copyrighted material

Let me just state that I think Pacomartin has always used his material in a legitimate manner. In my opinion, as long as you fully state where it originally came from you're fine. If you get a letter from the original writer, then you should stop. I think it's kind of ridiculous to use the full force of the law against someone who stated the entire source. For just a laugh, here is the epitome of illegitimate use:

Rip off: http://izismile.com/2010/06/16/celebrities_and_their_physical_defects_17_pics.html
Real thing: http://screenteamshow.com/blog/?s=deformities&submit=Search

The rip-off didn't even try to fake it, leaving the original web site's wetmark. In all fairness, it was a comment on digg that led me to this realization.

Quote: pacomartin

The parent company of the Last Vegas Review Journal and Las Vegas sun has brought 74 blog owners up on copyright infringement charges.

Although I put up a copyright notice anytime I cite an article, it may be better not to reproduce whole articles, but to reference them in your own words. You can still link to the site where the original article can be read. Respect their intellectual property.

Read this

Quote: pacomartin

The parent company of the Last Vegas Review Journal and Las Vegas sun has brought 74 blog owners up on copyright infringement charges.

Although I put up a copyright notice anytime I cite an article, it may be better not to reproduce whole articles, but to reference them in your own words. You can still link to the site where the original article can be read. Respect their intellectual property.

I get a big question on the copyright infringement stuff. Is it legal to "link" a map or a photo directly within my post? Copying and pasting the entire article onto a post IS illegal. I understand that. Maps or photos can NOT be directly copied onto a post. They must be "linked" by using the "Img-Commands"; thus, I can not be charged and penalized for "linking" them illegally, right guys?

For example, I can link a monorail map and Marilyn's photo within my post by typing: img=
and add on these links:

http://www.lasvegas-how-to.com/image-files/img_las_vegas_monorail_map.gif and

http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx298/amber3024/Marilyn%20Monroe%20Icons/mm.gif

I will get the map and photo linked directly within this post like these:






I look forward to reading your replies.

Here is a current article http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/righthaven-on-life-support

I read somewhere . I think in a NOLO book, that patents can not be copyrighted. Is that true?

I don't get it.

Why doesn't Righthaven treat the situation like any "normal" case, and file suit in the name of their clients, in this case the newspaper / media companies?

They can still get paid fifty percent via a contingent fee agreement with their clients.

Why go through the seemingly unnecessary step of trying to assign the claim to Righthaven, so the suit can be brought in their name only?

I can only suspect that the newspaper companies (clients) do not wish to risk the potential legal liability of successful counterclaims or claims for sanctions, and / or they don't want the negative publicity filing suit in their own names might cause.

Curious.

More info http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/sep/09/righthaven-says-it-might-have-file-bankruptcy/

Quote: pacomartin

The lawsuits now number 26 (for $75K apiece). See the article in the Las Vegas Sun .Copyright Las Vegas Sun, 2010, All Rights Reserved. So the lawsuits now total $2 million.

Righthaven isn't faring too well these days:

U.S. Marshals ordered to seize Righthaven assets
Adam Hochberg Nov. 3, 2011 11:25 am
Las Vegas Sun | Law.com
A federal court has ordered U.S. Marshals to seize $63,720 in assets from Righthaven – the embattled Law Vegas company that files copyright infringement lawsuits. Righthaven tried to make money by acquiring the copyrights to newspaper articles – mostly from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, then suing websites that reprinted them. . . . But many of the suits backfired. In several cases, judges ruled that Righthaven didn’t control the copyrights. Other courts concluded that the websites had fair use to reprint the stories. Righthaven has been ordered to reimburse defendants more than $200,000 in legal fees. . . . Righthaven may appeal Tuesday’s seizure order, which came after Kentucky website owner Wayne Hoehn prevailed in a lawsuit Righthaven filed against him.lvrj