VIETNAM FORUM CODE OF CONDUCT

THIGV wrote:

OceanBeach92107 wrote:

expat.com wrote:

The entire concept of this forum is to promote the free exchange of information and ideas. Therefore, everyone has a fundamental right to form and express their own opinions, provided that they comply with the terms of use of the website.

As that applies to recent conversations in The Forum, much that is not specifically codified in the Forum Code of Conduct is inferred, implied or codified in the underlying Terms of Use.

As a whole, it certainly seems to be common sense.

Perhaps I misunderstand but I read your comment as saying that you feel that our rules here are "inferred" or "implied" and simply based on "common sense" as opposed to actually written down.  Do you see this as good?  I certainly do not.  Instead we seem to have some moderators who show a tolerant attitude while others want to crack down on everything.  Or it could be that they are responding to those who anonymously report posts that they disagree with.

Why would you even attempt to make this point, aside from wanting to be disagreeable with me?

You don't even follow the rules that are strictly codified.

That's the reason I refused to reply to your request that I show you a codified rule about copying and pasting info from another site without attribution.

It's right in the terms of use if you know how to read the implications of copyright law and apply them to a given situation.

In fairness, maybe this is an easier concept for me since my business is publishing and copyright law.

I thought and correct me if I am wrong.. any material that doesnt bear a clause stating property of ... Do not copy without written consent etc..

Jlgarbutt wrote:

I thought and correct me if I am wrong.. any material that doesnt bear a clause stating property of ... Do not copy without written consent etc..

It's a good point, though open to some differences in interpretation between all nations' copyright laws and the International agreements under The Berne Convention and The Universal Copyright Convention.

It's not always considered necessary for a copyright notice to be affixed to a copyrighted work in order for the material to retain rights of protection.

HOWEVER, lets look at the rules on this site to determine what our response should be.

A website such as this is a de facto publisher, primarily of its own material (the various articles and even the terms of use/code of conduct, images...even custom fonts and logos). 

On the one hand, they protect their own copyrights by spelling out what can and cannot be done with their copyrighted material.

On the other hand, because they provide a public platform for our contributions, they are also the de facto publisher of our contributions.

So the terms of use spell out our responsibilities when posting content.

By default we all acknowledge that we are posting our own material (our "created works", if you like) whenever we upload a photo or add a comment or create a thread.

So technically, we should not be copying and pasting from other websites, as this website did not originally publish that material and we did not originally create it.

However, there is a "fair use" doctrine which allows for the kind of selective copying and pasting we all do here.

To protect this website and ourselves from liability, we should be adding an attribution or a link (or both) when we copy and paste.

Thus, the terms of use amplify the code of conduct by outlining general legal principles which can then be specifically applied in unique circumstances.

In fairness to THIGV's previous comment, this isn't an exact science, so the interpretations of individual moderators will inevitably come into play.

OceanBeach92107 wrote:

On the other hand, because they provide a public platform for our contributions, they are also the de facto publisher of our contributions.

Isn't the argument that Facebook has used successfully to date been that they are not a publisher but only an enabling platform?   If that argument works for Facebook it should be just as true for Expat.com.

THIGV wrote:

OceanBeach92107 wrote:

On the other hand, because they provide a public platform for our contributions, they are also the de facto publisher of our contributions.

Isn't the argument that Facebook has used successfully to date been that they are not a publisher but only an enabling platform?   If that argument works for Facebook it should be just as true for Expat.com.

I was under the impression that if you choose to make a statement open to be read by the public then as it is already in the public domain by the publishers action then quoting it is ok as long as the publisher has not stated otherwise. ?

Indices wrote:

THIGV wrote:

OceanBeach92107 wrote:

On the other hand, because they provide a public platform for our contributions, they are also the de facto publisher of our contributions.

Isn't the argument that Facebook has used successfully to date been that they are not a publisher but only an enabling platform?   If that argument works for Facebook it should be just as true for Expat.com.

I was under the impression that if you choose to make a statement open to be read by the public then as it is already in the public domain by your own action then quoting it is ok ?

I think you can quote a verbal statement but I don't think that is true if the statement is printed,  Newsmen quote people all the time with only "he said" type of attribution.  OB is the one concerned with copyright law, so I guess he may know.

OceanBeach92107 wrote:

It's not always considered necessary for a copyright notice to be affixed to a copyrighted work in order for the material to retain rights of protection.

A website such as this is a de facto publisher, primarily of its own material (the various articles and even the terms of use/code of conduct, images...even custom fonts and logos). 

On the other hand, because they provide a public platform for our contributions, they are also the de facto publisher of our contributions.

By default we all acknowledge that we are posting our own material (our "created works", if you like) whenever we upload a photo or add a comment or create a thread.

I can attest to the notice-not-required on copyrighted work.  The notice is a reinforcement, not a requirement in regards of materials published on the Internet, especially when they're published on a platform such as this website.

My personal experience:  Between 1999 and 2006, I was an active member of a website called Virtual Tourists.  My contributions to the site amounted to 200+ original articles written about cities and countries my husband and I've visited, plus another 200 reviews on restaurants, hotels, tourist sites, etc.  There wasn't any notice affixed to my works, but as they're published on VT, the copyright belonged to VT as stated.

A couple years after the site closed, I came across two of my original articles published on the Internet without attribution to me or to VT.  The first one which I wrote about my town in Umbria became the entire cover story of an e-zine on Italy.  In the second one, I wrote about my husband's childhood relationships with people who later became Orange County legends.  A website on OC incorporated part of that article into their series on the history of Laguna Beach, together with a photo I took of one of the subjects of the article. 

My daughter who always served as our attorney in all legal matters contacted both websites.  The e-zine pulled the article, and the OC history website credited me as the source.

Ciambella wrote:

The e-zine pulled the article, and the OC history website credited me as the source.

That's good but did they send you a royalty check?   

THIGV wrote:

Indices wrote:

THIGV wrote:

Isn't the argument that Facebook has used successfully to date been that they are not a publisher but only an enabling platform?   If that argument works for Facebook it should be just as true for Expat.com.

I was under the impression that if you choose to make a statement open to be read by the public then as it is already in the public domain by your own action then quoting it is ok ?

I think you can quote a verbal statement but I don't think that is true if the statement is printed,  Newsmen quote people all the time with only "he said" type of attribution.  OB is the one concerned with copyright law, so I guess he may know.

I have first hand experience of the complicated publishing laws. Bear with me and I will try and explain.
Some years ago I was involved in a long 2 yr legal battle with the UK Environment agency. A proposal for a project on Dartmoor ( a protected area ) was rejected because it included the addition of a species of Perch. The EA argued that the species was not 'Indigenous' to the area. After several successful and then overturned appeals it was finally heard in the High Court in London.
I had found references to Perch fossils having been found on the site that dated around 750,000 years ago so I asked the judge just how bloody indigenous does it have to be ? After a 3 day recession the judge ruled that my evidence was inadmissible because  I had quoted it from a reference book without first getting the publishers permission to quote it !

THIGV wrote:

That's good but did they send you a royalty check?   

Nah.  The e-zine was owned by an expat, probably didn't last very long.  I didn't pay attention to the OC history website, but I doubted if it made a lot of money.

Indices wrote:

I had found references to Perch fossils having been found on the site that dated around 750,000 years ago so I asked the judge just how bloody indigenous does it have to be ? After a 3 day recession the judge ruled that my evidence was inadmissible because  I had quoted it from a reference book without first getting the publishers permission to quote it !

My daughter shared with me the many cases she knew that were lost in court for the same reason.  In your example, it wouldn't be just the reference book that was needed to be presented, but also the original source whence the reference book cited its finds.

Ciambella wrote:

Indices wrote:

I had found references to Perch fossils having been found on the site that dated around 750,000 years ago so I asked the judge just how bloody indigenous does it have to be ? After a 3 day recession the judge ruled that my evidence was inadmissible because  I had quoted it from a reference book without first getting the publishers permission to quote it !

My daughter shared with me the many cases she knew that were lost at court for the same reason.  In your example, it wouldn't be just the reference book that was needed to be presented, but also the original source whence the reference book cited its finds.

Perfectly correct.
I appealed, yet again, and was granted the chance to present the evidence. I went to court several months later armed with all the necessary permissions and photos of the fossils etc.
I won the case  . . . . .
Then the EA appealed on the grounds that the project would 'enrich' the sterile stream devoid of life that passed through the site.
Suffice to say their appeal was refused and the judgement was given in my favour and I was granted costs much to the delight of my Barrister and his legal team.
The sting in the tail was that it had taken almost 3 1/2 years to get through the courts and the government grant funds for the project were no longer available.

It seems the SPAM BOTS have been drawn to this thread by the word "copyright".