Board Logo
« Drone Discussion #10 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jun 27th, 2017, 09:06am


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: Drone Discussion #10  (Read 36622 times)
Gort
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 0
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #570 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:08pm »

on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:59pm, Masker33 wrote:
If any claim this as their work and seek copyright protection they will NOT be the original creators. The hoaxers maybe, but as to the originators of the work, fakes. Hoaxers can hoax without their own original material.


A copyright on an original fake

why not
User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #571 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:10pm »

Jeddyhi is exactly right. Since "Isaac" said the LAP was of "alien" origin and put them in public domain, they fall under the "Scène à faire" doctrine.

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

The genre being "alien", they are not fully protected from copyright because weird symbols, geometry, and fonts are expected when depicting an alien scene.


Even then, they are protected under "Fair Use" because they only used less than 5% of the original design, and not even 90% or 100%. They can easily claim they were "inspired by" the LAP which is legal under Fair Use.

Once again.... no case Tomi, and Lev (Masker), no case.

User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
SiddReader
Guest
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #572 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:12pm »

Hehe! grin

Indeed! I could admit, that it was mine now and nobody would believe me.

But I think, Kris said this already two years ago.

Maybe you believe me, that those cars are my cars. One should never give up and try again! wink
User IP Logged

DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #573 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:13pm »

on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:39pm, tomi01uk wrote:
It will not go that way if it does happen. What you describe is not the process.

Hi Tomi,

But as even the Drone believers suggested it’s not inconceivable that the hoaxer has at some point took part in the conversations and if what you allege about the multi0million dollar payout is remotely accurate then I think it’s fair to say Dell would rigorously pursue evidence to the contrary. In a court of law I suspect even the Isaac documentation could be proven to be after the fact as the alien-glyphs first appeared on the Chad craft. But my point being if as Gort suggested we were to file then certainly in my case my digital footprint across the internet is so inextricably connected to the discussing the Drones then I wholly expect that this would be used to cast reasonable doubt on any such claim. Realistically it would have to be argued that the creators were oblivious to the organic enigma the Drones became otherwise, and as already mentioned, you would have to provide a reasonable explanation as to why being so backward in coming forward to claim prior ownership. Somehow the originators of the Drone images don't strike me as people who are clueless when it comes to PC's & the internet.....

While I agree with you that it would likely never play out exactly as Jed joked about, i.e. that the physical scenario presented may never in actuality exist, the reasoning behind such a hypothetical conclusion would have to, wouldn’t it?

on Oct 7th, 2009, 4:59pm, Masker33 wrote:
If any claim this as their work and seek copyright protection they will NOT be the original creators. The hoaxers maybe, but as to the originators of the work, fakes. Hoaxers can hoax without their own original material.

Catch22 or yet another ‘get-out clause’?
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #574 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:17pm »

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:10pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Jeddyhi is exactly right. Since "Isaac" said the LAP was of "alien" origin and put them in public domain, they fall under the "Scène à faire" doctrine.

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

The genre being "alien", they are not fully protected from copyright because weird symbols, geometry, and fonts are expected when depicting an alien scene.


Even then, they are protected under "Fair Use" because they only used less than 5% of the original design, and not even 90% or 100%. They can easily claim they were "inspired by" the LAP which is legal under Fair Use.

Once again.... no case Tomi, and Lev (Masker), no case.



Never... never does a creative work go on a product line to market that line for profit and become "fair use".

DrDil, your use of the LAP, which is all I am are refering to in this copyright issue, would be considered fair use, IMO.

Getting caught in the crossfire won't even happen to you probably, because you are using examples of the LAP in your displays of commentary about it. IMO

I think both you and Jeddyih are right that the big defense from Dell will be that the LAP was put out into public domain. What Isaac said will be worthless, because only the copyright symbol would factor for the defense of the creators defending their work.

How this could be explained, I don't know, but the time limitation if I remember correctly is 2 years to defend and register from first infringement.. I may be wrong here in specifically how much time, but there is a statute of limitations for registering and defending.

« Last Edit: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:25pm by tommi01 » User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #575 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:22pm »

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:17pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Never... never does a creative work go on a product line to market that line for profit and become "fair use".


Ooooohhh really,

Prove it!!

I guess you know nothing about the T-Shirt industry. Nothing about the decal/sticker industry. Nothing about graphics, or advertising industry. Actually you just proved you know NOTHING about ANYTHING right now.

You are so clueless.

I can prove you wrong in a million ways right now, and in the future you will say "You are right, my wrong." AS USUAL.

Tomi it's time for you to check into a retirement home.
User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #576 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:26pm »

Tomi, when someone looks at a creative work like the LAP, and they get inspired by it, and create something very similar but not exactly the same. That is Fair Use....

That new creative work they created while being inspired by the LAP is now their own property, and they can use it to advertise, market, or sell anything they want.

How the freak do you not understand that, and with your so called "knowledge" of copyright, how do you not know how this works?? My 10 year old nephew understands this.....

You know nothing Tomi, and you prove it every day.
User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #577 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:27pm »

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:22pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Ooooohhh really,

Prove it!!

I guess you know nothing about the T-Shirt industry. Nothing about the decal/sticker industry. Nothing about graphics, or advertising industry. Actually you just proved you know NOTHING about ANYTHING right now.

You are so clueless.

I can prove you wrong in a million ways right now, and in the future you will say "You are right, my wrong." AS USUAL.

Tomi it's time for you to check into a retirement home.


Never.. go take your favorite version of Mickey Mouse and put him on tshirts and coffeecups then get back to me later after you see what happens .. ok?

User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #578 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:31pm »

Mickey Mouse is trademarked you idiot!

Do you still not know the difference??

Geeez you are so ignorant.
User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #579 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:32pm »

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:26pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Tomi, when someone looks at a creative work like the LAP, and they get inspired by it, and create something very similar but not exactly the same. That is Fair Use....

That new creative work they created while being inspired by the LAP is now their own property, and they can use it to advertise, market, or sell anything they want.

How the freak do you not understand that, and with your so called "knowledge" of copyright, how do you not know how this works?? My 10 year old nephew understands this.....

You know nothing Tomi, and you prove it every day.


Bone up on what "fair use" is for and think about this as well:

3.Copyright in the derivative work
Provided it is significantly different to the original work the derivative work will be subject to copyright in it's own right, and you will own copyright to the new content you have created as a result of your actions. Bear in mind that to be subject to copyright the creation of the derivative work must itself be an original work of skill, labour and judgement; minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify.


http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works.en.htm
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #580 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:35pm »

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:31pm, neveleeleven wrote:
Mickey Mouse is trademarked you idiot!

Do you still not know the difference??

Geeez you are so ignorant.


Exactly the point.. You think you can take "creative work" that doesn't belong to you or you are not authorised to use and print it on tshirts to market and sell? You are seriously wrong here .. not me.
And if you have to resort to calling me names that just defines the limits of your small brain, IMO.
User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #581 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:38pm »

3.Copyright in the derivative work
Provided it is significantly different to the original work the derivative work will be subject to copyright in it's own right, and you will own copyright to the new content you have created as a result of your actions. Bear in mind that to be subject to copyright the creation of the derivative work must itself be an original work of skill, labour and judgement; minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify.


Now you are proving yourself wrong and you don't even realize it!

The symbols from Alienware ARE significantly different. There is nothing that suggests that it was a 100% copy and paste. They had to create the work with their own skill, labour, and judgement. They added their own style to it too.

When it says "minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify" they are talking about taking the actual LAP itself, and changing 1 or 2 symbols and then using it.

What Alienware did, is they looked at the LAP, and they created an entirely knew LAP with their own setup, their own lines, their own FONT. The only similarity is that it is made of arcs, and gears/cogs, and geometric shapes.... There is absolutely NOTHING that is 100% the same.

Get a damn clue...

User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3940
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #582 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:42pm »

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:38pm, neveleeleven wrote:
3.Copyright in the derivative work
Provided it is significantly different to the original work the derivative work will be subject to copyright in it's own right, and you will own copyright to the new content you have created as a result of your actions. Bear in mind that to be subject to copyright the creation of the derivative work must itself be an original work of skill, labour and judgement; minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify.


Now you are proving yourself wrong and you don't even realize it!

The symbols from Alienware ARE significantly different. There is nothing that suggests that it was a 100% copy and paste. They had to create the work with their own skill, labour, and judgement. They added their own style to it too.

When it says "minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify" they are talking about taking the actual LAP itself, and changing 1 or 2 symbols and then using it.

What Alienware did, is they looked at the LAP, and they created an entirely knew LAP with their own setup, their own lines, their own FONT. The only similarity is that it is made of arcs, and gears/cogs, and geometric shapes.... There is absolutely NOTHING that is 100% the same.

Get a damn clue...



Your significant difference and mine may vary.. I see nothing significantly "original" in design from the design of the LAP.
User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #583 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:46pm »

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:35pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Exactly the point.. You think you can take "creative work" that doesn't belong to you or you are not authorised to use and print it on tshirts to market and sell?


No I never said that you freaking moron. Learn how to read.

I said you can look at "creative work", get inspired by it, and create your own work that looks similar. That falls under Fair Use.

However if the creative work is "TRADEMARKED" that means specific elements, precise measurements, can not be recreated.

Do you understand the difference between Trademark and Copyright? If you do, tell me then...I want to see if you know.

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:35pm, tomi01uk wrote:
You are seriously wrong here .. not me.
And if you have to resort to calling me names that just defines the limits of your small brain, IMO.


Nope, I am right here, you are the clueless one.

Resorting to name calling does not define the limit of ones brain, thinking that means you know nothing about psychology either.

It defines the limit that one can withstand someones bullshit and ignorance before they feel the need to tell the other person they are bullshit and ignorant, stupid and fucking plain retarded.

How dare you even mention my brain, it is obvious I have knowledge in 1000 more subjects than you, and you will never be able to comprehend half the things I know.

You don't even know what a "Letigraphonate" is...hahahahahahahaha
« Last Edit: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:52pm by neveleeleven » User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #584 on: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:51pm »

on Oct 7th, 2009, 5:42pm, tomi01uk wrote:
Your significant difference and mine may vary.. I see nothing significantly "original" in design from the design of the LAP.


Tomi, you are a blind old hag. You are decaying. Your mind is incapable of seeing true reality. You have no clue about light, or shadows.

I will prove it too...

Remember a long time ago I showed a picture of knife? I asked if it was real or fake... You said "it is obviously fake".... well guess what... it was a REAL KNIFE, and I took a picture of it on top of my washing machine to make it look like it was in a 3D environment. I even messed with all of your minds and told you true 3D graphics tricks to get your mind to see it different. Your mind is what controls your vision, and I know how to manipulate both. You got played.

You swore up and down it was a fake knife, but you were wrong. Completely wrong. It's funny I waited over a year to tell you that.

Get your eyes and mind checked.

« Last Edit: Oct 7th, 2009, 5:55pm by neveleeleven » User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 18,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls