BubberMiley Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 The new Canadian copyright law allows you to reproduce 10% of a work with attribution under the Fair Dealing provisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) good of you to step-in and speak for MLW moderation. Your presumption on "stealing" awaits clarification from the moderators... asking for clarity on how to properly post images within MLW. Oh wait, do you know the particulars to answer my prior questions? Please carry on and speak further for MLW moderation - thanks in advance. . I agree with CA on copyright laws, Waldo. An image is different than presenting a statement of fact. If you present an image - which is the product of someone - you've got to give attribution for it. Edited June 30, 2016 by betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) I brought your role as forum facilitator into it because your statement was such utter crap that it wasn't even worth discussing - my issue is with how a forum facilitator is allowed to be so belligerent toward half the posters here. You're not an authority on what is "crap." You've posted some things that I consider "crap"......but I didn't try to shut you down because of it. As far as I know, a facilitator can express her own views.....even if you think they're "crap." As far as I know, she's not exempted from posting like a regular poster. Correct me if I'm wrong. Edited June 30, 2016 by betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 I agree with CA on copyright laws, Waldo. An image is different than presenting a statement of fact. If you present an image - which is the product of someone - you've got to give attribution for it. perhaps you should actually take the time to review the posts you presume to comment on. You're adding nothing here, you're off-base and presuming to speak for a moderator. Notwithstanding you presuming to speak of providing proper attribution is the height of hypocrisy. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 I haven't bothered to pursue this ~3-week old circumstance further... choosing just to drop it, to move on. However, the MLW member now claiming to have "saved" the board (and the waldo too) seems most emboldened to want to bring this up again, totally unrelated to any current discussion! Given that emboldened want to something I've simply dropped and moved on from, I trust the saving MLW member will take this further and, per the corporation's own website published 'terms of use' suggestion, make contact for a case-by-case review/determination of how the corporation views the hosting of attributed screen-shot images on 3rd-party image hosting sites. As this is clearly an important deflection issue for this MLW member, and the member presumes to interpret Canadian law, I trust he will bring notice back to MLW in regards the corporation's review/determination... I mean, otherwise... why bother to bring this forward yet again? (note: the waldo is not an internet lawyer... and has never claimed to be one). My oh my....you certainly are rattled by the schooling I gave you on this one! You really should throw in a few 'damns' in there just like you did on the previous thread as that may...just may get your point across! In all of your babbling and whining above you failed to mention the most important parts: 1. The graphic that you chose to copy from CBC was not presented the way the CBC had it on their site. You purposely and deceitfully manipulated the graph for some reason that only a waldo could understand. 2. The rules presented on the CBC 'REUSE AND PERMISSIONS' page are VERY CLEAR on what you can and can't use. I have posted this for your convenience a number of times but as a good Samaritan I will lead by your hand once again http://www.cbc.ca/permissions/faq-general.html#1 If you look at the very first question it answers if you are allowed to use CBC.ca content and you are able to use it with permission. In regards to an interactive specifically, it again states you need permission. I asked you numerous times to present your proof of permission and clearly you didn't have it which is why your manipulated and corrupted snapshot was taken down. Its honestly not that difficult to understand but again you have gone on wasting everyone's time with your bellyaching and whining. Consider yourself informed even though ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law!! Once again...you're welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 The new Canadian copyright law allows you to reproduce 10% of a work with attribution under the Fair Dealing provisions. I'm not sure the 10% factor even applies under the "Exceptions" declarations of the Copyright Act; for example: Exceptions Fair Dealing 29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned: a - the source; and b - if given in the source, the name of the (i) author, in the case of a work, (ii) performer, in the case of a performer’s performance, (iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or (iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal in the case that MLW's internet lawyer is pursuing, for a possible image in question, source identification inclusive of source (corporation) name was provided, along with the name of the website application that dynamically generated the image as well as the name of the author of that application. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) My oh my....you certainly are rattled by the schooling I gave you on this one! You really should throw in a few 'damns' in there just like you did on the previous thread as that may...just may get your point across! In all of your babbling and whining above you failed to mention the most important parts: 1. The graphic that you chose to copy from CBC was not presented the way the CBC had it on their site. You purposely and deceitfully manipulated the graph for some reason that only a waldo could understand. That's the same thing he did to the article from ICR! He copy/pasted and manipulated the content by reformatting it......to make it resemble like my format. However, Waldo was so busy copy/pasting from ICR that he failed to recognized that he included the author's own ideas along with the statement of facts - and he didn't attribute his copy/paste to the author of that article. Once you include the author's own ideas to a statement of fact - you'll have to attribute it! Edited June 30, 2016 by betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 In all of your babbling and whining above you failed to mention the most important parts: 1. The graphic that you chose to copy from CBC was not presented the way the CBC had it on their site. You purposely and deceitfully manipulated the graph for some reason that only a waldo could understand. Once again...you're welcome! isn't one of the important parts the fact this now dated concern of yours was long moved on from (some ~3 weeks ago) - for some reason you just needed to bring it forward once again. Isn't another important part the one where you absolutely refuse to address what possible gain was realized... where the issue in question, that concerned one of 10 polls within the period covered by the image in question, actually improved the rating you seemed so concerned over. Clearly you had no response and absolutely refused to even acknowledge the repeated challenges in that vein put to you. Instead, you opted to play internet lawyer, complain to MLW moderation, where subsequently multi-pages of discussion were hidden - inclusive of your tap-dance to actually avoid the repeated challenges put to you. I trust you will further leverage your internet lawyer degree and take up the point of MLW member BubberMiley concerning the Copyright Act and fair dealing... particularly this clause within the source corporations "Terms of Use": "To that end, no publication, reproduction or communication of such content to the public is authorized except in the specific cases set out in the federal Copyright Act" you're welcome! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 That's the same thing he did to the article from ICR! He copy/pasted and manipulated the content by reformatting it......to make it resemble like my format. However, waldo was so busy copy/pasting from ICR that he failed to recognized that he included the author's own ideas along with the statement of facts - and he didn't attribute his copy/paste to the author of that article. there were possible implications of plagiarism on your part - I interpret that's been taken care of now, right?... please clarify if not the case - thanks in advance. Again, full attribution was provided inclusive of the originating link and a linked graphic of the actual text in question... you know, what you failed to provide yourself. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 isn't one of the important parts the fact this now dated concern of yours was long moved on from (some ~3 weeks ago) you walked away with your tail between your leg for 3 weeks. What can I say. I trust you will further leverage your internet lawyer degree Thus far I have given you free advice but I think it would only be fair to start charging you for such requests. Having said that, the way the system works is each lawyer is allowed to provide their evidence and the judge decides what is the correct path. And in this case....the judge has spoken. As per the CBC page, they specifically state that you are to ask for permission before use. I trust you and this site would not want to be involved in discussions with CBC regarding your lack of permission to use said graphic which is why reasonable steps were taken to remove it. Now....if you want to lawyer up and take on the ol' CBC with your Exception list then have at er' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 That's the same thing he did to the article from ICR! Yes...he certainly does feel that he can do what he wants. The funny this is this whole issue started when I asked him why he left out certain info. If he would have just stated it was a mistake then I would have moved on.....but nope! Making such an admission is not possible for that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 you walked away with your tail between your leg for 3 weeks. What can I say. if that's what you consider discussing further with MLW moderation and being advised I could put the images up again - where I chose not to bother. As I said, there might have been a further question concerning the issue of attribution and dynamically generated images. For only your presumed need to posture, you brought the whole thing forward again, completely out of the blue and unrelated to anything being discussed... for what reason? . Thus far I have given you free advice but I think it would only be fair to start charging you for such requests. Having said that, the way the system works is each lawyer is allowed to provide their evidence and the judge decides what is the correct path. And in this case....the judge has spoken. As per the CBC page, they specifically state that you are to ask for permission before use. I trust you and this site would not want to be involved in discussions with CBC regarding your lack of permission to use said graphic which is why reasonable steps were taken to remove it. Now....if you want to lawyer up and take on the ol' CBC with your Exception list then have at er' no - I previously suggested the question of screen capture is one the CBC site indicates could be reviewed further on a case-by-case basis... since you felt emboldened to bring this forward again, completely out of the blue and unrelated to anything being discussed, I suggested you pursue further, accordingly. I mean it only appears to be a significant point for you... and your presumed posturing. Of course, that seeking permission, per the CBC Terms of Use, is outside the covering umbrella of the Copyright Act. Something you clearly don't want to acknowledge... don't want to even touch. Instead you go into your typical fall-back bluster-mode! Of course you do. Notwithstanding that, I also linked to prior discussion exchange with MLW moderation that addressed the issue of image attribution and Supreme/Federal Court rulings in that regard. Something else you refuse to acknowledge... geezaz, just where did you get your internet law degree from? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Why do I keep imagining Holmes and Moriarity in a deathly embrace plummeting into the Reichenbach Falls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 ... for what reason? Especially since you realized it served no purpose in the first place! Of course, that seeking permission, per the CBC Terms of Use, is outside the covering umbrella of the Copyright Act. Something you clearly don't want to acknowledge... don't want to even touch. No...I did acknowledge it but again your failure to read and comprehend basic statements is hindering you once again. That exception is your interpretation of the law. If you feel that your interpretation is correct then lawyer up'! In the meantime the judge has spoken!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Yes...he certainly does feel that he can do what he wants. The funny this is this whole issue started when I asked him why he left out certain info. If he would have just stated it was a mistake then I would have moved on.....but nope! Making such an admission is not possible for that guy. ah perfect! Since you went wailing/whining to MLW moderation, all your related gems have been hidden given the broad swath collateral damage done in hiding literally dozens of posts. What you refer to as a 'mistake' is what you yourself called "trivial and of no consequence"... and yet you went into your deflection mode when I repeatedly asked you to state what difference it made. More pointedly, I went to the trouble to do the trivial math and show you that, in fact, the single poll in question actually bettered the rating you were so concerned about. Once you were presented with that lil' nugget you shifted completely and started your dance over supposedly infringing upon the CBC copyright! Yes, yet another of your ready-reach deflection/derails when the waldo puts you under his thumbscrews! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 That exception is your interpretation of the law. If you feel that your interpretation is correct then lawyer up'! In the meantime the judge has spoken!! don't throw away your internet lawyer degree now! Not now! You're faced with the CBC Terms of Use reference that defers to the Copyright Act, you're faced with the Copyright Act, you're faced with the declared exceptions within the Copyright Act and you're faced with direct reference to Supreme/Federal Court rulings relative to the Copyright Act. But I'm sure you presented all this in your whine/wail to MLW moderation, right? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Great! Everything is settled! If you encounter a post that you-believe-violates the forum rules and guidelines, report it, ignore it and move on!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Great! Everything is settled! If you encounter a post that you-believe-violates the forum rules and guidelines, report it, ignore it and move on!!! Great idea!! But can I cash in my warning points for anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Once you include the author's own ideas to a statement of fact - you'll have to attribute it!You're not following. There was attribution. But even if a writer makes a "statement of fact", that writer still has a copyright on his writing. You have to write the "statement of fact" yourself in your own words to make it your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 I don't know why you should be given an unusual number of warnings/suspensions. I haven't observed your postings as being as insulting as many of our regular posters here, including me. I also consider you to be a serious poster and a good contributor here, even if I don't always agree with you. jbg - Welcome - I have disagreed with but respect your opinions. But if you like, Big Guy will give you a warning wild card which can be redeemed for a Big Guy warning when required. I concur. Jbg is not not someone I agree with but he's not belligerent or off topic. As a reader, I enjoy your posts. I appreciate the accolades now but if you look at my warnings and suspensions I would say that about 1/3 of any of my posts more than four sentences long has drawn one. I would want to contribute more but want to be around to follow up on my responses. That is impossible given then number of one to three day suspensions I've drawn. And with my warning points I am always at the edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 And Happy Late Canada Day everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 And Happy Late Canada Day everyone! Ok! You were warned. You are now suspended for 7 days for late congratulations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 And Happy Late Canada Day everyone! Happy 4th! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 Ok! You were warned. You are now suspended for 7 days for late congratulations! My warnable offense is that I posted the "Happy Canada Day" twice. The worst form of cross-posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted July 4, 2016 Report Share Posted July 4, 2016 My warnable offense is that I posted the "Happy Canada Day" twice. The worst form of cross-posting. Oh come on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts