Copyright Law (as opposed to myth)

Quote
Kraellin wrote: notice specifically the use of the term 'tangible'.

Yeah.....and that's exactly what the new EULA will do.....give authors "tangible" copyrights.....

Good post!!!

here's another one that is often misunderstood. this is taken from the same page as the last one:

Quote

Copyright Registration In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following: Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim. Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.

notice very carefully the last line here!

and here it is again, this time from a different page off the u.s. copyright site: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq...l#register

Quote
Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work.

Quote

Kraellin wrote: well, when i pointed out 'tangible', i was trying to point out that presets are in a tangible form. the filter itself is in a tangible form, but anything not yet rendered by a given filter is NOT in a tangible form yet. and i would therefore assume that all presets are already copyrighted by the authors. therefore, their presets of their filters would need no further copyright protection.

Assumed or not, without it being more clearly defined in the EULA, various online marketplaces don't see texture sellers in violation of copyrights or EULA if they sell images made from presets. Without change in definition, filter authors don't have a leg to stand on if they wish to ask people to stop selling their textures.

They can attempt to argue it, BUT, the whole point of EULA change is to not have to fight and argue about it.

For example, in one of the cases of texture sales on renderosity, renderosity's response was that they were in communication with FF, and that the official word from FF is that selling textures made from presets was not a violation.

Once that happens, it doesn't matter how you or I or saint Peter thinks how this should be interpreted. Sure, one may want to try to go to court, but your average filter maker probably has no desire or resources to do that. End of story.
Fiter makers need more protection at this level, and EULA does that.

A change in EULA wording clears it all up. Filter maker sees someone selling images from their presets, and doesn't like it... he has the basis that noone can easily dispute to sey, hey, you need to stop that.

Look at the above scenario if proposed EULA changes were in effect:
Renderosity contacts FF and asks if it's a violation of EULA. FF says, yes, selling unbodified textures made from presets IS against EULA. End of story.
No need for attorneys lawsuits or personal interpretations of copyright law details.

ah, i found the 'poor man's copyright' i was talking about in another thread. it's on this page: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq...ml#poorman and reads thusly:

Quote
I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it? The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.