I have no idea how this turned from a possibly hasty banning from DAZ Forums to a discussion of copyright -- for which we have a proper forum for, as well as FAQs and links. From the bottom, Weird Al is operating under one of the very limited and oft-misunderstood "Fair Use" clauses, the right to make a satire or parody. Parodies -- say, "Hardware Wars" and "Space Balls" are generally permitted, but the chance of a court finding elsewise means the big companies will still send lawyers sniffing around. I have no idea what Pansy Division may have done for licensing, but in the music biz copyright is a very big deal. If I were to walk out on the street right now, set out a hat, and start singing "Luck be a Lady Tonight" I'd be in technical violation (public performance of copyright work). And for counter-example, look at what happened to George Harrison over three notes he MIGHT have heard from a twenty-year old song. People do try to abuse copyright and the RIAA, try as they might, can't be everywhere. But it doesn't stop the behavior you've listed as being illegal and in danger of being prosecuted. And working upwards to the next post; what is trademark in DAZ's Victoria is the mesh itself, the specific polygons. They have stated clearly in their EULA and in material on their site that NONE of those polys may be used for a "competing product." Doing any alteration of the outward look of Victoria, as you described, would not change the underlying polys significantly. It would be like, say, taking footage from a major motion picture and snipping it up and re-arranging it to make another movie. Since you did not provide actors, recording, cameras, scenery, processing -- any of the myriad costs and artistic activities that go into making that original footage -- your cut-and-paste can not be considered a substantial change. It's still their film, and still protected in myriad ways.

Weird Al gets permission for all the songs he does. Look it up. I can't believe the level of ignorance of copyright laws that sometimes floats around. No, actually, I can believe it, but it still always amazes me, particularly when people absolutely resist the correct information when it's presented. It just always astounds me. "If I change it, I own it!" roll eyes As for business, NO, you cannot compel me to do business with you. You can't make me sell you anything, you can't make me let you on my property. Private business is not the government or a public building like a courthouse or public school. The Social Security Administration can't refuse to assist people, but by gosh, Joe's Fishing Tackle sure as hell can! bonni

Attached Link: http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/gall-2000-12-all.html

"I can't believe the level of ignorance of copyright laws that sometimes floats around."

Well, not everyone is well-versed in the complex and sometimes confusing matters of copyright ... there appear to be some grey areas about what the grey areas are. :-) The DMCA for example is recent enough that court precedent hasn't been established for all possible scenarios, so I can appreciate that some of the ignorance and confusion is understandable. What gets me is the presumed authority with which so many people put forth things that just aren't true. If you're speculating, indicate thusly. If you aren't absolutely sure, don't pretend that you are. Pretty simple guidelines for saving face and avoiding the spread of potentially dangerous misinformation.

What gets me is the presumed authority with which so many people put forth things that just aren't true.

Yeah, you're right. It's not the ignorance, per se, as there are lots of things in the world that people just don't know about. With the idea of copyright and digital files, the confusion can, indeed, be considerable.

I guess what I mean is that I'm astounded by the stubborn insistance that one is automatically correct, without any research, facts, documentation, or investigation to back it up, and the amount of blustering and arguing trying to support an incorrect position.

Once again, my unpronounceable friend, you have cut through it and distilled what I actually meant to say. :-)

And I'd like to add on an ammendment to a previous post of mine: It IS illegal in most places for businesses to ban/bar people for being, say, Mexican or Black or Catholic or Female or whatever, as there are laws to prevent that sort of blanket discrimination. No place, as far as I know, has laws that require shopkeepers to do business with or to allow access to specific individuals, particularly when/if those specific individuals have a history of bad behavior.

Casinos, hotels, clubs, restaurants, and other businesses ban people on a regular basis.

bonni Message edited on: 08/19/2004 02:01

Have to bookmark this....

the owner can correct me if necessary but phonetically I would imagine my "unpronounceable friend" would be fairly close to... zo.ko.NAH.stil

Oh, I actually do know how to pronounce it (more or less), but I suspect most folks don't. Also, many eons ago he made a joke about his nick being unpronouncable and I always remembered it. ;-) bonni <-- easy to pronounce, apparently very hard to spell

I think if he actually tries this his name would be "MUD". The other name interpretation would be "Dead Duck".

always thought it was read "xonocostle"...apologizes cuz that was wrongly read on her part.... ;-)

I stand corrected about Weird Al. Actually, I suspected, strongly, that he had permission to do what he was doing. Intellectual property law isn't all THAT hard to understand. If you strip away all the helpful illusions and excuses what you have is, basically, is; "If it was created within this century then yoou can't use it without permission." People keep trying to wriggle about it with "Fair use" but that is limited, specialized, and also in large part up to interpretation -- which means if the guy you are stealing from can afford a good lawyer, you may be in big trouble. The flip side is, they might not care what you are doing. In general pictures on fansites from television and film, and fan-written fiction in the worlds of above, are ignored. These acts are illegal, however, and some studios have been quite harsh in reaction (recent publicized case of an SG-1 fansite closed down and the computers confisticated). I guess there is a connection. The major behaviors that got her banned were both IP-related issues. One was taking information that was classified as confidential and broadcasting it. Certainly, it wasn't secure, but that doesn't give the right to abuse that lack of security. The other involved transferance of a mesh. They have total right to determine how they give you this mesh. If they chose to make it only available from 5 to 7 Greenwhich and you had to use a proxy server in Bulgaria, then that would be how it was done. I am assuming, of course, that the EULA for the Sara (?) figure had the usual non-distribution language on it.

One of the things that is also often mistaken regarding copyright is that we're not ALL americans (yet ;o)) Allthough most of the copyright stuff is covered by the Berne convention and therefore is international, there are differencies from country to country. As an example, if I go to the public library and borrow a music CD, I am in my full rights to take it home and make a copy of it for my own listening pleasure. To gain that right, every blank cd here is taxed extra, and those extra money are channeled back to the music industry by COPYDAN. I may not, however, give away that copy or make more copies from it. The point is that there may be different rules in different parts of the workd, which easily leads to confusion. But a shop can ban anyone they please as long as it's not anything based on blanket statemenst like race or sex. A bus company can also ban people, taxis can refuse to drive to certain parts of the city and so on. All in their good rights.

The point is that there may be different rules in different parts of the workd, which easily leads to confusion. Understood. However, no local laws give anyone the right to distort the V3 mesh and sell or otherwise distribute it, nor do any local laws take away basic rights granted by the Berne Convention (such as the right of the copyright holder to control distribution, derivative use, etc. etc.). Not arguing with you, just clarifying, and not for your benefit but for others who may read this thread at some point now or in the future. ;-) But a shop can ban anyone they please as long as it's not anything based on blanket statemenst like race or sex. A bus company can also ban people, taxis can refuse to drive to certain parts of the city and so on. All in their good rights. And a website can ban anyone they please, and by various means. They can ban certain IP addresses, IP addresses within a wide range, specific usernames, whatever they wish. Nobody has the automatic right to participate in or view any website. You're there at the invitation of the site/server owner, and they have the right to withdraw their invitation. bonni

Dizzie wrote: "and these forums at Renderosity are not to serve Renderosity ...please..." That is correct. Renderosity started out as a community site, and though the RMP has become more and more important to its running, this site is still first and foremost a community support site that happens to have a store. Daz is a commercial company first and foremost which has galleries and forum to support its products. Daz is a brand. Renderosity is not. If it were necessary to say any more about Sephyn74's statements about copyright above what others have said already, then I would add a further confirmation that what cooler et al have said is absolutely correct. A little story: Stravinsky once heard a barrel organ in the street playing a popular song that he liked the sound of, and he put a little snatch of it into the score of his ballet Petrushka. Unfortunately the song was copyright, and it ended up that, despite the fact that the little altered snatch of notes is about 0.05% of the ballet score, whenever the ballet was performed, there had to be a payment to the copyright owner of the popular song until eventually the copyright lapsed after the statutory period.

Sephyn, you're obviously not a lawyer. Don't play one on the Internet. You've already admitted in a previous thread that you're using an illegal copy of Poser. Don't make it worse by asserting your right to steal other artists' work.

You may be confused because the Marketplace is full of characters for Vicky 3, etc. But those do not include any original mesh. They are morphs or dial settings; you must own Vicky 3 to use them.

There are ways to distribute modified meshes. Free programs like RTEncoder "lock" the file, unless you have the original mesh on your hard drive. And there are "texture base packs" available in the Marketplace and Free Stuff, that specifically allow you to modify and redistribute - meant to give you a head start in creating your own texture.

Sorry if it seems like we're piling on here, but we take copyright very seriously. You might want to read a few of the longer threads in the Copyright Forum, just so you know where people are coming from.

dlk30341: Sorry for causing annoyance but this problem as been ongoing, in private, for about 9 months. I was asking whether other people had faced similar bans and the inclusion of basic facts was to give the reason why I was banned by DAZ (hey, a new image title 'Banned By DAZ').

PJF: Yes, I am a paid up member of the Platinum Club. I recieve their newsletter each week explaning how I can place images in the Platinum Gallery too and how I should participate in their forums! Who is Dan Farr please?

Sephyn74: I am not presently seeking any reimbursment of the monies I have paid to DAZ.
I see your views on copyright laws have been responded to lower down! The Sara model download was mentioned by me. I have nothing to hide and it saved one of the DAZ unproffesional people from raising it. I got tired of asking for an official, alternative link.

Cooler: Taking peoples work in order to redistribute has always been the bane of the computer industry - even in the days of tape drives! I'm not posting a self promotional link to my Tomorrows Woman image but following its release I recieved enquiries about distributing the actual model. All the copyright posts in this thread mainly refer to modified polygons and textures. The grey area is when all the original polygons are destroyed to produce a true wireframe structure. The original model served only as a material/tool in order to produce something unique. That I feel is where the grey area comes into play. I took the easy way and made my own head structure in a modeling program, converted it to true wireframe and gave that to the enquirees. Had I chose to distribute the converted DAZ model then it would have been very interesting to see DAZ proving copyright had been breached. Oh dear, is my permanent ban going to be extended?! There lies the problem with permanent bans - there are no further sanctions DAZ can raelly take any more for pursuing my grievance with them.

nomuse:a useful reminder what the original post concerned. (ps: the copyright discussions are a more lot entertaining than me going on about tired 'yesterday' artists at DAZ baning me from some of their services)

Thank you to everyone that has made a post - in some cases more than one! My 'protest' will continue for as long as it takes, but not here again. Best Wishes to all.

Message edited on: 08/19/2004 06:41

which successful poser community site does not "serve the commercial interests..."?
even rosity is about serving the commercial interests of Bondware.
so daz's community site is no different than any other community site

Actually, the pleasant thing is that so many people (all but one?) in this thread do understand that copyright, which is a bundle of rights including the right to alter and the right to distribute, rests with the creator from the moment of creation. The creator has the right to put the item into the Public Domain (irreversible!) or to transfer part or all of his rights, except certain moral rights, which are absolute under international law. Copyright expires over different time periods for different types of work. As Ernyoka1 points out, there are different protections in the various countries, but most adhere to the basic protections under Berne. About 20 years ago I created a set of 3 designs for cassette covers. That publisher had only the rights to make a certain size run of cassettes. 10 years later another publisher got the rights to make a run of CDs and a third publisher got the right to make a songbook with all of the lyrics from the 3 tapes. I have sold the rights to make carved wooden boxes, embroidery, business cards, trophys (really gorgeous in silver and black) from the original designs. I made hand-gilded limited-edition prints for sale. The original pen and ink pieces hang on my living room and ALL other rights reside with me. The publisher who did the CDs wanted to do a colorized version (his wife treated the designs like coloring-book art) and reissue the CDs and I refused. NOBODY else has the right to alter and/or redistribute my work unless they have negotiated that right with me in advance. This is a right which we all hold as creative people, and it is in our own interest to protect the rights of our fellow creative people. Whether it is a scriptwriter, a musician, an artist, game designer... anyone who is creative has made an investment which can't equitably be measured. Blasted lawyers are expensive. But losing the rights to control what happens to one's work is even more expensive. And, to go back to Sara, DarkWhisper controlled all rights until and unless he transferred them to DAZ. If DAZ has the right to control the distribution of that mesh, and Becco_UK circumvented that right, then I can understand DAZ making a temporary ban permanent. However, I have to wonder... why risk it? It isn't as though Sara was going to be only a limited-time offer. One could download her months later, and I believe that the second version of her is still available in the threads. As to problems with a contest... DAZ has had problems with other contests, both in the way things were administered and in the way problems were handled. It is their website, and their contests, however, and the only real solution is to not enter a contest if the conditions are intolerable. (This includes any contest where you forfeit your copyrights to a piece merely by entering.) Other websites have contests (Renderosity, Animotions, 3dcommune, RDNA, Ecletic Guild,....) so find a venue which is better and enter contests elsewhere. Sometimes one has to complain, and sometimes one has to move on. Carolly

hauksdottir: I feel a physical real world cassette design is entirely different to a digital file that can be used as a 'tool' to make something unique. If the original model is entirely destroyed by a conversion where is the breach of copyright? That's my thoughts about a grey area and is why I have raised that point in the Copyright Forum. My original post was not intended to start a copyright discussion. In saying that, I also recieve a few requests for original DAZ figures. Had I been as vindictive and malicious as some are at DAZ then I would given their (DAZ) stuff away. However, as I respect the originating artists more than the company (DAZ) I simply email details of DAZ's web site and inform the enquirees that's where they can buy the item. DAZ, in my opinion, should be more concerned about the underground trading of their items instead of me making alternative arrangements to download a FREE Sara. I suppose though it's easier to 'pick' on an individual registered with their site! Yes, other sites have contests but they are always free of charge and not dependant on having to purchace a seperate membership. It is possible to complain and move on at the same time!

Pardon this digression, but: Veritas77, I think bonni and cooler were referring to my screen name, not Sephyn74's. cooler, I'm sure that's it in some parts of Mexico, but I'll tell ya, everyone I ask gives a slightly different pronounciation, sometimes even a different spelling (tzoconostle.) I think of it as "sho-ko-no-stlay," but you know what? You can call me "Dean" if it helps. :-) Don't listen to Ironbear, my name is NOT "Fred." Anyway, Nahuatl can be a very beautiful language when spoken by native speakers. OK, back to the DAZ bannings and Copyright discussion...

"they can make you leave. but they CANNOT prevent you from coming back"

that's completely untrue. i have worked a LOT of retail, from my first job all the way thru college as a matter of fact. so here are a few times i've been involved in the completely legal act of banning or refusing customers. these had NOTHING to do with the persons sex, age, race, etc. it's all about what the customers action.

example 1: working at walmart we had a customer that was proven to have pulled a rack down on himself (we had security camera footage) and then tried to claim it was faulty store equipment that was at fault and that he was going to sue the store. he was removed from the store and refused service.

example 2: again walmart. there was a customer that repeatly brought back merchandise that he would use the hell out of then demand a refund on for it 'not working', things such as lawn mowers, power tools, grills, etc. after 9-10 items being returned like this he was refused service for a set amount of time.

example 3: as asst. manager at a bath and body works store i was appalled by some customers demands. B&BW has a VERY liberal return policy they will take back nearly anything, including used items. we had a woman that would bring in used bottles of lotion and perfume she bought back in the early 90's (you could tell by the label designs and dates) claiming she didn't like the scent (but some how she couldn't be troubled to bring the items back 6 yrs ago when she actually bought them). after another month of her exploiting the return system (and 20 returned products later) and her getting caught stealing $100+ worth of makeup, she got banned from further service.

example 4: as asst manager at a hotel i had to ban a couple that had been to our location before and had caused problems their entire visit. they distrupted the fellow guests and trashed their room 2 visits prior. so when they came in rip-roaring drunk and threatening me, i didn't hesitate to refuse them service. the hotel owners, and the manager supported my actions.

and my last example (sorry for being so long winded): a couple i am friends with got banned from a large shopping mall here for making out in their car, both of them were in the front seats, fully dressed, and it was the malls closing time, like 9-10 pm i think. but the security guards came up, hassled them for a bit, gave out 'Public Indecency' tickets and then banned them from coming back to the mall for 6 months.

stores, malls, etc. they all provide a service, and we have rights to use their services IF we abide by their rules. and as long as their rules are legal (no discrimation, etc) then they have every right to refuse service to someone not following the rules.

Message edited on: 08/19/2004 10:32

Jacqui wrote: "which successful poser community site does not "serve the commercial interests..."? even rosity is about serving the commercial interests of Bondware. so daz's community site is no different than any other community site " Most community sites have to take some money somehow to survive. That gives them a commercial interest to some degree. But Daz existed as a company long before it ever thought of opening a forum, and it makes its own products. Daz is there to promote Daz products. There ARE no Renderosity products; Renderosity is just a marketplace that takes a commission on sales. It doesn't have a product line to promote in the way that Daz has. And since the RMP is 99% Poser, all the people who come to Renderosity for the Rhino community, the Amapi community, etc, don't see any commercial side to Renderosity at all. It's purely a community for them. Is there a flourishing Rhino forum at Daz? If you tell me there is I'll be surprised.

Attached Link: http://www.fredsociety.com/

Oh, yes it is!

In fact, I suspect that "xoconostle" is actually the president of The Fred Society.

Oh, man, a support site for men named Fred. Too funny! So, does "xenophonz" imply "other noises?" :-)

"But in the real world no company can deny a consumer the right to buy their products or shop in their store. Example... If you sued walmart for something, whether you won the case or not, walmart cannot prevent you from shopping in their store in the future, nor can they use that as a basis for preventing you from becomming an employee in the future. Its against the law." Which law and where? In the UK at least, any company has the right to refuse service to anyone, without stating a reason. Likewise, any member of the public can be barred from any store, with no reason given.

Just a note on music - a recorded version of a song can be copyrighted, the notes that make up the song are not copyrighted, but rather published. An artist like Wierd Al does not need permission to remake a song from another artist (though it's still polite to ask) either in it's original form or a varied form. However, once he does, he will need to pay royalties to whoever owns the publishing rights. If he wants to include an actual soundbite or clip from the artists original CD, then he would need persmission to include the copyrighted work (though many musical artists seem to feel it's better to not ask, and then sort it out in court later). As for the oft mentioned situation of Walmart - they would be completely within their rights to ban people from their store. In what seems like an earlier life now :) managing a large retail store whilst in college, people that attempted to shoplift were regualrly banned from the store for a period of at least one year. If they returned they could be subject to prosecution for trespassing (the same situation was carried out in a couple of situations as well). Bottom line, a store is private property. It can choose to sell to who it wants - try standing outside Costco and claim they are voilating your rights since you are not a member and they won't sell to you and see how far you get.

xoconostle: "Don't let false notions lead to a situation similar to your most recently posted render."<< Whoa, what, now you're trying to say I stole something??

Unless he's referring to that other thread where you admitted using an unlicensed copy of P5...

Message edited on: 08/19/2004 15:52

Sephyn - take a look at post number 66, first paragraph.

its a demo. that's my story and i'm stickin to it. but no, methinks he's referring to my most-recent render, as he stated. i'd just like to know how he thinks i stole something in that render. glad becco uk detailed the concept of modifying something into something else, with the destroyed mesh and all that. i'm starting to get confused between what a mesh and wire frame is. or the difference between. i thought a mesh was the collective polygons. at any rate... no one owns a copyright, patent or trademark on the human form. and, for those out there bashing me for being misinformed, i have read the library of congress' site on copyrights numerous times. i refer to it somewhat regularly as i'm primarily a writer and do not want to be accused of plagarism by anybody.

uhm, ok... what about it? post66 is about rendering an animation...

Post 66, first paragraph: "Sephyn, you're obviously not a lawyer. Don't play one on the Internet. You've already admitted in a previous thread that you're using an illegal copy of Poser. Don't make it worse by asserting your right to steal other artists' work."

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=1883683

It ain't a demo, because the demo doesn't have Don and Judy.

Message edited on: 08/19/2004 16:21

I AM NOT STEALING ANYTHING FROM ANYBODY!!!!!!!!

durp - i thought you meant post66 in the main poser forum.

its a demo. that's my story and i'm stickin to it.<< No, it's not. You said that the previous owner of your computer left it on the computer when he sold it to you. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were using a P4 demo, but your referenc to Judy and the fact that in your gallery you mention that your stuff is done with Poser5 says otherwise (There is no Poser5 demo). Besides, you can't save images from the demo, and you can't import props or textures (like that brick wall in your gallery image), plus in the demo you're stuck with the Default Guy, it won't let you load the "nude P4 man" which appears in all 3 of your images. So, it's impossible for that to be a demo.

Heh! Is that the sounds of DAZ, COOLER and CURIOUS LABS leaving on a hunting trip??? Keep up your broadcast Sephyn74, I think they are only just down the street! Maybe they will "play back the Tapes" in your trial, and you can then write a book about it from your jail cell!

if you paid attention to everything i said, instead of just picking and choosing what you want to criticise, then you would have remembered from that post last week that i said poser was already on this computer when i got it, that topic was dropped LAST WEEK. you're beating a dead horse. secondly, i didn't import anything into poser when those renders were created. I DIDN"T KNOW HOW TO DO 90% OF ANYTHING IN POSER when those images were created. I could move the figure around and pose it in various possitions. that's it. then i hit the PRINT SCREEN button, pasted it into paintshop, and converted to a jpg. That brick wall that you think i imported was created using windows paint - it started out as a 1x1 tile of brick (a FREE background texture for websites - its called clipart). I copy/pasted the tile until i had a sheet of bricks big enough, then rotated and angled it in macromedia's fireworks (which my brother bought and installed on here back when he was big on creating a website for his gamer's guild). 90% of the work in my renders were done using fireworks. Lighting was done using paintshop. The only poser material is the figure itself, with the grey background being edited out with the eraser tool in fireworks.

Oh, so many responses but the original post was simply asking about DAZ banning people from elements of their site. The post merely highlighted the 'relationship' between one individual (me) and a corporate entity (daz). I have a simplistic outlook with regards to copyright - I will never condone any breach of copyright law. However, perceived 'grey' areas are there to be explored which is why, in the first instance I posted a topic generated from above in the copyright forum. How come there is all the recent anger between postees - unsettled past differences perhaps?

and the only reason I commented in this thread originally was to helpfully enlighten you, Becco UK, as to how TOS rules on some websites don't always conform to legal practices, but instead create their own laws, because there are very few laws that govern the internet.

Sephyn74 --

A word of friendly advice (and the "friendly" part is sincere):

You aren't doing yourself any favors here -- nor are you endearing yourself to the community at large.

There are those times when the better part of valor -- not to mention wisdom -- is demonstrated by simply walking away from a no-win situation.

In your own best interests, I would strongly suggest that you do this.

and i did just that, until xoconostle implied that i stole something in my last render...

Way up there in post 19 Sephyn74? Indeed the comments you posted had value. The type of modification you raise about copyright though, would (in my limited understanding) be a breach of copyright if you did not first obtain permission from the copyright holder of the original item. Even with permission your copyright would only be for the modications. When I say 'you' and 'your' it is a figurative expression. The grey area I have raised elsewhere appertains to a complete destruction of the original item. It's the grey areas that maintain the lifestyle of the legal proffession!

Sephyn, you still don't get it. You DID steal something in your last render. You've got an illegal copy of Poser 5. Therefore, you don't own Don. He is stolen.

That said, I don't think that's what Dean meant when he referred to your last render. He meant that if you proceed as if your warped and incorrect idea of copyright is correct, you'll end up like your last render: "in prison."

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the authors observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported. Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission. When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney. FL-102, June 1999 ***************************** http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53 (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. (b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

Sephyn74, I am passingly familiar with the "fair use" exception in copyright law. I fail to see it having any bearing on your premise that it's legal to take someone elses original work, modify it & then claim the entire work as your own.

So you're claiming that using unlicensed software is "Fair Use"? And this after you've claimed that it's okay to take other people work and alter it slightly and do what you want with it because it's then "yours"? I can't think of ANY circumstances, educational or otherwise, where using unlicensed software would be considered "fair use". bonni

Ignornace is bliss ;)

Attached Link: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

You got that right Bonni...and quite annoying >:(