Bob Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 A brief quote from Cervantes: Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless." Persistence, when tilting at windmills, may not be a virtue. Quote
Guest Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 if the management here included a clause banning posting of copyright images they could well take this stance, but you posted the images here - if you do not know you have permission to post them here why did you post them? Do you have any evidence the images are both copyrighted & posted without approval? I note you're good at asking questions, buy you ignore a lot of the tough questions that get thrown back. What I do expect is if the original copyright owner contacts the board owner or moderators, the board would be likely to comply with their requests. However, so may photos have no tags, no copyright text & have been copied so many times, it seems the original copyright owners are not concerned about the matter. That's how it often is, people posting their own original photos, happy to share them without worrying about copyright. This even seems to extend to people photographing themselves nude in front of mirrors & then circulating the images. For that, it is pleasing to see smartphones getting better quality cameras. Here's another one of a public fishing scene where the original photographer is happy to share the file, without copyright restrictions: Quote
Guest buckeroo2 Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Bf puzzle piece and rules-buster post: Happy Birthday, krub. Quote
bkkguy Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Do you have any evidence the images are both copyrighted & posted without approval? all original works are protected by copyright in most countries unless explicitly placed in the public domain for at least two of the images posted here by buckbee I would be 99.99% sure they were posted without permission of the copyright owner I note you're good at asking questions, buy you ignore a lot of the tough questions that get thrown back. I note that buckbee still has not answered the simple question as to whether he had permission from the copyright owner to post the images! I also note that one of the images has been silently removed - has someone had a prick of conscience? However, so may photos have no tags, no copyright text & have been copied so many times, it seems the original copyright owners are not concerned about the matter. perhaps you should read up a bit more on how copyright works you do not need to claim copyright or register a work as copyright, if you produce an original work it is covered by copyright and unlike trademark law, if you do not actively defend your claim to copyright you do not lose your rights! This even seems to extend to people photographing themselves nude in front of mirrors & then circulating the images. For that, it is pleasing to see smartphones getting better quality cameras. ah, I see we are back to "sophisticated repartee" that I don't seem to understand very well! bkkguy Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 You, bkkguy, are, I suspect, a hypocrite! Let me explain. As others do, I post occasionally on another site, although I restrict myself to one – gaybuttonthai.com - and I use the same avatar and log-in name. I note that there is also a poster on that site with the log-in name “bkkguy”. Would that, I wonder, be the same bkkguy who posts on this Board? Perhaps you will enlighten us? Are you - or are you not? Why do I ask? For one very simple reason. On this Board, bkkguy has taken several posters, a moderator and the Board owners to task for not following what he regards, mistakenly, as the Board regulations. The regulations in question are those concerning copyright. And despite considerable evidence to the contrary, he continues to make such erroneous allegations in a vociferous and condescending manner. If bkkguy on gaybuttonthai.com is indeed the same bkkguy who posts here, surely he is making similar comments about alleged infringements of print or photo copyrights on that Board? That, after all, is a Board which permits the copying of complete print media articles without any paraphrasing, provided an attribution is made at the end. In other words, the regulations of that Board are freer than those adopted by posters on this Board. I would assume, therefore, that bkkguy freely rails at length about copyright issues on that Board, as he doe here? True? Well, er . . . in fact, No! Oh dear! Isn't that rather surprising? Let’s look at some of bkkguy's posts on that forum. The most recent two are dated 8 and 11 January 2012 in response to a post made by travellerjim on January 8. The title of the thread is ”Facebook friendship blossoms into gay marriage in Trang.” And why should that be interesting? Simply because the original post is a word for word copy of the article in The Nation. The entire article. No editing, no shortening, no paraphrasing. A complete copy of the compete article. Surely bkkguy’s posts bring up the issue of copyright infringement? Well . . . er, no! There is in fact not one iota of comment about copyright infringement. How about another post? Well, bkkguy’s third latest post is on a thread titled, “’Cheetah’ Dies at 80” dated 28 December 2010. This again is a complete article lifted in its entirety from CNN’s website. bkkguy makes two posts. Does either refer to copyright issues of any sort? Again - no! Is this all? Nope. On 1 December 2010, bkkguy again comments on yet another very long and complete article lifted in its entirety from CNN. The thread is titled, “Nigeria Passes Anti-Gay Bill.” Does bkkguy’s post make any reference whatever to copyright issues? Sorry, once again! Nope! bkkguy, it seems, is perfectly happy with articles lifted complete from media sources. And has bkkguy ever commented about infringement on any of the photos posted on that Board? You guessed it - No! Yet, is this bkkguy the same one on this Board who makes this claim (post #16 above)? “the management and moderators here seem to have no idea or no interest in copyright and IP protection” - and then in post #26? “the management and moderators here obviously does not care about copyright . . . I live in hope that eventually some people here will begin to realise there are some privacy and copyright issues that need to be addressed” - and yet again in post #31 “if you produce an original work it is covered by copyright” So lets hear it, bkkguy! Are you the same bkkguy who posts on gaybuttonthai.com? If you are, then you are a total hypocrite! If you are not, I will apologise fully and unreservedly – an act that you so singularly fail to do when your errors are pointed out here in considerable detail. Quote
bkkguy Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 I post under the name bkkguy on a number of forums - including gaybuttonthai.com - but many of them totally unrelated to gay life in Thailand, forgive me if I don't inappropriately discuss exactly the same issues on every forum I visit! gaybutton makes his moderation rules very clear - if you don't understand why I would not bother discussing some issues on his forum then don't blame me for your limited intellectual abilities for example gb likes to live in Pattaya so does not like people referring to Pattaya as "Shitsville by the sea" so this in not allowed in his forum! I have a life so I am not going to try to analyse your posts to all the forums you post to and you really want to dispute the validity of my quote that "if you produce an original work it is covered by copyright” based on whatever shit you want to post here? get a life! bkkguy Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Twisting and not responding to precise allegations yet again! You are indeed a hypocrite! Quote
bkkguy Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 so the fact that gb, who in posts here and on his own forum has said that he supports my ideas on how to quote from news sources yet does not enforce these rules on his own forum and does not tolerate criticism of this on his forum makes me a hypocrite and not him? bkkguy Quote
Bob Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 all original works are protected by copyright in most countries unless explicitly placed in the public domain.......perhaps you should read up a bit more on how copyright works This whole discussion is getting ridiculous and muddled and also probably belongs in a separate thread in any event. Since people are mixing copyright law (US-style) with privacy concerns, maybe we ought to separate the issues. As concerns copyright laws, I have taken tens of thousands of photos in private and public settings and not a single one of those photos has any cloak of protection under the copyright laws of the US or any nation. So much for the "original works" theory. As concerns privacy concerns, one might want to break that down to legal rights to privacy, simple ethical concerns, and a given message board's rules. With respect to legal rights to privacy, not a single subject in any photo I've ever taken has any legal right to privacy with respect to same - whether I took the photo at a public parade or in a private bedroom with the subject's consent (to allay the tittering, I have none of the latter). Now, in my personal view, ethical concerns and my own personal compass prevent me from posting any photo of friends or the like but I see no such ethical concerns if I should ever choose to post a photo taken at a beach, a public parade (such as the beautiful photos previously posted by poster FH), or even in a gogo bar. Finally, as concerns possible violations of a given message board's rules, that's between the owner and the poster (and other "aggrieved" parties who can't stop themselves ought, in my view, simply PM the owner versus engaging in their own little private battle on the board itself); and, I might add, one can probably engender a more serious reading of the concerns by leaving out the jabs and insults. While we're at it - no, I can't maintain a level of seriousness for more than 30 seconds or so - if somebody wants to quote and reprint my "original work" here, go ahead and make my day (I'll hire Bkkguy and sue the pants off of you!). (And, if you're relatively young, good-looking, and asian, I mean that only litterally....). Quote
Gaybutton Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 said that he supports my ideas on how to quote from news sources yet does not enforce these rules on his own forum and does not tolerate criticism of this on his forum makes me a hypocrite and not him? But I am a hypocrite. I've never claimed to be anything else. And guess what - I don't give a shit whether you like the way I do things or not. What I would not do on my board is allow a thread to degenerate into a pissing contest, such as this thread has become. I also would never permit anyone to use my board to criticize, complain about, or put down another board or its administrators and moderators. I'd delete those kinds of posts the instant I see them and tell whoever writes them if they have a problem with another board, take it to that board. "How do you like them eggrolls, Mr. Goldstone?" - Ethel Merman, 'Gypsy' Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 What I would not do on my board is allow a thread to degenerate into a pissing contest, such as this thread has become. I suspect that if you as a Board owner and the moderator of your Board was accused of not adhering to your own Board regulations, you would have made your position known pretty forcefully with the "iron fist"! You would not have tolerated it. Yet the owners and a moderator have permitted this discussion to continue. I think that is perfectly fair to them - and to other posters who have been accused of not adhering to this Board's policies. With all respect, I can not see how that can be described as a pissing contest. I also would never permit anyone to use my board to criticize, complain about, or put down another board or its administrators and moderators. Again with respect, there was no intent to put down your Board - and I cannot see anywhere here where this was done - or any other Board which happens to have different rules from this one. I am sure you accept that comments made on this Board, on your Board and other Boards do from time to time appear on other Boards. That is fact. Far from criticising, I was merely using the serious comments on the subject of copyright raised here by bkkguy and comparing them with the lack at any time of any similar comment made by the same poster on your Board. But isn't it interesting? This thread has rapidly developed a very large readership. Now is that a result of the photographs which have been posted, or the differences of opinion which have been raised? Quote
Gaybutton Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 But isn't it interesting? This thread has rapidly developed a very large readership. Now is that a result of the photographs which have been posted, or the differences of opinion which have been raised? That is precisely my point about saying this thread has become a pissing contest. Let's see, how many posts ago did this thread still have anything to do with Thai Guys in Tight Jeans? Besides, you're not the one putting down me or my board. However, somehow I'm failing to see how whether I'm a hypocrite, how much of a news article I'll allow to be posted, or whether I follow my own rules to the letter has anything to do with Thai Guys in Tight Jeans. I think you already know as well as I do, as soon as bkkguy sees this post, his response won't have anything to do with it either. However, since this thread is supposed to be about Thai Guys in Tight Jeans, I'll at least include a little something about it. That way, I still get to be a hypocrite - just not as much of one . . . Quote
bkkguy Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 As concerns copyright laws, I have taken tens of thousands of photos in private and public settings and not a single one of those photos has any cloak of protection under the copyright laws of the US or any nation. So much for the "original works" theory. from "Copyright Basics" published by the US Copyright Office, p3 http://www.copyright...ircs/circ01.pdf What Works Are Protected? Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories: 1 literary works 2 musical works, including any accompanying words 3 dramatic works, including any accompanying music 4 pantomimes and choreographic works 5 pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works 6 motion pictures and other audiovisual works 7 sound recordings 8 architectural works The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. ...Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. or read any of their FAQs and it is obvious that they at least consider photographs to be covered by copyright as does Kodak, the UK Copyright Office http://www.kodak.com...copyright.shtml http://www.copyright...raphy_copyright or try a quick google search on "copyright law and photographs" bkkguy Quote
Bob Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Any photograph can be copyrighted (well, at least in the US and some other countries) if one has the intent to do that. And, if you want to add tighter legal protections to a photograph, you can even register it with the copyright office (although it's not necessary). As to whether somebody in Hong Kong or Timbuktu can do that, heck if I know. Then there's the fair use doctrine which is about as fuzzy as you can get [you generally only know for sure if it's "fair use" (for criticism, comment, etc.) if and when a judge says so]. Then, of course, there's the issue of actual damages (for Ansel Adams, it'd be a bunch but, for me, it'd probably be a single satang if the judge was in an especially generous mood that day). As for what GB told us/you/bedpost, I'm still trying to figure that one out. I'm allowed to be dense (denser) on Wednesdays. Quote
Gaybutton Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 As for what GB told us/you/bedpost, I'm still trying to figure that one out. What I told you/us/bedpost was: I think you already know as well as I do, as soon as bkkguy sees this post, his response won't have anything to do with it either. And I turned out to be right . . . Quote
Bob Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 And I turned out to be right . . . Well, heck, congratulations! There's always a first time...... Quote
bkkguy Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 However, somehow I'm failing to see how whether I'm a hypocrite, how much of a news article I'll allow to be posted, or whether I follow my own rules to the letter has anything to do with Thai Guys in Tight Jeans. don't ask me - ask fountainhall, he is the one that started this sidetrack by trying to establish a relationship between my posts here and my posts on your forum If bkkguy on gaybuttonthai.com is indeed the same bkkguy who posts here, surely he is making similar comments about alleged infringements of print or photo copyrights on that Board? That, after all, is a Board which permits the copying of complete print media articles without any paraphrasing, provided an attribution is made at the end. In other words, the regulations of that Board are freer than those adopted by posters on this Board. I would assume, therefore, that bkkguy freely rails at length about copyright issues on that Board, as he doe here? True? Well, er . . . in fact, No! now I know you don't allow discussion of your policies in the forum, and you know you don't allow discussion of your policies in the forum - perhaps you could explain it to fountainhall? bkkguy Quote
bkkguy Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 As concerns copyright laws, I have taken tens of thousands of photos in private and public settings and not a single one of those photos has any cloak of protection under the copyright laws of the US or any nation. So much for the "original works" theory. I replied with a quote from "Copyright Basics" published by the US Copyright Office, p3 http://www.copyright...ircs/circ01.pdf The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. ...Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. and your response is Any photograph can be copyrighted (well, at least in the US and some other countries) if one has the intent to do that. which part of the US Copyright Office document do you not understand? where are you getting the concept of needing "intent" before copyright applies? bkkguy Quote
Bob Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Apologies to Khun Buckbee for at least my part in totally side-tracking his original post. And it's unfortunate that the side-tracking now includes some less than humorously-intended personal attacks. Neither the time nor place for it. Quote
Guest Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Apologies to Khun Buckbee for at least my part in totally side-tracking his original post. And it's unfortunate that the side-tracking now includes some less than humorously-intended personal attacks. Neither the time nor place for it. I agree. Judging by PMs received, some other members agree. So some posts have been moderated. Please keep discussions civil & avoid personal attacks, which are not permitted on this board. Furthermore, I'm intending to keep this thread on topic from now on (board policies allow for this discretion). So if anyone wishes to continue the copyright debate, please copy the relevant quote into the new "Wikipedia & Copyright" thread (under Beer Bar) & post away. Any further copyright posts here will be deleted. This thread can then discuss guys in tight jeans & matters closely related to that subject. Quote
