Electrical certification for imported goods

[T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz]

Lennier wrote:

I merely said that I have the RIGHT to make COPIES - the copyright!

The right to copy does not equal the copyright

--
Dave Hall
http://Dave.net.nz
We have Hangman, Pacman, and Space Invaders

 

[Lennier]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:27:31 +1300, harry wrote:

I was speaking of my right to duplicate (a copyright) my own original
certificate, issued by the Polytechnic.

Its not a copyright. Its a fair use granted by the copyright holder.

It is a copyright - a right to copy.


Lennier

--
Newsman - on CD piracy: "Entertainment meets Geekery meets Vengeance. It's
unstoppable. A match made in Heaven."

 

[T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz]

Lennier wrote:

I merely said that I have the RIGHT to make COPIES - the copyright!
The right to copy does not equal the copyright

Tell William Byrd that when he received the right to publish music and he
would have laughed at you!

"William Byrd" ???

--
Dave Hall
http://Dave.net.nz
We have Hangman, Pacman, and Space Invaders

 

[Lennier]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:12:07 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:

I merely said that I have the RIGHT to make COPIES - the copyright!

The right to copy does not equal the copyright

Tell William Byrd that when he received the right to publish music and he
would have laughed at you!


Lennier

--
Newsman - on CD piracy: "Entertainment meets Geekery meets Vengeance. It's
unstoppable. A match made in Heaven."

 

[Lennier]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:04:32 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:

"William Byrd" ???

You not heard of him?


Lennier

--
Newsman - on CD piracy: "Entertainment meets Geekery meets Vengeance. It's
unstoppable. A match made in Heaven."

 

[T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz]

Lennier wrote:

"William Byrd" ???

You not heard of him?

no I "not heard of him"
well, not off the top of my head, and no time to google.

--
Dave Hall
http://Dave.net.nz
We have Hangman, Pacman, and Space Invaders

 

[Lennier]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:41:35 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:

Lennier wrote:
"William Byrd" ???

You not heard of him?

no I "not heard of him"
well, not off the top of my head, and no time to google.

One of the first with a copyright from the government to use the then new
printing press to produce printed copies of sheetmusic for sale.

He also was one of the finest of English composers.

Lennier

--
Delenn: "Do not look any further. All life is transitory - a dream.
We all come together in cyber space, in the end of time. If I do not
see you, I'll see you again soon - at the place where no Shadows fall."

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Lennier" <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.27.04.41.46.881234@TRACKER...

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:41:35 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:

Lennier wrote:
"William Byrd" ???

You not heard of him?

no I "not heard of him"
well, not off the top of my head, and no time to google.

One of the first with a copyright from the government to use the then new
printing press to produce printed copies of sheetmusic for sale.

He also was one of the finest of English composers.

Lennier

Not only do you have *NO* idea what 'copyright' is, you are too clueless to

listen and learn.
*Plonk*

Ken

 

[harry]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:03:42 +1300, Lennier wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:27:31 +1300, harry wrote:

I was speaking of my right to duplicate (a copyright) my own original
certificate, issued by the Polytechnic.

Its not a copyright. Its a fair use granted by the copyright holder.

It is a copyright - a right to copy.

They are not the same thing.
You have the right to copy a redhat disk, you do not have the copyright.

 

[Mainlander]

In article <pan.2004.01.27.02.03.42.289643@TRACKER>,
notanyspam@nospam.invalid says...

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:27:31 +1300, harry wrote:

I was speaking of my right to duplicate (a copyright) my own original
certificate, issued by the Polytechnic.

Its not a copyright. Its a fair use granted by the copyright holder.

It is a copyright - a right to copy.

Copyright is actually an ownership right - a lot more.

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/

 

[Lennier]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:06:45 +1300, Mainlander wrote:

It is a copyright - a right to copy.

Copyright is actually an ownership right - a lot more.

Then why don't you call it "ownershipright" instead of "copyright"?

If I possess the right to copy something, then I in a very real sense
possess the copyright.

Possessing the copyright to something doesn't necessarily mean that
one has ownership of that which one has the right to copy.


Lennier

--
Newsman - on CD piracy: "Entertainment meets Geekery meets Vengeance. It's
unstoppable. A match made in Heaven."

 

[Rod Speed]

Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.27.02.03.42.289643@TRACKER...

harry wrote

I was speaking of my right to duplicate (a copyright)
my own original certificate, issued by the Polytechnic.

Its not a copyright. Its a fair use granted by the copyright holder.

It is a copyright - a right to copy.

You can keep chanting that pathetic little mantra till the
cows come home if you like, child. Changes nothing.

Read the legislation where copyright is actually DEFINED, cretin.

Bet they only gave you that pathetic little excuse for a certificate to
get rid of you when they realised what a terminal bonehead you are.

 

[Rod Speed]

Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.27.11.10.57.551844@TRACKER...

Mainlander wrote

It is a copyright - a right to copy.

Copyright is actually an ownership right - a lot more.

Then why don't you call it "ownershipright" instead of "copyright"?

Because thats how the law has developed, you stupid pig ignorant child.

If I possess the right to copy something, then
I in a very real sense possess the copyright.

Legally thats pig ignorant drivel.

Possessing the copyright to something doesn't necessarily mean
that one has ownership of that which one has the right to copy.

Not a fucking clue to its pathetic excuse for a nick.

 

[Mainlander]

In article <pan.2004.01.27.11.10.57.551844@TRACKER>,
notanyspam@nospam.invalid says...

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:06:45 +1300, Mainlander wrote:

It is a copyright - a right to copy.

Copyright is actually an ownership right - a lot more.

Then why don't you call it "ownershipright" instead of "copyright"?

Because that's the legal definition, idiot


--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/

 

In aus.electronics harry <xx@xx.xx> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:01:14 +1300, Lennier wrote:

I was speaking of my right to duplicate (a copyright) my own original
certificate, issued by the Polytechnic.

Its not a copyright. Its a fair use granted by the copyright holder.

Copyright owners don't grant fair use, the legislation decides what is
considered fair use and that is granted regardless of what the copyright
owner decides.

The use of the school logo, official seal and other such things comes
under trademark legislation which has nothing to do with copyright.

- Tel

 

[harry]

telford@xenon.triode.bogus.au wrote:

In aus.electronics harry <xx@xx.xx> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:01:14 +1300, Lennier wrote:

I was speaking of my right to duplicate (a copyright) my own
original certificate, issued by the Polytechnic.

Its not a copyright. Its a fair use granted by the copyright holder.

Copyright owners don't grant fair use, the legislation decides what is
considered fair use and that is granted regardless of what the
copyright owner decides.

The use of the school logo, official seal and other such things comes
under trademark legislation which has nothing to do with copyright.

- Tel

Thank you for correcting that obvious mistake, you must feel a rosy glow
now.
However the copyright holder can grant additional rights
The fact that the document copyright stays with the polytech is the issue
that Lennier disputes.
The logos may be trademarked or not but the document is still copyrighted to
the polytech or the issuing qualifications authority.
Publishing the certificate in a book would be a breach of copyright unless
permission was given.
Photocopying the certificate for a resume is fair use.

 

In aus.electronics harry <xx@xx.xx> wrote:

telford@xenon.triode.bogus.au wrote:

The use of the school logo, official seal and other such things comes
under trademark legislation which has nothing to do with copyright.

The logos may be trademarked or not but the document is still copyrighted to
the polytech or the issuing qualifications authority.
Publishing the certificate in a book would be a breach of copyright unless
permission was given.

Interesting borderline case here, I've seem martial arts certificates that
include complex calligraphy and decorative designs and would comfortably
pass as artistic works. However, looking at the certificate I got for completing
a Bachelor's degree, it contains a few sentences in fairly plain font,
some signatures, a logo and a university seal. It couldn't get through the
door as a literary work under any stretch of the imagination and unless
restraint and austerity are considered artforms in themselves it could
hardly be a work of art (and if minimalism is a legitimate artform then
a blank sheet of paper might be deserving of protection, or better than that,
no paper at all -- there is the ultimate statement indeed, claiming copyright
protection for the simplicity and purity of an artwork containing nothing at
all, then charging with infringement all the other artists who produce nothing).

Note that straightforward forms do NOT get awarded copyright protection
(and there are precedents for this) some additional creative input must be
demonstrated over and above a simple form.

I can't think of any other category of work that might apply here.
You couldn't even regard the certificate as a factual compilation because it
is only presenting one simple fact.

My guess is that unless we are talking about certificates that are considerably
better decorated than the average, copyright protection is going to be weak
at best, and probably not apply at all. Trademark protection would be far
stronger in most cases, forging the university seal would also be a workable
accusation if someone was producing identical certificates.

As for publishing your own certificate in a book (presumably a biographical
work), I think it would probably be legal from a copyright standpoint (this
is not legal advice) but you would have to be careful not to use the logo
as a promotional device for your book because of trademark issues (e.g. a
complete study guide with ready-to-go diploma from a recognised university
would obviously be a trademark violation).

I'm wondering if anyone can find a case where anyone has been accused of
copyright infringement for publishing or selling copies of their own diploma?

- Tel

 

[Ken Taylor]

"harry" <xx@xx.xx> wrote in message
news:dHdUb.20767$ws.2766088@news02.tsnz.net...

telford@xenon.triode.bogus.au wrote:
In aus.electronics harry <xx@xx.xx> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:01:14 +1300, Lennier wrote:

I was speaking of my right to duplicate (a copyright) my own
original certificate, issued by the Polytechnic.

Its not a copyright. Its a fair use granted by the copyright holder.

Copyright owners don't grant fair use, the legislation decides what is
considered fair use and that is granted regardless of what the
copyright owner decides.

The use of the school logo, official seal and other such things comes
under trademark legislation which has nothing to do with copyright.

- Tel

Thank you for correcting that obvious mistake, you must feel a rosy glow
now.
However the copyright holder can grant additional rights
The fact that the document copyright stays with the polytech is the issue
that Lennier disputes.
The logos may be trademarked or not but the document is still copyrighted
to
the polytech or the issuing qualifications authority.
Publishing the certificate in a book would be a breach of copyright unless
permission was given.
Photocopying the certificate for a resume is fair use.

No, 'Lennier' thinks that Copyright is his right to copy, and he's such a

dopey arse that he can't listen and learn.

Ken

 

[Lennier]

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:31:15 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote:

No, 'Lennier' thinks that Copyright is his right to copy,

A copyright is exactly that - a right to copy.


Lennier

--
Brian Valentine - Microsoft's SVP for Windows development: "We
really haven't done everything we could to protect our customers. Our
products just aren't engineered for security."

 

[Mainlander]

In article <pan.2004.02.06.02.53.27.468156@TRACKER>,
notanyspam@nospam.invalid says...

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:31:15 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote:

No, 'Lennier' thinks that Copyright is his right to copy,

A copyright is exactly that - a right to copy.

No it isn't. It is the control of rights to copy.

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/