question for him to think about. He has shown interest in people's opinions about his site. People WILL have different ideas of pictures being used when money gets involved. Maybe there is a better way??????????????

Now if you have an issue with me, STFU!
(edit) I know, you didn't like my chop job and are all upset?????????


hinkley
 
Last edited:
Beezil said:
you coward. you would cite pure stupidity to justify the endurance of even more stupidity.

I despise those who would serve shit warm coffee because others have been taken advantage of for doing so. The analogy is facile.

Billy has a hobby and it is jeep picture collecting.

he is sharing his pictures.

that is all.

The napster debate is old and busted.
Click to expand...

I never said they should serve warm coffee, but you'll notice that every coffee cup these days has a caution label on it. It's called a CYA procedure. If they weren't necessary lawyers wouldn't have jobs, insurance company's wouldn't exist and business contracts would have no place. Fact is, this is a f-ed up world. Deal with it, and why don't you go fight a fight worth fighting if it bothers you so much. :cry:

Ary
 
Safari Ary said:
I never said they should serve warm coffee, but you'll notice that every coffee cup these days has a caution label on it. It's called a CYA procedure. If they weren't necessary lawyers wouldn't have jobs, insurance company's wouldn't exist and business contracts would have no place. Fact is, this is a f-ed up world. Deal with it, and why don't you go fight a fight worth fighting if it bothers you so much. :cry:

Ary
Click to expand...

Only EUNUCHS "deal" with things.

go ahead, suck it up.

I refuse.

I will continue to live my life UNAFRAID to serve hot coffee or host a collection of jeep pictures.

I will NOT attatch warning labels.

I will impugn the establishment

I will not take prisoners.

What I'm saying is, I will not buy into the girlscouts of america.

But you can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

macgyvr
***Trail communications - Radios***
Replies
2
Views
200
macgyvr
macgyvr
E
EGR Valve replacement part.
Replies
0
Views
1K
EverythingLeaks
E
macgyvr
NAXJA Elections - 2021
Replies
2
Views
1K
macgyvr
macgyvr
R
2000 XJ Sport - Trying to diagnose intermittent sputtering
Replies
0
Views
1K
ramonesrazor
R
M
How to choose parts and what to prioritize?! New to my XJ & wrenching.
Replies
0
Views
761
myXJpeg
M
Back
Top