Was: This is NOT a Zeppelin bend. NOW: Copyright discussion

[xarax]

.

[SAI Peregrinus]

If the picture has been posted elsewhere you know that you can always use an

Code: [Select]

[img] tag to show it right? No need to re-upload, no chance of copyright violations, etc. Hyperlinks are the thing that makes the web the web after all.

[admin]

Hyperlinks are the thing that makes the web the web after all.

However, under UK law, if the owner of the linked image or page requests that you remove the link or image, you must do so. Copyright still exists - even on the Web.

[Mike in MD]

Under American common law and also (I believe) under UK common law, if an owner does not explicitly claim a copyright, then one does not exist. In a famous example, an artist (whose name I don't know) created the smiley face but never claimed a copyright on it.  Now everyone uses them without permission and without payment.  Correction: it is registered in some countries, but I don't think many royalties are being collected.  And my business law education is now out-dated (sob): Wikipedia says that prior to 1989 a claim of copyright (by use of the symbol) was needed in the US, but no longer.  That shows you when I took the course.  But there is a general "free limited use" provision. 

[SS369]

Does anyone know where the picture(s) can be viewed? A link perhaps?

[Dan_Lehman]

The Signal-to-Noise ratio of this forum has taken a sorry dive of late,
with faster keyboard activity unimpeded by mental preparation or merit
of posting at all.

Now, here we have burned several posts over some unknotty issue of
copyright, whose assertion frankly surprises me --so the image is here
again, and ... ?  Why care about that?

And the OP complains about some issue of danger, without the slightest
evidence of that, except if the "danger" is the sullying of some concept
of what a "Zeppelin" knot is (a name given to Rosendahl's bend by some
magazine headline writer, of all things)!  That danger is not the sort that
usually concerns or in any way injures people.

The "stolen"/removed/cited image is pretty, with backlit rope nicely
captured, et cetera (from this amateur photographer's eye), BUT
it does little to well present the knot in question --as all the interesting
(and apparently, to one, provocative) goings-one (of the small red
cord with the worn-white rope) happen around the back side of it,
alas.  Inkanyezi, flip that thing around --point the white tail away and
let's see the red cord's play!

Having put your own personal body weightedly upon this threatening
structure and survived without injury, I presume that you'll not be
taking action against yourself; the rest of us won't hold our breaths
until someone does, either.  Now, maybe in some case involving
high-strength cord with old-fashioned rope such that some similar
(maybe not quite so) large discrepancy in diameters can reasonably
exist with some significant force, we will see ... ?  ... failure ?!
That, at least, should be the point XaraX roused us for,
though I fail to see it made in any detailed, compelling way.

But, frankly, in my opinion, such diameter differences don't suggest
ANY "bend", but a line-to-big-stuff hitch of some sort --what I've
considered messenger-line hitches (even if by some rigorous rules
of classification these fall under the *end-2-end* class).  Heck, it might
even be how we come to view this very knot structure, with some
kind of eye towards a different mechanics than the latter class should
have?!

--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

XaraX, you are beyond redemption here:

1) THIS thread's OP is you complaining of a knot not being
the "RZ" --as I'll shorthandedly name it--, citing another thread
and apparently echoing the image; furthermore, you deride
that alleged non-RZ knot as dangerous and the poster as somehow
ignorant of RZ knots and finer points of knot knowledge.
And that we and the innocent reader of the other post are
in danger if we use that knot.

1a.) You are wrong in the case of the knot, which as Derek & I
have understood from the beginning, is just what it was said to
be; although, yes, the aspect presented in the image didn't make
this clear (the image was coupled with words and frankly I didn't
disbelieve the words from what OF the alleged RZ variant was
shown --there was no contradiction, if no clear confirmation).

1b) You are now somehow trying to say that no one could have
recognized the truth of the words from the image --which is a far
cry from your presumed recognition of a definite knot to be
declared (1) non-RZ & (2) dangerous (nb: these conditions
are not synonymous/coextensive) !

2) Your claim of the other image/post being modified subsequent
to your outcry here is bogus as shown clearly by the forum data
on each post --that msg. was posted about 7 hours prior to your
starting this thread, and had NOT been modified --the uploaded
image is as it was; a replacement, as you seem to allege, would
show as a msg. modification (we don't here have URLinks to
some outside source which then could be modified w/o changing
the forum post).

3) You have never shed a single bit of evidence against what knot
you might have thought that other post to show, that knot you
took this thread to warn against:  you are wrong on the point
of what the other was; and in any case just silent on what exactly
might be wrong with what you thought it was --except in some
implication that it the knot isn't an RZ variant than we must beware.

4) Now you admit to what the knot is and that it isn't dangerous,
it is an RZ variant, et cetera.

 - - - - - - - -

It was quite an exposition of dangers of ignorance, but in fact
this world has proceeded in that way on a great many fronts
(as few are so expert in understanding of most if not ALL of
what they do in their lives --and the "experts" one can see
assuming a changing and sometimes contradicting set of
axioms by which they articulate their expertise.

Tonight I photo'd a set of fisherman's knots in the groundlines
of a lobster-fishing boat; I doubt that the tyers & users of those
knots have the sort of understanding implied possible (and even
desirable if not necessary ).  The *knot knowledge* of
this industry (should we be so bold as to cast this boat's
evidence as representative of it --that is bold) is that
<this> <works> and nevermind <why...> .  We might
strive to do better, by some means of our best imitation of
science, but that is likely to come merely as some bit
of high-falutin' talk w/o influence on their activity, to our
satisfaction and their amusement or scorn.  It is their
lobsters we'll be eating.

--dl*
====

[WebAdmin]

I respectfully request anyone with comment to make which does not strictly relate to the form of the knot in question to withold their comments for a period of 2 days to consider them in leisure.  If there is comment to make concerning the form of Zeppelin-Rosenthal-type bends, it may be preferable to begin an entirely separate thread in order to keep the thread moderate and courteous.

Regards

Glenys Chew
Webadmin.

[admin]

Under American common law and also (I believe) under UK common law, if an owner does not explicitly claim a copyright, then one does not exist.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect in respect to UK law.

[DerekSmith]

Under American common law and also (I believe) under UK common law, if an owner does not explicitly claim a copyright, then one does not exist.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect in respect to UK law.

Please cite references for your claim that this is incorrect - or is this just your opinion.

Derek

[Sweeney]

I did some research on copyright a while ago and I can confirm what our Webmistress says - there is an automatic creation of copyright in the UK and there is no mechanism to "claim" it other than to assert that it has been infringed - see the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988. In the USA copyright arises the moment the work is created in the same way as in the UK (and most other countries) -  it can but need not be registered for copyright to apply but it must be registered if infringement is to be claimed (see Federal Regulations covering copyright).

Barry

[DerekSmith]

   My personal opinion, for what is worth, is that we should not act according to the letter of the law , but according to higher moral values, the essence of the law . According to those values, the same in US and Europe, rights of creators are protected as much as material properties of owners. If the owner of a picture does not want his picture to be reproduced somewhere, for whatever reason, we must respect this, and he has the right to request this picture to be removed. Based upon my opinion, if Inkanyezi, for whatever reason, claimed his right to have his picture removed from my thread, Webmistress was obliged to follow his right without asking the reasons. So, I believe that Webmistress was right to delete the picture, as it has happened. My 2 pence opinion...
    

While I respect your opinion that a creator of a picture has a moral ownership over its use, I would argue that there is an as yet higher moral principle which needs to be considered here - that of GIFT.

When I create a picture and then upload that picture to this forum, I am in effect gifting that image to the members and readers of this forum, with the explicit intention of it being used for the furtherance of our field of knotting.  I cannot therefore rightly complain when a user of this forum reproduces or even edits my image for that purpose - I no longer have a right to stipulate how that gift will be used.  I agree that to take my image and claim it to be their own would be wrong, but that is no what has happened here.

All that has happened here is a a case of 'It's my ball and you can't play with it that way' and a referee with a 'trigger happy delete key'.

Once again, it is an example of the principle that moderation should be the very last resort - not the very first.

Derek

[[Inkanyezi] gone]

   My personal opinion, for what is worth, is that we should not act according to the letter of the law , but according to higher moral values, the essence of the law . According to those values, the same in US and Europe, rights of creators are protected as much as material properties of owners. If the owner of a picture does not want his picture to be reproduced somewhere, for whatever reason, we must respect this, and he has the right to request this picture to be removed. Based upon my opinion, if Inkanyezi, for whatever reason, claimed his right to have his picture removed from my thread, Webmistress was obliged to follow his right without asking the reasons. So, I believe that Webmistress was right to delete the picture, as it has happened. My 2 pence opinion...
     

While I respect your opinion that a creator of a picture has a moral ownership over its use, I would argue that there is an as yet higher moral principle which needs to be considered here - that of GIFT.

When I create a picture and then upload that picture to this forum, I am in effect gifting that image to the members and readers of this forum, with the explicit intention of it being used for the furtherance of our field of knotting.  I cannot therefore rightly complain when a user of this forum reproduces or even edits my image for that purpose - I no longer have a right to stipulate how that gift will be used.  I agree that to take my image and claim it to be their own would be wrong, but that is no what has happened here.

All that has happened here is a a case of 'It's my ball and you can't play with it that way' and a referee with a 'trigger happy delete key'.

Once again, it is an example of the principle that moderation should be the very last resort - not the very first.

Derek

I'm sorry that the whole issue lost track completely. My first post in this thread was a request to xarax to remove my image because he had no right to use it in the way he did. When he responded with snide remarks, I reported the post, not as a first action, but in order not to clutter the forum with more impertinent posts, and the image was removed by admin. I couldn't fathom that this simple matter would result in mud-slinging beyond reason as has gone on here. I might have been naive, but am less so now.

The image indeed was taken of a "zeppelin" type bend, with dissimilar lines, where a large part of the turn of the thinner one around the end of the larger is hidden behind the bulk of the much larger rope. There is no such "mistake" as repeatedly claimed; I have not taken any picture of hitches to an overhand knot, but the image was done very close to its posting on the forum:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2159.msg15415#msg15415

The EXIF data shows that the last modification of the image was made 2010:12:11 12:14:42. The post was done December 11, 2010, 12:21:23 PM, less than seven minutes after the image was processed. Although I can edit EXIF in any image on my computer, I don't have access to those that are in the forum database. No edit has been done to that posting since then. Anyone with an EXIF viewer can confirm this by checking the image. The image is repeated below, taken from the database of the forum. If you look at it closely, you might notice that the turn the red line takes around the end of the larger one can be traced with some difficulty where it is almost parallel to the standing part of the large line where it curves around its end. There is no such mistake as claimed by xarax, and I don't think the "Practical Knots" board is the right place for this kind of quibble.

[Transminator]

Is this a kindergarten or a knotting forum?

The only thing that gives it away is the level of eloquence.

[Dan_Lehman]

freezing a near-ghost post (all that remains of the OP) :

[Image removed. Please do not post images unless you own the copyright or have the owner's permission.]