Re: Announce: A2Command 1.0 - Full Release

[Mike <mike@apple2scans.net>]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:42:52 -0800 (PST), Stavros Karatsoridis
<skaratso@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 25, 8:33�am, Steven Hirsch <snhir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/25/2011 05:46 AM, A little note for Google wrote:
>>
>> > Dr. Ken B.
>>
>> > Stripping peoples PDF's and copyright notices does not make them
>> > yours. �You have stripped all of Brian Wiser's messages from the
>> > Applied Engineering documents and still claim that you did them. �The
>> > only problem is the AE Brochures are not an AE Product. �They were
>> > produced by Brian specifically forhttp://AE.AppleArchives.com
>>
>> > Not crediting people for their work is sad and removal of copyright
>> > messages is a crime. � Those items were produced in 2010 by Brian and
>> > you have been asked to remove them numerous times. �Since that has not
>> > work, we will shift this to a public arena. �Many people put in a ton
>> > of work to make these items available. �QUIT CLAIMING THEM AS YOURS.
>>
>> I'm just an onlooker with no dog in this fight, but I'm fuzzy about the exact
>> creative work that you're claiming copyright on. �Unless you have had the
>> rights to the original AE documents granted to you by AE (Dan and Ann Pote) or
>> its successor, I assume you're speaking of your copyright claim to an
>> aggregation or presentation of these documents. �If so, I can appreciate the
>> amount of work that went into such an endeavor and can certainly understand
>> your annoyance at having another party simply lift it whole. �But if you in
>> fact do not have a license grant to reproduce those original documents, then
>> your presentation of them on your website would in itself be a copyright
>> violation.
>>
>> I'm not going behave like a certain (thankfully) long-departed denizen of csa2
>> and preach about the immorality of copyright violations against entities that
>> either no longer exist or if they do could care less. �I am not offended and
>> to the contrary find both sites to be helpful and useful.
>>
>> But, can we be careful about calling each other criminals? �This entire
>> situation seems primarily a matter of common respect and courtesy.
>
>I think that the big issue is that someone is taking a work produced
>by another and changing it to make it look like their own.
>
>Scanning old documentation is a HUGE undertaking. It takes a lot of
>time and effort to do properly. Now, I personally don't care if
>someone takes a scan that I made and uploaded for the community at
>large to enjoy and posts it to their own distribution site. Many of
>the documents in question have been posted to multiple sites anyway.
>
>The issue is someone else taking credit for that undertaking. The
>heavy work is in the scanning itself. For someone to go in after the
>fact and remove notices that say, "scanned by so and so" and then
>adding a "Downloaded from site x" to every page is a slap in the face
>of the person who actually did the hard work in the first place.
>Because when people visit the freeloader's site they think it's the
>freeloader who did all the work.
>
>I don't mind if a scanned work gets picked up by multiple sites, but
>IT IS NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT *NOT* okay to alter that scanned work IN
>ANY WAY! Not to remove credit placed by someone who actually did the
>work, and not to advertise the site it was downloaded from.

Thiis is exactly why I don't bother to watermark the stuff I scan.
Lately, I have been posting them as "secured" (though this proves how
easy it is to get around PDF security) to prevent certain other sites
from adding their own mark to what I did and trying to pass it off as
theirs, but frankly, it isn't worth the aggravation and annoyance I
know I would feel if I saw someone strip out whatever marks I had
added.  Also, trying to read a document around a scanner's marks bugs
the heck out of me.

I don't own the copyright to the works I scanned - even in the cases
where I obtained specific permission to scan and post; the copyright
remains with the whomever owns it.  I'm not so sure reproducing a
document in a different form counts as a derivative work, but IANAL.

My solution has been to make the scans as high-quality as my equipment
and time will allow, and then "advertise" by posting here and
elsewhere about availability.  Someone else suggested this in another
post further up this thread as well, and it seems to have worked for
me.  My Computist scans are everywhere these days but no one doubts it
was me who did them.  I hope this the case as well with the other
stuff I've been doing lately and posting at http://apple2scans.net ;)

- Mike
http://apple2scans.net
http://6502lane.net