Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 365 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: gif, jpg, pdf, png, kmz, rar
Restrictions: 3 per post, maximum total size 1280KB, maximum individual size 640KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
How do people in Korat call the Thao Suranaree Monument in the center of town? (Mundo/Yamo/Supa/Mall):

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Johnnie F.
« on: June 21, 2013, 10:43:52 PM »

Quote from: coolkorat on June 21, 2013, 09:39:56 PM
JF - did you ever get answers to your questions to "Richard Barrow"?

Hi Coolkorat,

no, I haven't gotten any answers to my questions from him, yet. Do you think I should declare the waiting as in vain, and stop waiting? 

I could interpret this silence as him not being ready to lean himself even further out the window for that person, the instigator, who "has brought (this allegation of copyright infringement) to his attention". I can imagine that person not being very far from here. Maybe he should speak up himself instead of attempting to intrigue by emails raising allegations of copyright infringements, or giving instructions what to post about this forum on another forum to a person who should better keep his burgers from burning, playing the Korat farangs' summer games!  ;)

You wrote the name in quotation marks. Do you think it was not RB, that he was impersonated by another person who wants to cause damage to him? I wouldn't rule that out, but a lot more information is needed to confirm that. RB should contact me in that case!

 :cheers

Johnnie
Posted by: coolkorat
« on: June 21, 2013, 09:39:56 PM »

JF - did you ever get answers to your questions to "Richard Barrow"?

For interest, here is a guide to image protection:

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/3056284782/practical-guide-to-protecting-mobile-photos-online?sidebar
Posted by: Johnnie F.
« on: June 09, 2013, 09:04:40 PM »

Hi bangkokstick,

I do care about people posting false accusations of copyright infringement on my forum. That's the topic of this thread. It is common and not forbidden at all to make fair use of information posted on other websites. Passing on of information in the public domain is also completely normal, and of course one cannot claim the copyright of, what he copied himself from other sources.

I can imagine that he also to a large extent legally passes on on his blog what he gained from other websites. What I think intolerable is that he starts with an accusation, but then just plays dead when it comes to delivering details. I'm still waiting for him to point out what he thinks has been copied from his website onto this forum in violation of copyright laws. Five days should have been sufficient, as he already must have had something in mind, when he started this thread.

Posted by: bangkokstick
« on: June 09, 2013, 07:43:24 PM »

This guy keeps writing shxt and copying from others, including pictures, and he believes that we are going to respect him...

Dream on !

Who cares what he is thinking anyway ? Next year he will be back home, hopefully he won't get a new visa !
Posted by: Johnnie F.
« on: June 06, 2013, 07:37:37 PM »

The author is right, TT! I should be paid for my work on the internet, or at least be financially supported in the costs of running this forum by more than just a handful idealists. You find the donate-button at the top right of the forum.  ;D

Society has financed me a fairly extensive education. Now would it be fair, not to give some back by social commitment (I hate the term "honorary work"), but let those skills lay idle, just to give others the chance to make money?

I do use open-source software, but I also donate to their makers once in a while. Society changed with the internet. If you find the right occupation for yourself, you will also find people supporting your occupation freely. It's not all buying and selling anymore!
Posted by: Taman Tun
« on: June 06, 2013, 07:15:54 PM »

Johnnie, You might find this article of interest:-  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/05/digital-economy-work-for-free
Posted by: Johnnie F.
« on: June 06, 2013, 03:53:18 PM »

Google Street View is known to have been forced by court order to blur people's houses upon their demand. So I can imagine with every photo taken in public and published on the internet persons depicted on them also can ask having their faces blurred.
Posted by: Johnnie F.
« on: June 06, 2013, 03:43:16 PM »

We do have some more threads on this topic already:

http://koratfart.com/korat-forums-support-desk/distributing-videos-and-pictures-over-the-internet

http://koratfart.com/expatnews/isaan-paparazzi/

I think even more than those.
Posted by: coolkorat
« on: June 05, 2013, 10:50:49 PM »

On the issue of rights to take photos in public, there is more on the issue in the UK here https://www.facebook.com/pages/Amateur-Photographer-Rights-Watch/198972040156580.

I cannot comment on Thailand: the UK police seem difficult to deal with!

In the UK it seems to be related to terrorism or child protection, with officers applying very wooly rules without clear guidance. In Thailand, a recent case points to 'morality' (i.e. naked models).

Apologies - I seem to be getting even further off thread now!
Posted by: coolkorat
« on: June 05, 2013, 10:38:45 PM »

Interesting that the internet money made recently is related to photos - Instagram, Snapseed et al. Are we all about to remember the value of printed pictures, and online printing will surge?

This seems a little beyond Richard's original post (although more interesting). I would repeat my earlier hope that Richard appreciates we all understand his concerns, and respect his right to his original material. But KF has many free thinkers capable of expressing their opinions, and defending their right to free speech.
Posted by: Johnnie F.
« on: June 05, 2013, 10:22:40 PM »

Quote from: coolkorat on June 05, 2013, 09:54:04 PM
It all goes back to the money question: is there money to be made, or money to be lost.

With Wikipedia for the knowledge bases and Facebook for social media there isn't much room left for blogs and forums to gain a market. One can only hope that there are some people looking for alternatives. If you can do things like setting up your sites and maintenance plus adding content yourself you might have a slim chance. If you can't, and need the assistance of professionals, better not try! It takes years to get a good site together and working to the point where you only need to do maintenance and adding content once in a while. SEO and propagating is also a component that many people have no idea of and just keep wondering why no visitors come to the site.

Good news is that webhosting is almost free today, hardly costs anything, or can be totally free, if you know how to utilize free webhosts like wordpress, blogger etc. Still, I couldn't imagine to rely on income generated by blogging.

More good news is the ease of gathering content. You don't have to run around with camera and notepad anymore, and get your articles done in time for printing, you can surf the web and look for things to copy with slight moderations,  calling it creative commons, making fair use of other sites' content. You can post, when your article is finished, update or correct anytime.

But there are thousands out there trying the same...

If you got connections to some advertisers, you might pull it off, get some money to invest in improvements, expand slowly, recruit more readers etc. If you gotta live on Google Adsense, better forget it!

I just run my websites, blogs and forums to keep myself alive and busy. Once you got some going they're a responsibility you cannot let go so easily anymore. Many dream of selling their blogs or forums etc. Very rarely one gets a penny back from what he invested over the years. But he had a good time, not feeling useless and near dead.
Posted by: coolkorat
« on: June 05, 2013, 09:54:04 PM »

BF

But I think you hit the nail squarely on the head: your friend posts to Youtube in the hope of making money. Similarly, if you take photos of people in a form that would make them models, you would need a model release. It is the point at which the venture becomes commercial that matters.

Simply taking photos of general events is not commercial. But capturing video pranks for financial gain surely is.

It all goes back to the money question: is there money to be made, or money to be lost.

Posted by: Baby Farts
« on: June 05, 2013, 08:50:41 PM »

CK

I said taking pictures and posting them on the internet, meaning the two together, not just taking photos.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  Also, many establishments here do not allow you to take photos, not just restaurants and bars but super markets, mini-marts in petrol stations, etc. They have signs all over the place, but people still do it. 

I have a friend who tries to make money on youtube by posting videos of pranks he does on people.  Every person he wants to feature in one of his videos must sign a waiver of consent.  If not, he cannot use the footage.  This is back in the states, though.



Posted by: sicho
« on: June 05, 2013, 06:55:31 PM »

We need to hear more from Richard, methinks.
Posted by: Johnnie F.
« on: June 05, 2013, 06:09:28 PM »

I think from the first words of this thread "It has been brought to my attention..." we can learn, that actually it wasn't Richard who "ignited" this, that he was probably just used by somebody malicious. So we should not extend this to his disadvantage. We can only speculate, who the malicious person behind this could have been. That's forum life of expats in Thailand! Games, games and games!

Quote from: coolkorat on June 05, 2013, 05:51:55 PM
Clearly this one post has created a significant amount of "behind the scenes" work for you. What I take from this is the need for members/posters to be circumspect when sourcing material elsewhere, and to bear in mind that the moderator does not have the ability to pre-check posts for compliance.

I usually write on my sites: "Copyright in this page is held by xxx.com, permission to copy news and pictures with link/reference to the original location for non-commercial purposes is granted." That solves all problems. Only sometimes I get asked for permission still. I've never declined, neither complained when the blog it got copied to then turned out commercial because of ads on it. :)
Posted by: coolkorat
« on: June 05, 2013, 05:51:55 PM »

Very interesting reading JF: it highlights the complexities of the whole issue of copyright use/ abuse.

Going back to Richard's original post - and assuming this refers to material that he has created and can legitimately claim title to - there would be the question of value: I am not aware of many blogs that become financially valuable (perhaps Belle du Jour - the escort who turned her blog into a book). I recently read Michael Palin's very interesting book on Brazil: like many travel books it reads something like a blog, but isn't. Palin doesn't have a blog, he has a website: http://www.palinstravels.co.uk/

Clearly this one post has created a significant amount of "behind the scenes" work for you. What I take from this is the need for members/posters to be circumspect when sourcing material elsewhere, and to bear in mind that the moderator does not have the ability to pre-check posts for compliance.
Posted by: Johnnie F.
« on: June 05, 2013, 05:36:56 PM »

I think the definition and explanation of the felony "Copyfraud" is a very interesting topic. Therefore here the relevant parts of the article on Wikipedia:

Quote
Copyfraud

Copyfraud is a form of copyright misuse. The term was coined by Jason Mazzone (Associate Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School) to describe situations where individuals and institutions illegally claim copyright ownership of the public domain and other breaches of copyright law with little or no oversight by authorities or legal consequence for their actions.

Definition

Mazzone describes copyfraud as:

    Claiming copyright ownership of public domain material.
    Imposition by a copyright owner of restrictions beyond what the law allows.
    Claiming copyright ownership on the basis of ownership of copies or archives.
    Claiming copyright ownership by publishing a public domain work in a different medium.

Mazzone argues that copyfraud is usually successful because there are few and weak laws criminalizing false statements about copyrights and lax enforcement of such laws and because few people are competent enough to give legal advice on the copyright status of commandeered material.

In the U.S. Copyright Act, only two sections deal with improper assertions of copyright on public domain materials: Section 506(c) criminalizes fraudulent uses of copyright notices and Section 506(e) punishes knowingly making a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration. Section 512(f) additionally punishes using the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove material the issuer knows is not infringing. But apart from these two sections, the U.S. Copyright Act does not provide for any civil penalties for claiming copyrights on public domain materials, nor does the Act prescribe relief for individuals who refrain from copying or pay for copying permission to an entity that engages in copyfraud.

Section 202 of the Australian Copyright Act 1968, which imposes penalties for 'groundless threats of legal proceedings', provides a cause of action of any false claims of copyright infringement. This should include false claims of copyright ownership of public domain material, or claims to impose copyright restrictions beyond those permitted by the law.

Legal scholar Paul J. Heald, in a 1993 paper published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law, explored the possibility that payment demands for spurious copyrights might be resisted under a number of commerce-law theories: (1) Breach of warranty of title; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) fraud, and (4) false advertising. (Wikipedia)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud

To Heald's possibilities of resisting copyright claims I want to add the "prohibition to act contrary to Good Faith". In Thai law section 150 of the Thailand Civil and Commercial Code might apply: "An act is void if its object is expressly prohibited by law or is impossible, or is contrary to public order or good morals."
Posted by: Johnnie F.
« on: June 05, 2013, 04:07:44 PM »

Sorry, coolkorat, it's not as easy. Not every copy or better "passing on of formulated information" is a copyright infringement.

It depends upon the message. Examples:

Quote from: thaiga on January 24, 2013, 03:08:41 PM
Bored with seeing 7-11 everywhere?

Get ready for Lawson convenience stores coming to Thailand in February

richardbarrow.com


Quote from: thaiga on October 27, 2012, 02:11:09 PM
7-Eleven at Don Mueang Airport

Good to see a 7-Eleven flightside at Don Mueang Airport. No over-priced bottles of water here. Buy low-priced snacks while waiting for your flight.

richardbarrow.com


Even if this information was taken from his website, Richard does not have the right to ask for removal from this site, it is information in the public domain, i. e. unavailable for private ownership. Asking for removal would constitute the felony COPYFRAUD and cause damage to the companies Lawson and  7/11.

Besides there are doubts about the origin of pictures he claims copyright for, as they appeared on other websites before his publication. :)

Most information on this niche forum falls under "fair use". Attempting to restrict "fair use" is also COPYFRAUD.

thaiga has added the credits as you can see from the quotes, so everybody can see what this is about. :salute

Quote from: coolkorat on June 05, 2013, 03:52:32 PM
If Thaiga has been using Richard's blog as a source of material, can I suggest it would be honourable of him to identify to Johnnie each of the posts so that they can be removed. It seems very unfair to expect Richard to do this: he could have gone straight to his lawyers and landed this forum with damages and costs.


It cannot be avoided that Richard himself declares specifically for what he thinks he owns a copyright to the extent, to ask for removal from this site. In my opinion he doesn't have any! But I will check, if he tells me specifically. Only then I can determine, whether it is in the public domain or falls under "fair use", or whether Richard even holds a copyright at all, which he doesn't of content he copied from other sites himself, even if he changed words and grammar.

It would have been advisable for Richard to use the "Report to moderator" button to bring any post to my attention he thinks not legitimately posted on this forum. That's a function he even should know from his own forum. I'm pretty sure, vbulletin also has that. ;)
Posted by: coolkorat
« on: June 05, 2013, 03:52:32 PM »

Quote from: Baby Farts on June 05, 2013, 09:45:43 AM
I had a look at your photos just now on some of your blogs.  Again no copyright info.  I also noticed pictures which had people in them, some close up where one could identify who they are.  Did you ask these people if it was okay to post pictures of them on the Internet or ask their permission first?  Some Thais and even expats try to sue people over stuff like that.

You also have lovely photos of Thai food dishes which I doubt you cooked yourself.  Assuming they were taken at a restaurant (which I think they were), did you ask the restaurant permission first to take the pictures and post them on the internet?  Did you copy any of the pictures on your blogs from other web sites? 

I would assume Richard is taking photos in a public place, in which case he does not need permission from any individual to take their picture: many 'celebs' would wish it were the case so they could sue/ control the press. There is a group dedicated to street photography in Thailand, see http://www.streetphotothailand.com/ - clearly there are no restrictions in Thailand as there are in France, and anyone is free to take pictures in a public place and where not prohibited (i.e. near sensitive military or government buildings).

Similarly, he does not need permission to take photos of the food he is being served: the recipe may be a secret, but what it looks like isn't.

But Richard does have the intellectual property rights to what he has created, be it words or pictures. This right is being undermined by the internet, with the likes of Facebook, Google and others regularly trying to claim (i.e. hijack) ownership rights over images and content put on their platforms - where a news corporation finds (say) images of a natural disaster, but then 'cannot find' the copyright owner, they can publish without consequence. Governments are even getting involved and passing laws that erode the intellectual rights of the creator. There is a comprehensive resource on the issue (from a UK and US perspective) here: http://www.bjp-online.com/tag/copyright.

If Thaiga has been using Richard's blog as a source of material, can I suggest it would be honourable of him to identify to Johnnie each of the posts so that they can be removed. It seems very unfair to expect Richard to do this: he could have gone straight to his lawyers and landed this forum with damages and costs.
Posted by: sicho
« on: June 05, 2013, 01:10:14 PM »

Richard, are all of those images and all of that text your own work?
Posted by: Baby Farts
« on: June 05, 2013, 09:45:43 AM »

Quote from: Richard Barrow on June 04, 2013, 08:40:39 PM
It has been brought to my attention that the user "thaiga" and other people have been copying my blogs with pictures and posting on these forums with no credit to me or link back to my blog. I count four blogs taken from my website on this one page alone. It's not really fair for you to just copy and paste my work and let other people believe that it is yours. Blogging is my fulltime occupation. If people don't visit my blogs and click on advertising then I cannot earn my living. Can you please remove all of my copyrighted blogs from these forums.

Thanks

Richard Barrow

Split from thread "why 7-11 the most popular convenience store", renamed and moved to corresponding forum by admin

Richard,

Why don't you watermark your photos with your blog name and whatever copyright info you want to put on them?  A lot of people with web sites do that.  Yes, photos can be edited and cropped, but at least this way it makes it more difficult.  The reason I say this is because there really isn't much mention of copyrights or anything on most of your photos.  In fact, none on your photoblogs.  If you watermark them this may help prevent your photos from being distributed and not getting the reference back to you.

Also, I don't want to sound like a jerk here, but let me play devil's advocate for just a second here.  This is not a personal attack on you. 

I had a look at your photos just now on some of your blogs.  Again no copyright info.  I also noticed pictures which had people in them, some close up where one could identify who they are.  Did you ask these people if it was okay to post pictures of them on the Internet or ask their permission first?  Some Thais and even expats try to sue people over stuff like that.

You also have lovely photos of Thai food dishes which I doubt you cooked yourself.  Assuming they were taken at a restaurant (which I think they were), did you ask the restaurant permission first to take the pictures and post them on the internet?  Did you copy any of the pictures on your blogs from other web sites? 

I brought this up because there is a local expat who resides in Korat who is known notoriously for doing biased restaurant reviews, taking pictures of their food and menus (all pages in many cases) with his crappy smartphone, and posting them on the internet without the restaurant's consent.  He can get in a lot of trouble for doing that.  You might even know this person. 

Anyway, just some food for thought.  I hope my advice about the watermark thing was of use to you.

Cheers.
Posted by: Johnnie F.
« on: June 04, 2013, 09:19:08 PM »

I can understand your concern, Richard, but I need you to tell me which posts are copied from your blog without giving credit or backlinking. I couldn't tell any other way. Can you please send me the links to these posts and the location of the copied material on your blog via PM, so I can check and remove them, or add any lacking credits?

 :cheers

Johnnie
Posted by: Richard Barrow
« on: June 04, 2013, 08:40:39 PM »

It has been brought to my attention that the user "thaiga" and other people have been copying my blogs with pictures and posting on these forums with no credit to me or link back to my blog. I count four blogs taken from my website on this one page alone. It's not really fair for you to just copy and paste my work and let other people believe that it is yours. Blogging is my fulltime occupation. If people don't visit my blogs and click on advertising then I cannot earn my living. Can you please remove all of my copyrighted blogs from these forums.

Thanks

Richard Barrow

Split from thread "why 7-11 the most popular convenience store", renamed and moved to corresponding forum by admin


Thailand
Statistics