the new/old Osterlind Trilogy

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.

Postby Guest » 11/28/07 07:41 AM

I hesitate to duplicate a post/review which is running at the green place. I'm wondering if such a thing is even moral. The link is http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view ... orum=110&0 if anyone is interested (and with this book, we should all be interested) but my question remains: Is it kosher to duplicate a review from one forum to another?

*jeep!
--Grandpa Chet
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/28/07 08:54 AM

Originally posted by mormonyoyoman:
Is it kosher to duplicate a review from one forum to another?
Surely if you wrote it, and you weren't commissioned to write it (in which instance it'd probably be the property of the person who paid you), then it's yours. And therefore you can do what you want with it, including duplicating it.

Dave
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 11/28/07 09:36 AM

If you wrote it, you can post it anywhere you want.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20449
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 11/28/07 08:35 PM

Interestingly, I believe if you read the Cafe's rules and the copyright info, it would seem that it is written in such a way that the Cafe could try to lay claim to everything posted as theirs.

From the entry way of the Cafe:
"All contents & postings Copyright 2001 - 2006 Steve Brooks"

Now, it seems ridiculous, and I don't know if it is legal, but I thought I would mention it.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/28/07 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Scott Fridinger:
Interestingly, I believe if you read the Cafe's rules and the copyright info, it would seem that it is written in such a way that the Cafe could try to lay claim to everything posted as theirs.

From the entry way of the Cafe:
"All contents & postings Copyright 2001 - 2006 Steve Brooks"

Now, it seems ridiculous, and I don't know if it is legal, but I thought I would mention it.
Oh and it seems as I was slightly wrong, the Cafe doesn't claim copyright, Mr. Brooks himself does.
Guest
 

Postby Rick Ruhl » 11/28/07 09:16 PM

it's the same thing Richard has here, it's called compliation copyright. The compliation of the messages are Copyright of the Genii forum, but the original author does retain copyright to his work.

You can thank the late Sony Bono for the confusing copyright laws. Yes, he was a good businessman and a great guy, but the copyright laws were changed by him and Disney.
Rick Ruhl
 
Posts: 544
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Tampa, FL

Postby Richard Kaufman » 11/28/07 10:43 PM

I don't own anything anyone else writes on here. The person who writes it owns it. Simple.

Ditto for the Magic Cafe--just because you put a copyright notice on something doesn't make it so. And I don't think Steve Brooks expects that he owns the copyright to things that have been posted on the Magic Cafe.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20449
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 11/29/07 12:16 PM

I agree completely with you guys, and looking at the Copyright notice on here " 2004-2007 The Genii Corporation" is normal.

However, when the phrase "& postings" just seems blatant.

Anyway, doesn't matter.
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 11/29/07 12:54 PM

It doesn't matter because a website owner can write any sort of notice he or she wants--you can only enforce what is recognized as law.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20449
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 11/29/07 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
I don't own anything anyone else writes on here. ...
And that's how it should be.

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
...I don't think Steve Brooks expects that he owns the copyright to things that have been posted on the Magic Cafe.
In past postings on this subject at the Cafe, Brooks has made it clear that he does indeed claim ownership to what has been posted on "his" board, and that one who doesn't like his system can post on some other board. He's expressed his claim/opinion on this subject several times over the past few years.

I wish I could be as confident as RK that Brooks' claim is not legal, but in any case it does seem that Brooks' claim is ridiculous and oppressive.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/29/07 03:56 PM

For the sake of argument, let's assume that what's posted on the cafe is copyright by Steve Brooks. Would this include deleted posts and topics?

Harry Stanley claimed copyright to everything published in The Gen magazine and it was a condition of submitting an item that the copyright would belong to Harry Stanley.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 11/29/07 05:37 PM

Only a lawyer would think of that question, Quentin!

Hope all is well with you.

Clay
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 11/29/07 05:39 PM

That's my point, Quentin, it doesn't matter what Harry Stanley said or claimed, it only matters what the law has to say about the subject.

What would British law have required in the 1950s in order for a submission to a magazine to become the property of the magazine's publisher?

Did everyone who contributed sign such an agreement? Verbal agreements have no validity in copyright law.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20449
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC


Return to Buzz