I was curious about my presence on the internet

[Jim Underwood]

I was curious about what would turn up if I Googled "Jim Underwood Woodturner". Well, there were lots of hits from posts on the AAW and Sawmill Creek forums....

but the one that really got my attention was the link to pdfebooksdownloads

Apparently if you do a search on their website for "tutorial woodturning" all kinds of woodturning subjects turn up in PDF format. Among them is my birdhouse tutorial...

What bugs me is that they never asked permission to put this on their website, and they make you fill out a survey in order to view the thing...

What do you make of this? Should I be upset about it, since I put the thing out there for public consumption with no copyright?

[Dan Hintz]

They're a PDF document clearinghouse... they scrape the web for PDF documents and repost links to them. There's nothing illegal about it, and they could even charge a fee if they wanted to, as you would be paying for easy access to a link, not the paper itself (which can be found using other methods).

[Robert McGowen]

.........since I put the thing out there for public consumption with no copyright?

Sounds like you feel taken advantage of, but it also sounds like you already know the answer!

[Dick Strauss]

Jim,
I maintain a club website. Needless to say, I always ask for permission before linking on our site to avoid the kind of hard feelings you are experiencing now. I do it because I feel it is the right thing to do.

For profit sites don't have your best interests at heart. They are also betting that you didn't pay $105:eek: to have the material copyrighted!

[Jim Underwood]

I guess I don't like them "charging a fee", much less charging a survey, for something I put out there free for the benefit of other turners.

[Jim Underwood]

I do it because I feel it is the right thing to do.

For profit sites don't have your best interests at heart. They are also betting that you didn't pay $105:eek: to have the material copyrighted!

I think it IS the right thing to do...

[Dick Strauss]

I understand your frustration. One way to get them is to copyright your next demo materials. They are playing the odds that you didn't. Maybe you could come out ahead in the deal after you call their bluff. You can also watermark any pictures to protect their use without your permission.

[Jim Underwood]

Can one copyright something after the fact?

[Ken Hill]

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Decent read. I dealw ith copyright infringement non stop with my photography.

[Dan Hintz]

The fact that you created it in the first place gives you certain rights to it. If you place it in the open on the web, however, there's nothing stopping someone from linking to it... and this is exactly what that site has done. Again, there's nothing illegal about it. You cannot stop people from linking to it. At best, you can specify the document can only be linked to and not rehosted on another site, but web scrapers do what they do, and it will be up to you to find rehosting sites and request the docs be removed.

I fail to see what the problem is here... you put it in the public domain and someone is linking to it. So someone has to fill out a survey before being allowed to see the link, big deal... it's someone who most likely may never have seen the document had that site not scraped it for you.

[Ralph Lindberg]

They're a PDF document clearinghouse... they scrape the web for PDF documents and repost links to them. There's nothing illegal about it, and they could even charge a fee if they wanted to, as you would be paying for easy access to a link, not the paper itself (which can be found using other methods).

I'm sorry but you are about as wrong as it's possible to be. It's a common theory, but it is simply wrong. Re-publishing, without permission is violation of copyright, even if he didn't charge a fee for his article, it is still his property.

Example. There is a cooking "web-zene" that recently republished a ladies piece on the history of apple pie/tarts. When contacted they claimed that they could, simply because it was on the web and nothing there is copyrighten.

The back-lash went, well, main-stream. It was found that this web-zene had copied articles and photos from such places as Martha Stewart and Disney. Neither of which are real friendly with violatations of copyright.

[Ralph Lindberg]

I..What do you make of this? Should I be upset about it, since I put the thing out there for public consumption with no copyright?

Unless you specifically waived copyright, you still own the copyright

[Ralph Lindberg]

Example. There is a cooking "web-zene" that recently republished a ladies piece on the history of apple pie/tarts. When contacted they claimed that they could, simply because it was on the web and nothing there is copyrighten.


For more info, check Google News for Cooks Source (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:*&q=cooks%20source%20&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn)

[Aaron Wingert]

Unless you specifically waived copyright, you still own the copyright

From the way I read this thread, he did not have the document copyrighted. So there's no copyright, hence the ethics issue at hand.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Aaron,

Read the information at the link Ken Hill posted.

It looks like everything written after a certain date is automatically copyrighted.

And usless you use some pretty sprecific verbage, it's still copyrighted.....

[Dan Hintz]

I'm sorry but you are about as wrong as it's possible to be. It's a common theory, but it is simply wrong. Re-publishing, without permission is violation of copyright, even if he didn't charge a fee for his article, it is still his property.

Example. There is a cooking "web-zene" that recently republished a ladies piece on the history of apple pie/tarts. When contacted they claimed that they could, simply because it was on the web and nothing there is copyrighten.

The back-lash went, well, main-stream. It was found that this web-zene had copied articles and photos from such places as Martha Stewart and Disney. Neither of which are real friendly with violatations of copyright.
Ralph,

You need to reread what I wrote. I'm well aware of the cooking e-zone fiasco, but this is not even close to that. For the cooking e-zone, they republished the girl's article, practically word for word, with no attribution... they made it appear as if a staff member wrote the article. My prior comments were about links to the original item, and that is perfectly valid to do, as the location of the article (and as well as the attribution) is kept intact.

I took a look at the specific site Jim mentioned... it appears this particular site may make a copy of the article for local storage (though it is unclear, and considering the storage space it is more likely they are simply redirecting and/or opening the file directly in the browser's PDF viewer). Even if they make a copy, they have done nothing illegal as the original attribution is still there (in the article), and there were no disclaimers that said the article could not be freely distributed and stored elsewhere.

[Thom Sturgill]

Visit the Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) and view their licenses. A CC license (like the GPL and other FOSS licenses) is based on your copyright rights and gives away the ability to use the item with restrictions, and you choose what restrictions. For example, you can require them to give credit (with attribution clause) if they incorporate it into another document. A license allows you to revoke their ability to use your work if the abuse that privilege.

As to the ability to link to anything you want - not true! There have been numerous lawsuits on just that. Several courts have held that linking is publishing, especially 'deep linking' where they grab the pdf but do not expose the surrounding page info, potentially robbing you of page views and advertising revenue.

[Aaron Wingert]

Aaron,

Read the information at the link Ken Hill posted.

It looks like everything written after a certain date is automatically copyrighted.

And usless you use some pretty sprecific verbage, it's still copyrighted.....

Interesting read, I didn't know that so much had changed.

[Michael James]

Jim, I'm going to avoid the ethical, moral arguments surrounding intellectual property in "outer space". The internet is what it is. The US music industry for example is totally being overhauled if it wants to stay in existence. Multibillion $ industries are paying hackers, crackers, and reverse engineering pirates HUGE sums to go elsewhere.
Im just saying, if you put it out there it's just "dust in the wind". If you got credit for your work, then thats a good thing. These situations are being capitalized on for the marketing and distribution advantages, one could not afford on start up. Some software developers are silently thanking this underground moveement, because they are a minority and will generate more income through exposure to those who would not steal, and do not attempt to stop them, because they can't. Raiding college campuses for D/L'd music is not the answer.
This is a whole different world than the one I was raised in, and I know for a fact: Toto, this ain't Kansas anymore.
btw - I love this community because all this is a non issue for hardware, and wood. I think those that share do so willingly and just "give" freely of their knowledge, talent and expertise. I Thank you!

[Thom Sturgill]

<soapbox> Michael, your response triggered a button issue. I really wish the term 'intellectual property' would go away (I know, I know - it will not). The term is used to conflate and confuse four different items: copyright, patents, trademarks and trade secrets - each of which has different legal protections. The proponents of 'intellectual property rights' legislation and treaties seam to want the best (for them) of each applied to all.</soapbox>

Jim, it does appear that they store the files, but also that they give attribution. The downside to that is that people searching for the content do not get to visit your site, which if it's a personal site with a low bandwidth limitation could be a blessing, but if you are trying to sell your turnings or training from the site is a no-no. Try asking the site's webmaster to either remove it or link to your site.

[Dan Carroll]

Aaron,

Read the information at the link Ken Hill posted.

It looks like everything written after a certain date is automatically copyrighted.

And usless you use some pretty sprecific verbage, it's still copyrighted.....

The confusion here is over the difference between copyright registration and the copyright property rights. The changes mentioned in regard to 1989 only made clear in statute what had been a common law right before and in some way strengthened the common law right. An artist is entitled to the protection of their work, whether it is a registered copyrighted work or not. Registration of a copyright used to be a requirement to enforce the copyright in Court (I am not sure anymore). I also remember when copyright registration was $10.00, and send in a one page form with 5 questions.

The property right in the material is created when the artist produces the material; it is not created by registration of the copyrighted material. A knowing publication without a claim of copyright would under the old law have caused a loss of the copyright protection, in some cases. Under the current Bern Convention, that is no longer the case. If this is sounding a bit confusing, it is. But the assumption should always be that the artist is entitled to control their work and any use of that work is a violation of that right. Just because the internet junkies seem to think that all thinks ought to be free in cyber space, does not make it so nor does it make it right to steal from artists.

[Alan Zenreich]

If I recall correctly, the main thing that registering a copyright accomplishes is the ability to reclaim some legal fees in the event that a case is won and damages are awarded. Without the registration the copyright holder doesn't get the legal fees automatically added on to the settlement.

So for all intents and purposes, there's rarely ever a reason to register a copyright. As mentioned, copyright... the "right to make copies" lies entirely with the author. The author can assign any rights he/she wants, they are infinitely divisible and not exclusive.

So you can give away, or sell, exclusive rights to a work, or north american rights, or west side of 135th street rights, etc. etc.

I know a photographer who sold rights to a photograph to NASA for a dollar. I believe it was used in a capsule in a Voyager probe. The copyright condition was that NASA could make as many copies as they wanted, provided that the copies were never used on planet Earth.

It's up to the creator of the content.

[David DeCristoforo]

Where's that lawyer? Never around when you need them...;)

[Ken Fitzgerald]

If it's John "I just wanna turn chair legs" Keeton to whom you are referring.....Understandably He doesn't give legal opinions on the internet. I don't blame him either. There are enough internet legal experts.....just like the jail house legal experts my oldest son has to contend with....:D

[John Keeton]

If it's John "I just wanna turn chair legs" Keeton to whom you are referring.....Understandably He doesn't give legal opinions on the internet. I don't blame him either. There are enough internet legal experts.....just like the jail house legal experts my oldest son has to contend with....:DKen, you nailed it! It has been an interesting discussion, though - I have stopped in a couple of times to take in the comments!;)

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I am truly sorry John....I should have said "I just wanna turn furniture legs"....I didn't mean to limit you to chair legs.:D

[Mike Rushing]

I would like to try a bird house where would I find the birdhouse tutorial you have.

[Rob Holcomb]

Forget about copyright laws and whether people are being taken advantage of from a monetary or legal position. What's even worse is people can google your name, find out where you're from, go to google maps and get a satellite image of where you live. Then zoom in and get a fairly good layout of your property and then get directions to your front door. Any nut bag can pay you a visit. I have a very good friend who did this to himself and was dumbfounded when he went to "Street View" and saw himself trimming his hedges. With all of the great things technology offers, there's plenty of bad that goes with it.

[Jeff Nicol]

Jim, As you know I am on the internet with a website, Youtube videos, SMC posts and every other blog, Q&A on other forums, buying things, PayPal, e-Bay, and on and on. Once you put yourself out there and you never asked for any money for the free PDF or other tutorials, by another site or 50 or a 1000 sites attributing the tutorial to you I am sure you will get more exposure than if it was only on your own site or on SMC. I get e-mails and requests every day from people who saw a blurb on the tools I make and other things I have done posted by people other than me on sites or forums I have never been to. That is word of mouth, and unlike just having the people in your imediate life, on the internet there are millions of people out there looking for things at all hours of the day. So I guess if you don't want to get known as a turner and a teacher of turning being on the internet is not a good thing. If all of us who turn and do something that is called our "Signature" style like Bihn Pho, David Ellsworth etc. Should they go out and try to bring legal proceedings against anyone who does works in the same style? I guess as long as someone does not sand my name off the bottom and sell it as their own creation once I sell it to someone they can sell it to anyone they want even if they make a huge profit.

So I guess it is to late for you now, you are a star and world reknown woodturner!

It could be worse,

Jeff

[Jim Underwood]

So I guess it is to late for you now, you are a star and world reknown woodturner!




LOL!


I'm a Rock Star!

Woooo!:D:p

[Jim Underwood]

I would like to try a bird house where would I find the birdhouse tutorial you have.


Well since you asked so nicely, here's the new link to the tutorial. (Sorry about my incorrect PM- I found the linkie right after I sent the message to you...)

http://www.classiccitywoodturners.com/Demo%20Summaries/Jim%20Underwood-Birdhouse%20and%20Eyelets.pdf

I have no idea how long it will stay there. It keeps getting moved around on the club website... Hopefully the new webmaster and I will create a new page for articles and tutorials..

[Ken Hill]

My suggestion would be to include your info in the article, several times. Your intent is to get your info on turning out there and by having kick backs throughout the artcile it will help you direct traffic back to what ever info you include.

We faced a problem when we started our website, with photographs. We had intended to sell images of racing but that is a dying process these days, so we made sure to watermark every single image in our galleries. We started with 10,000 members and now have close to 100,000 and our images are everywhere and send traffic to our site.

That did not stop one magazine from swiping the images here and there and printing them. Going so far as to crop out the watermarks in alot fo images. No lawyer was involved, just me and the owner and a nice quiet piece of racetrack...problem solved:D

I have major issues still as companies grab images and edit them into their advertising pieces that are used on the web and in print. I usually make a few calls and have reimbursment or free products instead of having to get my lawyer involved......the majority do not know it is a crime, however that is no excuse. I also write for several magazines and have had others copy my online articles and release them as their own. If there was a decent settlement at the end of the tunnel I would go after them but in that industry its worthless really. More phone calls, listen to their apology and recieve some trinket for the trouble.