Electrical certification for imported goods

[Rod Speed]

"Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message news:MPG.1a74e67f7c8717df98a4ef@news.paradise.net.nz...

In article <bucv7p$g4ihn$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de>,
rod_speed@yahoo.com says...

Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a74b668eb5dd12298a4eb@news.paradise.net.nz...
Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote
Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote
notanyspam@nospam.invalid says...
The Real Andy wrote

PS I think you will find that you are breaching
the training providers copyright.

Not a clue. As always.

It's *my* certificate - I'll do what I like with it,
so long as nobody is abused or defamed.

The design and some symbols / logos that are
undoubtedly copyrighted to Tai Poutini Polytech.

Completely irrelevant to whether you are welcome to scan
your certificate and post it on your web site or wherever.

If someone else holds the copyright, you can't
publish the document without their permission.

That type of use doesnt constitute a copyright infringement.

It does in NZ.

Pigs arse it does.

 

[Rod Speed]

KS <ivabiggun@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:budddq$u0f$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

That type of use doesnt constitute a copyright infringement.

It does in NZ.

Bzzt ! Only the logos that were designed for the
company had exclusive rights attatched to them.

And they dont get to prevent the display of an individual's
certificate on his web site, even in sheep-raper-land.

Seeing that the logo was for the Tai Poutini Polytech,
and the Polytech has chosen to publish these logos
in the public domain, showing people these published
logos would not be a breech of copyright.

And it wouldnt be a breach of copyright even if they hadnt done that.

Tai Poutini Polytech has given Lennier a certificate, on
which is a supposed copyright logo. This certificate is,
by design, to be shown in the public arena (public domain).

Thats not what public domain means.

Reproducing the entire document is NOT a breech of copyright.

Indeed, when its got an individual's name on it etc.

Showing a logo that is already published in
the public domain is not a breech as such,

Thats not what public domain means.

but reproducing them and passing them off as your own work is.

Indeed.

Where would the media be if they couldn't
show logos in the newspaper, tv, magazines ?

Indeed. Any street shot would have some.

It's a common misconception that holding
copyright forbids other public display.

In spades with a certificate with your name on it.

 

[pete]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:55:21 +1300, K & S wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 07:24:11 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:


"K & S" <ks@electronics.co.au> wrote in message news:tpth00ppcegbqnbe9g88td3ac51ilvmrbv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:29:36 +1300, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:

In article <6n1h00ljsmhf4u2e6500fau74lapumuesh@4ax.com>,
ks@electronics.co.au says...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:59:21 +1300, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:

In article <v9bf005kentgf033mhbldlqhpim7qae33q@4ax.com>,
ks@electronics.co.au says...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:02:59 +1300, Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:01:22 +1300, K & S wrote:

Are what have you got, you know nothing about my registration or
cerdentials,

Woger - you have posted NOTHING that proves you've EVER been registered
or that you've EVER had any "credentials".

If you've got old certificates - why don't you scan them, produce a Jpeg
image place them on your website and tell us all the URL.

You well know that this will remove all doubt.

It is now time for your to put up your "credentials" or to shut up about
what you don't have.

As its none of you business, I will not, I have no intention of feeding the
Ignorant rabble this visits this new group.

That is exactly the answer that I expected from you.

If you had "credentials" you'd be proud of them and would show them.
Certainly I myself am proud of my Audio Engineering certificate - it
represents a full year of hard work and study. I would pursue the subject
further if their was a follow-up course here in WN. Alas only the Auckland
campus - and I won't move to Auckland.


Lennier



One year course, what utter Crap, I would shout if it was 3 years or more but
not one year, what Kindergarten was that..?

I would state that 96% of the posters here have No Formal Training or any
certificate, and most works on 240v equipment with out any training or
registration at all.

Says who Dodger?

Don't need a registration to work on modern PCs



If the Modem or PC only works on 32v then its OK, but no they use 240v..

All modern computers use a thing called a power supply, that is a sealed
metal case. Since the voltage that comes out of it is 12V or less, you do
not require electrical registration to work on a modern PC.

They have External 240 connected to a Switch

Like hell ATX supplys do. No 240V anywhere outside the power supply.

and they are easy to open 4 screws..


So you are trying to coverup that you do not have any registration,

most posters here have stated that they open them up to replace the Fan..

I was one of those who said that, but I'm allowed, 'cos I'm registered to
perform the following:
"Limited to the maintenance and replacement of electrical appliances and
fittings rated up to 460 volts including their disconnection from and
reconnection to fixed wiring"
Can you say that, Woger?

 

[Greg]

pete wrote:

Just check the web site that lists regestired people, no sign of a roger
(or woger) Sheppard

So you are trying to coverup that you do not have any registration,

most posters here have stated that they open them up to replace the Fan..


I was one of those who said that, but I'm allowed, 'cos I'm registered to
perform the following:
"Limited to the maintenance and replacement of electrical appliances and
fittings rated up to 460 volts including their disconnection from and
reconnection to fixed wiring"
Can you say that, Woger?

 

[Malcolm Moore]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:12:54 +1300, Brian Withers
<bwitheres@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:02:57 +1300, Lennier <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:45:02 +1300, Brian Withers wrote:

I think it would be very wise for these posters to front up and be checked, so
why just pick on Woger.?


Because Wodger is the only person here who claims he's registered.






Can you post this fact that he has made this statement.?


Lennier

Dear "Brian Withers"

We do know that "Fred Smith" claims to have registration.

Look at

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=99fad6b86cc3a7b6&rnum=1

Given the header of the e-mail carried that well known line

Received: from roger(203-79-83-241.cable.paradise.net.nz
[203.79.83.241]) by smtp-2.paradise.net.nz

the conclusion was inescapable!

The Electricity Act 1992 contains the following:

.........

160.Offences relating to registration

snip

(2)Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction
to a fine not exceeding $10,000 who,


snip


(b)Not being registered or licensed under Part 9 of this Act,
in any way holds himself or herself or itself out as being so
registered or licensed; or

etc etc.

.........

The full Act can be found at

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/

Regards
Malcolm.

--
Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

 

[cowboyz]

Greg wrote:

pete wrote:

Just check the web site that lists regestired people, no sign of a
roger (or woger) Sheppard

Are you surprised?

 

[Mainlander]

In article <budddq$u0f$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, ivabiggun@hotmail.com says...

That type of use doesnt constitute a copyright infringement.

It does in NZ.

Bzzt ! Only the logos that were designed for the company had exclusive
rights attatched to them.

Seeing that the logo was for the Tai Poutini Polytech, and the Polytech has
chosen to publish these logos in the public domain, showing people these
published logos would not be a breech of copyright.

Tai Poutini Polytech has given Lennier a certificate, on which is a supposed
copyright logo. This certificate is, by design, to be shown in the public
arena (public domain). Reproducing the entire document is NOT a breech of
copyright.

It can be displayed in the public domain but REPRODUCTION of the design
could constitute a breach of copyright. You can go out and buy a book
from a bookshop. You have the right to read it, but not to publish a copy
of it.

When it comes to documents, there can be multiple copyrights - on the
individual components, the design and the document as a whole.

Say I publish a web page. I may copyright the design of the site, but the
content in that page might be copyright to someone else, or even several
people.

Polytechs often have copyrights on all sorts of things to prevent PTEs
and the like from setting up using IP taken from the polys. It happens a
lot.

Showing a logo that is already published in the public domain is not a
breech as such, but reproducing them and passing them off as your own work
is.

Where would the media be if they couldn't show logos in the newspaper, tv,
magazines ?

There is a limit, you can't put my logo onto your web site without
permission.

It's a common misconception that holding copyright forbids other public
display.

The issue here is that lennier claims the image is copyright to him. But
in fact, he doesn't hold copyright over the certificate - parts of it are
almost certainly copyrighted to others.

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

 

[Mainlander]

In article <bude1h$gfs6j$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de>,
rod_speed@yahoo.com says...

"Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message news:MPG.1a74e67f7c8717df98a4ef@news.paradise.net.nz...
In article <bucv7p$g4ihn$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de>,
rod_speed@yahoo.com says...

Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a74b668eb5dd12298a4eb@news.paradise.net.nz...
Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote
Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote
notanyspam@nospam.invalid says...
The Real Andy wrote

PS I think you will find that you are breaching
the training providers copyright.

Not a clue. As always.

It's *my* certificate - I'll do what I like with it,
so long as nobody is abused or defamed.

The design and some symbols / logos that are
undoubtedly copyrighted to Tai Poutini Polytech.

Completely irrelevant to whether you are welcome to scan
your certificate and post it on your web site or wherever.

If someone else holds the copyright, you can't
publish the document without their permission.

That type of use doesnt constitute a copyright infringement.

It does in NZ.

Pigs arse it does.

You wouldn't have a clue

David claims he owns the copyright on that document, but he doesn't. The
copyrights on parts of it are almost certainly held by others.

The issue is not whether he can republish, but whether he holds the
copyright as he claims.

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

 

[Jason M]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:13:53 +1300, "cowboyz" <me@here.now> wrote:

Greg wrote:
pete wrote:

Just check the web site that lists regestired people, no sign of a
roger (or woger) Sheppard



Are you surprised?

If he works under the supervision of a registered person, isn't that
good enough?

 

[Richard Malcolm-Smith]

Modern PCs use ATX power supplies, that do not have external mains
switches, it's only if you choose to open the power supply case that a
certificate is needed, people who work on PCs without opening the power
supply case DO NOT NEED REGISTRATION.

Most of mine have an external switch on the back where the AC out would have
being if it was an old AT style one. This is the main power, but its not
something that would change it so you need a cert on a PSU.

 

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

Lennier wrote:

Some of them are 'sealed' and plenty of them aint, sheepfucker.

There is no need to call Dunford a "sheepfucker" - he's not from Auckland!

hahaha, oops, I laughed at one of lenniers' jokes...
by the way, that would be the helpfullness that I have seen from Rod Speed.

--
Http://www.Dave.net.nz
Play Hangman
Register, and play Space Invaders or Pacman.

 

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

Richard Malcolm-Smith wrote:

As long as he is not modifying the PSU, then he should not need
certification to work on 240V equipment... there was a case about this
recently in the herald. The general answer was, that all the rest of
the stuff that this guy had worked on was 5/7/12 and so no cert was
needed.

URL for that one?

no idea man... I don't bookmark things like this, but some links
provided in this thread are helpfull.

http://www.med.govt.nz/ewrb/pdf/elink/update200102.pdf

--
Http://www.Dave.net.nz
Play Hangman
Register, and play Space Invaders or Pacman.

 

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

Rod Speed wrote:

AT power supplies (cable to front of machine and
power switch there) are not and anyone working on
these should be a registered electrical serviceman.

Only in stupid sheep-raper-land.

As this nick name is used in both nz and au to describe the opposite
nation, I think that some clarification is needed here.

--
Http://www.Dave.net.nz
Play Hangman
Register, and play Space Invaders or Pacman.

 

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

Brian Withers wrote:

You will find that hardly any of the Posters here that Fix computers and other
stuff have any formal training, let alone Electrical Registration.
I think it would be very wise for these posters to front up and be checked, so
why just pick on Woger.?
Or is it just a Witch hunt.?

Dave Hall, and no I'm not on the list... as I'm not required to be, I
don't work with 240v.

--
Http://www.Dave.net.nz
Play Hangman
Register, and play Space Invaders or Pacman.

 

[Malcolm Moore]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:18:28 GMT, jmamfjd@very.hotmail.com (Jason M)
wrote:

If he works under the supervision of a registered person, isn't that
good enough?

Maybe.
That registered person must be a supervisor of electrical work
and, no part of the equipment being worked on may be connected to a
power supply
and, the testing and connection to a power supply must be done by the
supervisor. (section 109 of the Electricity Act). This would make
servicing televisions (for example) a frustrating task.

Also, the unregistered worker must still undertake the two yearly
course on safe working practices etc. (Regulation 26).

The EWRB has a document on their website about Supervision Guidelines

http://www.med.govt.nz/ewrb/content/supervision-guidelines/index.html

Regards
Malcolm
--
Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

 

[Rod Speed]

Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a7515b7a12a82d198a4ff@news.paradise.net.nz...

ivabiggun@hotmail.com wrote

That type of use doesnt constitute a copyright infringement.

It does in NZ.

Bzzt ! Only the logos that were designed for the
company had exclusive rights attatched to them.

Seeing that the logo was for the Tai Poutini Polytech, and the Polytech
has chosen to publish these logos in the public domain, showing people
these published logos would not be a breech of copyright.

Tai Poutini Polytech has given Lennier a certificate, on which
is a supposed copyright logo. This certificate is, by design,
to be shown in the public arena (public domain). Reproducing
the entire document is NOT a breech of copyright.

It can be displayed in the public domain but REPRODUCTION
of the design could constitute a breach of copyright.

Not in that situation it couldnt.

Similarly if he say has it framed on the wall and its
filmed for a TV news item or a newspaper photo either.

You can go out and buy a book from a bookshop. You
have the right to read it, but not to publish a copy of it.

Separate issue entirely.

When it comes to documents, there can be multiple copyrights - on
the individual components, the design and the document as a whole.

And displaying a scan of the certificate on his web site
does not constitute a copyright infringement and does
not need the permission of the copyright holder, just like
those other two examples I mentioned above dont either.

Say I publish a web page. I may copyright the design
of the site, but the content in that page might be
copyright to someone else, or even several people.

Irrelevant to the situation being discussed.

Polytechs often have copyrights on all sorts of things to prevent PTEs
and the like from setting up using IP taken from the polys. It happens a lot.

Irrelevant to the situation being discussed.

Showing a logo that is already published in the
public domain is not a breech as such, but reproducing
them and passing them off as your own work is.

Where would the media be if they couldn't
show logos in the newspaper, tv, magazines ?

There is a limit, you can't put my logo
onto your web site without permission.

You can if its say in a picture of something that includes the logo.

Most street scenes of other than residential areas have those logos.

It's a common misconception that holding
copyright forbids other public display.

The issue here is that lennier claims the image is copyright to him.

Wrong. He makes no such claim. He just
says that its a certificate with his name on it.

But in fact, he doesn't hold copyright over the certificate

He never said he did.

- parts of it are almost certainly copyrighted to others.

And it does NOT constitute an infringement of that
copyright to have a scan of his certificate on his web site.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message news:MPG.1a751602a1d023a498a500@news.paradise.net.nz...

In article <bude1h$gfs6j$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de>,
rod_speed@yahoo.com says...

"Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message news:MPG.1a74e67f7c8717df98a4ef@news.paradise.net.nz...
In article <bucv7p$g4ihn$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de>,
rod_speed@yahoo.com says...

Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a74b668eb5dd12298a4eb@news.paradise.net.nz...
Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote
Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote
notanyspam@nospam.invalid says...
The Real Andy wrote

PS I think you will find that you are breaching
the training providers copyright.

Not a clue. As always.

It's *my* certificate - I'll do what I like with it,
so long as nobody is abused or defamed.

The design and some symbols / logos that are
undoubtedly copyrighted to Tai Poutini Polytech.

Completely irrelevant to whether you are welcome to scan
your certificate and post it on your web site or wherever.

If someone else holds the copyright, you can't
publish the document without their permission.

That type of use doesnt constitute a copyright infringement.

It does in NZ.

Pigs arse it does.

You wouldn't have a clue

We'll see.

David claims he owns the copyright on that document, but he doesn't.

Irrelevant to whether he infringes copyright by displaying a scan
of his certificate on his web site. He doesnt, even in NZ.

The copyrights on parts of it are almost certainly held by others.

Irrelevant to whether he infringes copyright by displaying a scan
of his certificate on his web site. He doesnt, even in NZ.

The issue is not whether he can republish, but
whether he holds the copyright as he claims.

Crap. What matters is whether he infringes copyright by displaying
a scan of his certificate on his web site. He doesnt, even in NZ.

 

[Lennier]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:40:05 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

David claims he owns the copyright on that document, but he doesn't.

Irrelevant to whether he infringes copyright by displaying a scan
of his certificate on his web site. He doesnt, even in NZ.

Point of fact:

I never claimed that I owned the copyright for any logos, signatures, or
any other individual copyrighted item that may form a part of my
certificate.

However, *I* own the copyright to the JPG image that I posted onto the
website - *I* made that scan. It is *my* certificate, having been
unreservedly given it by the Polytechnic at which I studied.

I do not own the copyright of the Polytechnic's logo, and as such I cannot
duplicate that logo and pass it off as my own.

However, the Polytechnic chose to include that logo within a document
which it unreservedly gave to me. Provided I reproduce that document as a
whole, and use it for the purposes for which the document was intended -
namely to prove that I have passed that course - then I am quite within my
rights to reproduce my certificate - either by scanning or by photocopying
(same thing really) and to use those reproductions accordingly.

Basically, Patrick Dunford (Fundamentalist that he is) doesn't know
nothing about what he's talking!


Lennier

--
"When dealing with the Religious Right one should remember that 'truth'
is not a part of the rules of their game."

 

[Rod Speed]

"Lennier" <notanyspam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message newsan.2004.01.18.15.15.12.211974@TRACKER...

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:40:05 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

David claims he owns the copyright on that document, but he doesn't.

Irrelevant to whether he infringes copyright by displaying a scan
of his certificate on his web site. He doesnt, even in NZ.

Point of fact:

I never claimed that I owned the copyright for any logos, signatures, or
any other individual copyrighted item that may form a part of my
certificate.

However, *I* own the copyright to the JPG image that I posted onto the
website - *I* made that scan. It is *my* certificate, having been
unreservedly given it by the Polytechnic at which I studied.

I do not own the copyright of the Polytechnic's logo, and as such I cannot
duplicate that logo and pass it off as my own.

However, the Polytechnic chose to include that logo within a document
which it unreservedly gave to me. Provided I reproduce that document as a
whole, and use it for the purposes for which the document was intended -
namely to prove that I have passed that course - then I am quite within my
rights to reproduce my certificate - either by scanning or by photocopying
(same thing really) and to use those reproductions accordingly.

Basically, Patrick Dunford (Fundamentalist that he is) doesn't know
nothing about what he's talking!

Indeed, and never has on any subject what so ever.

 

[KS]

However, *I* own the copyright to the JPG image that I posted onto the
website - *I* made that scan. It is *my* certificate, having been
unreservedly given it by the Polytechnic at which I studied.

Lennier, you are absolutely correct (except for owning the copyright to the
*logo* on the certificate, which of course still belongs to the Polytech.
That means you can't claim it as your own work, or ownership).

The logo has been released to the public domain by printing it and giving it
to you as an item that it is expected to be reproduced and displayed.
Therefore you ARE allowed to display the item publically, as you were doing.

As I mentioned, there's a lot of misconceptions about copyright and what you
are and are not allowed to do.

What you are doing is correct. No lawyer with half a brain could argue
against the public display of a certificate.