Consequences for copyright infringement

[Tornadic Thoughts]

You can hold on to your big dose of shame as far as I'm concerned, @cherryblossom , et al, as I've had more than enough of that doled out to me by others in real life, thanks. I don't think asking questions for clarity is anywhere near the same as causing trouble, but as with everything else in life, we each have our own perceptions.

Not everyone absorbs, retains, or translates info in the same ways it is delivered, and questions, especially amidst changes taking place, are usually a welcomed and natural part of any process. I doubt if folks who are desperately seeking help in the moment they happen upon a place that feels incredibly helpful make time to read all policies and procedures before clicking to join. Perhaps in hindsight, but very likely not initially.

If anything, I think this serves as a good, albeit painful, lesson on how blindly, mindlessly, and trustingly many of us, including self, use and consume things, including the world wide web. Placing blame and shame serves no purpose, especially on a site dedicated to helping people climb out of a lifetime of feeling shamed for the actions and wrongdoings of others.

 

[cherryblossom]

You can hold on to your big dose of shame as far as I'm concerned, @cherryblossom , et al, as I've had more than enough of that doled out to me by others in real life, thanks.

I have no idea which members caused @anthony to make the decisions he has. But some people have clearly caused issues, which have left a whole community vulnerable, so yes, they should feel responsible, whether they feel shame for that is up to them. I have PTSD, and I have felt shame for things completely beyond my power. I have also felt shame for things which I could have prevented, that were well with in my power. There is a big difference.

Asking questions for clarity is very different from challenging and aggressive behaviour.

I doubt if folks who are desperately seeking help in the moment they happen upon a place that feels incredibly helpful make time to read all policies and procedures before clicking to join. Perhaps in hindsight, but very likely not initially.

And that has always been, and probably will continue to be an issue. But the forum has to protect itself. At the end of the day if you are accepting a policy but don't read it, then the problem lies with you alone.

Placing blame and shame serves no purpose, especially on a site dedicated to helping people climb out of a lifetime of feeling shamed for the actions and wrongdoings of others.

Are you saying that because this site is dedicated to survivors and supporters of PTSD that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions?

 

[lostforgottensoul]

, it does not seem like we are "no longer protected by myptsd" (yet),

Yes it does. Refetence the phrase "your content" and the word "you" in that quote.

Or this quote:

If someone takes your content and puts it in their book, you have to chase the copyright, as you own your content. You have given a perpetual license to MyPTSD for our use. You haven't licensed your content to a book author -- thus you have to instigate copyright proceedings against them yourself.

*bolded for emphasis

Thus, MyPTSD has nothing to do with people coming on here, as of yesterday, wanting to place content in their book. Admin will not get involved nor will Anthony and it will be your responsiblity to chase that down yourself and take legal action yourself. MyPTSD is Switzerland = neutral, as of yesterday.

 

[Tornadic Thoughts]

Are you saying that because this site is dedicated to survivors and supporters of PTSD that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions?

Nope. Not at all. I'm saying it felt as if you were shaming all of those who were asking questions.

Being one of the people who asked a question made it feel as if the shame was purposely pointed in my direction.

If someone purposely causes trouble, then yes, by all means they should be held accountable regardless of the arena.

 

[cherryblossom]

I'm saying it felt as if you were shaming all of those who were asking questions

Not at all. But I can see how my wording in my post could be misinterpreted. Apologies ... I was referring to people who have confronted, argued and caused problems, not those who have asked legitimate questions for clarification.

 

[dulcia]

Thanks for clarifying, @lostforgottensoul. I missed the 'this happened yesterday part' and was in a 'this will be set in motion in the near future' frame of mind.

 

[Friday]

Now, there is no need for admin or moderators to get involved in any copyright issue, we own our own copyright now, so it's up to us as individuals to protect our content.

We will still be enforcing copyright. We are simply no longer protected by copyright. 2 entirely different issues.

 

[anthony]

I read in one of @joeylittle's earliest posts that quoting other members within the site is okay. Does that still need any sort of attribution? (i.e. Link to thread, inclusion of member name, etc.)

I'm quoting your content within the site. Attributed. But no, if the content is within the site, you do not need attribution specifically because all content posted is licensed to MyPTSD for use, including reproduction as we deem fit. The quote feature is part of MyPTSD.

Are we able to have access to edit previous (diary) posts

Not unless you have the appropriate permissions.

 

[joeylittle]

@tiredtexan - to close the loop on your diary question:

As @anthony said, you can only edit what is allowed within the editing window.

If you would like to go through and make sure you have your own copy of things that may be deleted, I'd encourage you to do so.

We will not be removing any links. We will only take quotes that are longer than the new parameters. We won't just take some of the quote, we will take all of it; so, as I suggested, make copies for yourself into a word doc or some other program.

We will not penalize for anything that was posted before the 5/25/2017. You don't need to worry about getting the one-strike for any of that.

 

[Deleted member 8714]

YELLOW: Excerpting content belonging to others.
If you did not create the content you are posting, you must adhere to the following:

• Song Lyrics: One to four lines only. You may link to the rest if you like.

Hi joeylittle,
If I'm writing a book and include any lyrics to a song which is not mine I'll be sued. I must get permission from the publishing company for use of the song's lyrics. Why is it legal on myPTSD to post one to four lines of lyrics?

Here's a link about this issue for writers:
How to use lyrics without paying a fortune or a lawyer

 

[joeylittle]

@Incongruous - because MyPTSD is not a publication looking to sell copies. Your book is. Therefore, you'd need to secure permission and, depending on the substance of the quote you used, negotiate a royalty percent for the songwriter or a flat fee.

 

[anthony]

Why is it legal on myPTSD to post one to four lines of lyrics?

There's a good reason why what you're quoting is under YELLOW, meaning caution. As @joeylittle stated above, adding that you have used the word "legal" which we have not used. In fact, @joeylittle used the word "Yellow" and "Caution" are to be applied, because there are differences in how copyright is sought when determined against its use.

There are different levels of applicability for individuals and corporate ventures.

Its an apples vs orange comparison from a legal viewpoint.

The use of a line or so from a song, correctly citing the original source and linking to the full source version at an official owned version, is correctly adhering to copyright law, remaining roughly within the 5 - 10% margin of acceptable use. Again, "Yellow" as it gets complicated.

We've all copied and pasted online. The problem is the law is now caught up and now supporting copyright owners as it should. DMCA is not a requirement, just a nicety to get copyright removed quickly, but you can just go the legal route if money is lost and if your claim is solid, as the copyright owner, you will win.

An example is a person writing about PTSD on their blog. They grabbed my PTSD Cup image from Google images and used it. They cited MyPTSD as the source for the image. They didn't ask to use my work, which I created in a graphics program. They refused to remove it. I went a more legal route, they were forced to remove it by their hosting company within 24hrs or their entire blog would be closed. It is my image, they didn't ask to use it. They just assumed they could use it and cite the source. They were wrong. If they were making money from use of that image, I would have won in court too, if it got that far.

My point is that text is treated differently to images, which is treated differently to video and so forth.

Everything outside of what you explicitly own the rights to, becomes "Yellow" nowadays online.