Copyright discussion

[lisharts]

MODERATOR NOTE: Off topic split. Originating thread: http://forum.chowchow.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9494


Here's one I ran across on facebook which might be of interest.

Sorry guys, pictures removed. If you really want to see I suggest you ask the owner if you're allowed.

[Tippsy'smom]

Cute pup, lisharts. The coloring reminds me of a blue merle Aussie that doesn't have any solid white.

The first "chow" in this thread reminds me of a karelian bear dog.

[Judy Fox]

Very interesting post .

(Kiwani - lovely to see you back)

[Victory]

Very interesting post .

(Kiwani - lovely to see you back)

That's an old post from Kiwani, Judy. This is a very old thread. I thought it was new too.

[lisharts]

Yes sorry for bumping but I came across it whilst googling and thought people might find the picture interesting. I originally found them on a Chow Chow facebook group but can no longer find it to link, I've had them saved on my hard drive for months now. Comments from the owner insisted he was purebred. Not sure either way but he does certainly look very Chow. Stunning little guy, sadly I can't seem to find anymore pictures of him.

[Victory]

The first one, Atomic looks like a chow, but there are things about his build I don't like. His back seems too short. Chows are supposed to be "cubbie" but his back doesn't look right, (could be the angle of the picture) and his hind end looks weak. The second piebald chow looks much better to me.

[charlee318]

Here's one I ran across on facebook which might be of interest.

I am the owner of this chow & you did not have my permission to post his picture. I demand that you remove it immediately. And for everyones information this is a healthy pure bred chow. He's not only reg. as a pure bred, his dad has been DNA certified. I posted his picture on fb for my friends & family. I will not have it stollen.

[OriginalRecipe]

Well said "Charlee" And I am the owner of the sire and Dam of the dog to whom she stole the pictures. I am not his breeder I aquired them AFTER he was born, but the sire is a Merle and he is registered, and OFA certified as well as DNA certified, soon to be DNA'd for a 2nd time. As for the garbage I am reading about Merles and health, before making comments on such topics its best you educate yourselves before making random comments. The rule of thumb with breeding any Merle coats is to breed a solid self color to a Merle not 2 Merles together. Solid x Merle reduces the risk of any issues associated with Merles, ie deafness (dalmations) Blindness, (due to eye color change and sensitivity). As for the major issues associated with life longevity, that has never been associated with a Merle. The fact that Atomic died young in the 1950's is not uncommon at all for a dog of his age. No more so than any other dog who posed a chance of catching a disease and dying. He could have died from a number of things but as there is no autopsy report, making random speculation is just ignorant, we can say he died young and leave it at that. Merle chows exist, they are gorgeous and truly special. To say they do not have the right to exist is no less wrong than to say a person of a certain size, religion, or race should not exist or breed. Its no less wrong to say than, if someone were to say a person of 2 different races should not reproduce. If the chow conforms to physical stature of the standard, and the coat has mutated, then accept it. If I must throw it out there, its no more far fetched than breeding overly heavy headed, overly heavy boned chowpeis and passing them off as true chows. If its meant to be, then mind your own business. And for those who show, SO DO I, and I guess you don't have to worry for the time being about losing in the show ring by my Merles.
For more information See wiki, here is an excerpt from THEIR report: or if you are as lucky as I am and have access to vast veterinary journals read up there.
Genetic basis

Merle is actually a heterozygote of an incompletely dominant gene. If two such dogs are mated, on the average one quarter of the puppies will be "double merles" and a high percentage of these double merle puppies could have eye defects and/or be deaf. Knowledgeable breeders who want to produce merle puppies mate a merle with a non-merle dog; roughly half the puppies will be merles without the risk of vision or hearing defects associated with double merle dogs.

In January 2006 scientists at Texas A&M University announced the discovery of a mobile genetic unit called a retrotransposon, responsible for the merle mutation in dogs.[2]

A phantom merle is one with such small patches of merle—or none at all—that it appears to be a non-merle.[3] In America, a dog with the phantom merle coloring is described as being "cryptic for merle."
[edit] Health issues

The merle gene is associated with congenital deafness, with merle dogs being more likely than other dogs to be born deaf. Dogs with two copies of the merle gene (homozygous merle) have an even higher chance of being born deaf. [4] The suppression of pigment cells (melanocytes) in the iris and in the stria vascularis of the cochlea (inner ear) leads to blue eyes and deafness, respectively. An auditory-pigmentation disorder in humans, Waardenberg syndrome, reflects some of the problems associated with heterozygous and homozygous merle dogs and genetic research in dogs has been undertaken with the goal of better understanding the genetic basis of this human condition.[2]

Dogs who are homozygous for the merle pattern gene often have visual and auditory deficits.[3] These dogs are sometimes referred to as 'double merle' and sometimes incorrectly referred to as 'lethal white.' Ocular defects include micropthalmia, conditions causing increased ocular pressure, and colobomas, among others.[5] Double merle dogs may be deaf or blind or both, and can carry ocular defects in blue or colored eyes.[6]

Deaf, blind, and deaf and blind dogs can have good lives when properly cared for. There are a variety of internet groups dedicated to supporting carers of such dogs. Deaf dogs can compete successfully in agility[7] and there are many anecdotal reports of deaf/blind dogs earning their Canine Good Citizen certification, working as therapy dogs, and competing in dog sports like tracking or Nosework.

[lisharts]

Here's one I ran across on facebook which might be of interest.

I am the owner of this chow & you did not have my permission to post his picture. I demand that you remove it immediately. And for everyones information this is a healthy pure bred chow. He's not only reg. as a pure bred, his dad has been DNA certified. I posted his picture on fb for my friends & family. I will not have it stollen.

You also sent me a rather snotty message by e-mail rather than be polite about it. Despite what you think I'm not some advanced hacker, those photos were shared on a public chow chow group (I suggest you check what your friends are sharing!). Honestly I've never receieved such a ridiculously rude private message, if only your manner were as beautiful as your dog. For the record I think your dog is gorgeous, which I would have told you straight out had you even tried to speak to me.

[lisharts]

Well said "Charlee" And I am the owner of the sire and Dam of the dog to whom she stole the pictures.

Don't be so dramatic. I suggest you check facebook because I'm obviously not the only person who "stole" these photos. I also suggest you read about privacy of your photos on facebook if you don't want them to be shared, make them private! You make me sound like some mad hacker. I just saw the pics of a beautiful dog on a public facebook group and passed them along in a discussion that I believed to be relevant. As for whether it's pure, how on Gods green earth would I know one way or another? I said that the owner or whoever posted the photo said it was so passed the message along when I posted.

But as you all wish I have removed the photos so now no one will be able to see your beautiful dog, mission achieved!

[Sarahloo]

if only your manner were as beautiful as your dog.

Perfect!!!

[lisharts]

if only your manner were as beautiful as your dog.

Perfect!!!

I wouldn't have minded but I'm in the process of moving house and Iogged my e-mail as I'm waiting for some important messages and I was confronted with this nonsense. I think I took offence because I just dispair for the human race sometimes. Why can't people try being nice first? I'm a completely reasonable person, had they just sent me a nice polite message along the lines of "I think there's been a mixup, we'd prefer these pictures weren't shared, would you mind taking them down please?" I would have no questions asked but instead I get things like.

How dare you put him in such a neg. light.

We all thought he was lovely!

Telling me I "stole" them like I'm some sort of cat-burgler sneaking through the seedy Chow underbelly and flogging the pictures along on the black market. I've never stolen anything in my life, I'm one of those mugs that still buys CDs when all my friends just download music illegally. I'm pathetically boring and straightlaced lol. But hey I guess I get to be a rebel today, huh? Oh no wait I took the pictures down, I guess I am boring afterall!

[OriginalRecipe]

Yes he is lovely and speaking of manners, you might have asked nicely prior to taking them. So where are your manners or does that only go one way for you? Here is a sentence you can learn " Your boy is very lovely, there is a threat on a chow site about him, I'd love to share his pictures, may I share them?"
She is a very private person as you can tell she would have said no with quite certainty. We protect our Merle's rather than exploit them as some might do. Making them public is NOT something that any of us wished to do, the only reason I commented is in support of a dear friend, and to set the record straight about the health of Merle's. Thank you for thinking he is lovely, he truly is, but next time ask before you take, if you did that anywhere else, it is considered stealing, digital pictures are no different, you do not take without asking.

[lisharts]

Yes he is lovely and speaking of manners, you might have asked nicely prior to taking them. So where are your manners or does that only go one way for you? Here is a sentence you can learn " Your boy is very lovely, there is a threat on a chow site about him, I'd love to share his pictures, may I share them?"
She is a very private person as you can tell she would have said no with quite certainty. We protect our Merle's rather than exploit them as some might do. Making them public is NOT something that any of us wished to do, the only reason I commented is in support of a dear friend, and to set the record straight about the health of Merle's. Thank you for thinking he is lovely, he truly is, but next time ask before you take, if you did that anywhere else, it is considered stealing, digital pictures are no different, you do not take without asking.

You have a lot to learn about facebook it seems. I will say once more so you don't come into this nasty situation again because it has clearly upset you both deeply - set your photos to private and friends only. DO NOT post photos on public groups if you do not wish them to fall into the public domain. You are creating problems for yourself and then having to run around policing the internet because you failed to protect your photos. It is not stealing when they become public domain. Learn about facebook please. I'm saying this but we all know the real reason you're both here is because his purity was questioned, it was very clear from the message I sent that was the problem. Had we all gone wubbly over the picture alone I'm sure this wouldn't have been such a massive issue.

You didn't support a dear friend, you ran to gang up which was very clear given the time frame between events. I was given no time to respond to the e-mail before you both ran on here demanding for photos to be removed. It was a harsh over reaction to a fellow human being, who as I have already said would have been far more accommodating had the private e-mail not been so ridiculously rude. You can try to spin that anyway you want. I hope you're kinder to dogs than you are to people.

EDIT - http://www.facebook.com/privacy/explanation.php
Also when you post to groups that does not restrict the content you post to friends only.

[Sarahloo]

She is a very private person as you can tell she would have said no with quite certainty. We protect our Merle's rather than exploit them as some might do.

Yes, we can tell from your posts that you're very nice people!

I hope you're kinder to dogs than you are to people.

Seconded!

[Auddymay]

"To say they do not have the right to exist is no less wrong than to say a person of a certain size, religion, or race should not exist or breed. Its no less wrong to say than, if someone were to say a person of 2 different races should not reproduce. If the chow conforms to physical stature of the standard, and the coat has mutated, then accept it."

Regardless of the debate regarding the use of a FB photo, this statement is just plain wrong. Dogs are not people. If you wanted to 'breed' people to a standard, you would be considered racist. To breed a Chow to a flaw, any flaw- is also wrong. We recently had a guy here with a Chow that had icy blue eyes. He also wanted to breed it. To say if the confirmation is okay, coat should be accepted is just as ludicrous. Arguing that others breed for heavy heads does not make you any more right in perpetuating substandard animals. Do they have a right to exist? Of course they do. Nobody is saying otherwise. Are you being a responsible breeder? The answer would be no.

[Merlin]

DO NOT post photos on public groups if you do not wish them to fall into the public domain

this is a just a note from someone who works in marketing.
What you are saying is absolutely not true. Public domain does not give you or anyone else the right to reproduce images somewhere else,in any fashion, or to re-distribute them wherever they set fit.
In doing so, you actually put this entire server and the website owner(s) at risk of being shut down for copyright infringement and the bill can be a huge one.

If you don't own an image and don't ask for permission to reproduce it, you have no business doing so - this has nothing to do with the fact it's on facebook or anywhere else on the internet.

If this person asked for his/her images to removed the website owner should comply and quickly, because for each day that the image remains, the suitor can literally claim up to any amount in damages. To fail to remove copyrighted images is brazenly foolish, and opening oneself up to a lawsuit including the owners/operators of this website. Copyright infringement is a universal law and absolutely applies to the internet, and it certainly includes pages out of copyrighted books.

[Zhuyos mom]

Here's one I ran across on facebook which might be of interest.

I am the owner of this chow & you did not have my permission to post his picture. I demand that you remove it immediately. And for everyones information this is a healthy pure bred chow. He's not only reg. as a pure bred, his dad has been DNA certified. I posted his picture on fb for my friends & family. I will not have it stollen.

You also sent me a rather snotty message by e-mail rather than be polite about it. Despite what you think I'm not some advanced hacker, those photos were shared on a public chow chow group (I suggest you check what your friends are sharing!). Honestly I've never receieved such a ridiculously rude private message, if only your manner were as beautiful as your dog. For the record I think your dog is gorgeous, which I would have told you straight out had you even tried to speak to me.

Although it was nice to see a beautiful looking chow in our time, thank you for taking down the photograph, lisharts. Too bad they were too ashamed of sharing it with us (or greedy). But as they say, different strokes for different folks. BTW, under the "fair use" clause in the US copyright doctrine, you posting the photo on this site was acceptable and would not have violated any laws and not have burdened you or put this site in any legal trouble [source: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html]. This site is a non-profit site. Use of the photograph is covered under 107.1. Also, if you still have the PM that was sent to you, please forward to me. Its contents may be a violation of this site's terms of use and the mods should review the document.

[Merlin]

BTW, under the "fair use" clause in the US copyright doctrine, you posting the photo on this site was acceptable and would not have violated any laws and not have burdened you or put this site in any legal trouble

The Fair Use policy in the US applies to images that people own, or images that they t hemselves TOOK, it does not apply to copyrighted material , images or anything else that has property rights.
I think you are mis-interpreting this.

[Sarahloo]

BTW, under the "fair use" clause in the US copyright doctrine, you posting the photo on this site was acceptable and would not have violated any laws and not have burdened you or put this site in any legal trouble

Don't encourage what you're saying , because you're very wrong about what your saying. You can't assume that property is NOT copyrighted unless you ask. It's normally implied that it is, unless otherwise noted, so your information is not correct. ( or at least you are mis-interpreting it)

So once again, you are right and everyone else is wrong! Shocker!

[Merlin]

So once again, you are right and everyone else is wrong

No. Fair use applies to people who OWN or TOOK the picture, not to people who steal pictures or use copyrighted pictures without the owner's permission.
Not the same thing.

[valerierichard27]

actually copy right is illigal only if you sell or intend to, other than that its ok, all my tattoos are from pictures that i found online, and i have had asked a lawyer about it and he said that only if i intend to sell its illegall

by the way, this post is about a chow not the law.....once again off topic

[Merlin]

k, all my tattoos are from pictures that i found online, and i have had asked a lawy

Here, read this little determined genious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement


The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998) and the European E-Commerce Directive (2000) provide online intermediaries with safe harbor provisions, known as mere conduit principle in the Directive. Online intermediaries who host content that infringes copyright are not liable, so long as they do not know about it and take actions once the infringing content is brought to their attention. However, questions have arisen in relation to online intermediaries that are not hosts, particularly in the context of copyright infringement through peer-to-peer file sharing networks. Such intermediaries may be regarded as enabling or assisting in the downloading and uploading of files by users, and may include the writer of a peer-to-peer software, the websites that allow users to download peer-to-peer software, and in the case of the BitTorrent protocol the torrent site website and the torrent tracker. These intermediaries do not host or transmit the files that infringe copyright, though they may be considered to be "pointing to" the files. Since the late 1990s copyright holders have taken legal actions against a number of peer-to-peer intermediaries, such as Napster, Grokster, eMule, SoulSeek and BitTorrent, and case law on the liability of internet service providers (ISPs) in relation to copyright infringement has emerged primarily in relation to these cases.[12]

The decentralised structure of peer-to-peer networks does not sit easily with existing laws on online intermediaries' liability. The BitTorrent protocol established an entirely decentralised network architecture in order to distribute large files effectively and recent developments in peer-to-peer technology towards more complex network configurations are said to have been driven by a desire to avoid liability as intermediaries under existing laws.[13] While ISPs and other organisations acting as online intermediaries, such as libraries, have been given protection under existing safe harbor provisions in relation to copyright infringement, peer-to-peer file sharing intermediaries have been denied access to the safe harbor provisions in relation to copyright infringement. Legal action in relation to copyright infringement against peer-to-peer intermediaries, such as Napster, are generally brought in relation to principles of secondary liability for copyright infringement, such as contributory liability and vicarious liability.[14]

[valerierichard27]

if you would read your stupid link you would not look soo stupid right now

Downloading copied music is legal in some countries, such as Canada[15] and The Netherlands[16], Spain[17] provided that the songs are not sold.

MRS know it all....

[Merlin]

Read the entire article you moron ( that's if you can read)