TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:The basis of their complaint seems to be that they want a complete reversal of current law - in other words, that businesses etc. should only have to post a sign if they WILL allow concealed firearms inside their premises. The MDA fans don't want to have to go to any effort to keep guns out - they want "keep out" as the default.

I think what they're arguing for is a return to the days when trespass by a license holder was covered under PC Sec. 30.05 and ANY type of "no guns" sign was legally enforceable.

They argue that if "no smoking" is legally enforceable, "no guns" should be too. The difference is that smoking in a "no smoking" establishment won't get you a year in jail, cost you a $4,000 fine, and cause you to loose your right to smoke for the next five years.

Bladed wrote:Gun control groups are also leading businesses and the media to believe that a 30.06 sign is the only way to prohibit the lawful open carry of long guns on private property. This article from The Wall Street Journal states:

Current Texas law doesn't contain any prohibitions on publicly carrying long guns unless they are displayed in a manner "calculated to alarm," or brought into an establishment displaying a "30.06" sign, a reference to the statute that allows Texas private-property owners to ban firearms on their premises.

In reality, a 30.06 sign is not required to prohibit the carrying of long guns on private property and, in fact, does not prohibit the carrying of long guns on private property. Unfortunately, many business owners now believe that a 30.06 sign is the only way to keep out open carry activists.

I agree and I think confusion on this issue one goal of MDA.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Bladed wrote:Gun control groups are also leading businesses and the media to believe that a 30.06 sign is the only way to prohibit the lawful open carry of long guns on private property. This article from The Wall Street Journal states:

Current Texas law doesn't contain any prohibitions on publicly carrying long guns unless they are displayed in a manner "calculated to alarm," or brought into an establishment displaying a "30.06" sign, a reference to the statute that allows Texas private-property owners to ban firearms on their premises.

In reality, a 30.06 sign is not required to prohibit the carrying of long guns on private property and, in fact, does not prohibit the carrying of long guns on private property. Unfortunately, many business owners now believe that a 30.06 sign is the only way to keep out open carry activists.

I agree and I think confusion on this issue one goal of MDA.

Chas.

I think businesses displaying a 30.06 sign should be sent letters questioning why.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Bladed wrote:Gun control groups are also leading businesses and the media to believe that a 30.06 sign is the only way to prohibit the lawful open carry of long guns on private property. This article from The Wall Street Journal states:

Current Texas law doesn't contain any prohibitions on publicly carrying long guns unless they are displayed in a manner "calculated to alarm," or brought into an establishment displaying a "30.06" sign, a reference to the statute that allows Texas private-property owners to ban firearms on their premises.

In reality, a 30.06 sign is not required to prohibit the carrying of long guns on private property and, in fact, does not prohibit the carrying of long guns on private property. Unfortunately, many business owners now believe that a 30.06 sign is the only way to keep out open carry activists.

I agree and I think confusion on this issue one goal of MDA.

Chas.

Thank you OCT/OCTC for helping MDA muddy the waters!

Darn shame.

sjfcontrol wrote:Oh MY! That was my post and picture... Not sure what to think about that.

If you actually took that photo, YOU own the copyright. You can sent a take down notice to Facebook and they have to honor it. You can also get whoever posted it for a copyright infringement, especially if you register it with the copyright office.

Canon1d4 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Oh MY! That was my post and picture... Not sure what to think about that.

If you actually took that photo, YOU own the copyright. You can sent a take down notice to Facebook and they have to honor it. You can also get whoever posted it for a copyright infringement, especially if you register it with the copyright office.

I took the picture. How do I do that?

sjfcontrol wrote:

Canon1d4 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Oh MY! That was my post and picture... Not sure what to think about that.

If you actually took that photo, YOU own the copyright. You can sent a take down notice to Facebook and they have to honor it. You can also get whoever posted it for a copyright infringement, especially if you register it with the copyright office.

I took the picture. How do I do that?

CSGV is using the picture for the purposes of criticism and education; therefore, the use almost certainly falls under the "fair use" exclusion to U.S. copyright law.

I would still send a take down notice to Face book. I don't that site has any educational value.

Canon1d4 wrote:I would still send a take down notice to Face book. I don't that site has any educational value.

Criticism alone can be enough to fall under the "fair use" exemption.

Bladed wrote:

Canon1d4 wrote:I would still send a take down notice to Face book. I don't that site has any educational value.

Criticism alone can be enough to fall under the "fair use" exemption.

Um, that's not entirely correct. If you look below the mention of "fair use" and "criticism" in 17 USC §107, you'll find:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

All four factors are evaluated and, while "purpose and character of the use" is the most important, notice factors two and three.

In copyright law, photographs are a very different animal from the written word. In large part that's because you seldom see only a small ("de minimis") portion of a photograph used without permission. And while I don't think it applies in this instance, one of the seemingly few things in copyright case law that's pretty consistent is that a photographer has full control over the first time an image is made public. If you take a photo and never, of your own volition, allow it to be shown publicly or published, then you have a pretty solid case for a cease-and-desist order...maybe even a lawsuit depending upon the circumstances.

Gets a lot messier, though, once an image is "in the wild." If you're an Ansel Adams and make a living from your fine-art photography and someone snags an image to post for a purpose related to commercial gain...you call your attorney. In sjfcontrol's matter, though, snapping a public city scene and posting it online without a commercial purpose doesn't make it fair game...but it does make a case against "fair use" much, much less tenable.

And I'm not a lawyer; I've just dealt with a lot of intellectual capital stuff over the years.

Back on topic...

Skiprr wrote:

Bladed wrote:

Canon1d4 wrote:I would still send a take down notice to Face book. I don't that site has any educational value.

Criticism alone can be enough to fall under the "fair use" exemption.

Um, that's not entirely correct. If you look below the mention of "fair use" and "criticism" in 17 USC §107, you'll find:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

All four factors are evaluated and, while "purpose and character of the use" is the most important, notice factors two and three.

In copyright law, photographs are a very different animal from the written word. In large part that's because you seldom see only a small ("de minimis") portion of a photograph used without permission. And while I don't think it applies in this instance, one of the seemingly few things in copyright case law that's pretty consistent is that a photographer has full control over the first time an image is made public. If you take a photo and never, of your own volition, allow it to be shown publicly or published, then you have a pretty solid case for a cease-and-desist order...maybe even a lawsuit depending upon the circumstances.

Gets a lot messier, though, once an image is "in the wild." If you're an Ansel Adams and make a living from your fine-art photography and someone snags an image to post for a purpose related to commercial gain...you call your attorney. In sjfcontrol's matter, though, snapping a public city scene and posting it online without a commercial purpose doesn't make it fair game...but it does make a case against "fair use" much, much less tenable.

And I'm not a lawyer; I've just dealt with a lot of intellectual capital stuff over the years.

Back on topic...

They just need to credit sjfcontrol for the source and that pretty well would cover it.

Keith B wrote:They just need to credit sjfcontrol for the source and that pretty well would cover it.

Um, no; not really. Simply citing or crediting a source does not remove copyright ownership rights or imply legal use.

Been there, done that. http://www.copyright.gov/

Skiprr wrote:

Bladed wrote:

Canon1d4 wrote:I would still send a take down notice to Face book. I don't that site has any educational value.

Criticism alone can be enough to fall under the "fair use" exemption.

Um, that's not entirely correct. If you look below the mention of "fair use" and "criticism" in 17 USC §107, you'll find:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

All four factors are evaluated and, while "purpose and character of the use" is the most important, notice factors two and three.

In copyright law, photographs are a very different animal from the written word. In large part that's because you seldom see only a small ("de minimis") portion of a photograph used without permission. And while I don't think it applies in this instance, one of the seemingly few things in copyright case law that's pretty consistent is that a photographer has full control over the first time an image is made public. If you take a photo and never, of your own volition, allow it to be shown publicly or published, then you have a pretty solid case for a cease-and-desist order...maybe even a lawsuit depending upon the circumstances.

Gets a lot messier, though, once an image is "in the wild." If you're an Ansel Adams and make a living from your fine-art photography and someone snags an image to post for a purpose related to commercial gain...you call your attorney. In sjfcontrol's matter, though, snapping a public city scene and posting it online without a commercial purpose doesn't make it fair game...but it does make a case against "fair use" much, much less tenable.

And I'm not a lawyer; I've just dealt with a lot of intellectual capital stuff over the years.

Back on topic...

As I said, the fact that a work is reproduced for the purpose of criticism CAN be enough to qualify the reproduction as "fair use," particularly if--as in this case--the use is noncommercial, and the original work is not artistic or commercial in nature.