CurtisNeeley
09-01-2011, 07:27 AM
The Western District Court of AR ruled moral "copyrites" do not protect online in:
Neeley v NameMedia Inc et al, (5:09-cv-05151 (http://www.curtisneeley.com/5-09-cv-05151/Docket/index.htm)) in Dkt 267 (http://www.curtisneeley.com/NameMedia/docketPDFs/267.pdf).
Specifically if you search the entire of United States "copyrite" act it is section 106A (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106---A000-.html) passed in 1990 to keep United States laws compliant with the Berne Compact Article 6bis (http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html).
When the United States first wrote the Copy+right Act of 1790, a person like Obama could be purchased outright and owned as a slave and until 1920 a female could not vote. The United States has always been a bit backwards.
Google Inc believes, in the new millennium, artists give up all personal rights to creations when published in ANY context whether on the wire common carrier called the Internet in libraries where visual art may be scanned like done already in Mew York. ONLY in the United States would a judicial exception to exclusive "copy+rights" be codified like 17 USC §107 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html) is as has been unconstitutionally vague since 1976.
"Fair-use" codified into law in 1976 in 17 USC §107 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html) is generally NOT FAIR and is why Google Inc exists and why the Internet primarily exists to pander to pornography creators and to pornography consumers in secret. Oh wait! That is just Free Speech? Right? Who wants censorship? I have demanded the FCC begin censorship just like is already done on TV and radio. See at the FCC (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016837841).
At least having read this you have been warned in the United States COPY+RIGHTS do not apply to visual art on the Internet wire communication WAS defined in 1934 in 47 USC § 153 ¶(52 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000153----000-.html#52)).
The Eighth circuit gets to examine this beginning this month in (11-2558 (http://www.curtisneeley.com/NameMedia/2011-2558/2558_Docket.htm)). How backwards will the United States remain regarding the personal rights of creators?
Neeley v NameMedia Inc et al, (5:09-cv-05151 (http://www.curtisneeley.com/5-09-cv-05151/Docket/index.htm)) in Dkt 267 (http://www.curtisneeley.com/NameMedia/docketPDFs/267.pdf).
Specifically if you search the entire of United States "copyrite" act it is section 106A (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106---A000-.html) passed in 1990 to keep United States laws compliant with the Berne Compact Article 6bis (http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html).
When the United States first wrote the Copy+right Act of 1790, a person like Obama could be purchased outright and owned as a slave and until 1920 a female could not vote. The United States has always been a bit backwards.
Google Inc believes, in the new millennium, artists give up all personal rights to creations when published in ANY context whether on the wire common carrier called the Internet in libraries where visual art may be scanned like done already in Mew York. ONLY in the United States would a judicial exception to exclusive "copy+rights" be codified like 17 USC §107 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html) is as has been unconstitutionally vague since 1976.
"Fair-use" codified into law in 1976 in 17 USC §107 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html) is generally NOT FAIR and is why Google Inc exists and why the Internet primarily exists to pander to pornography creators and to pornography consumers in secret. Oh wait! That is just Free Speech? Right? Who wants censorship? I have demanded the FCC begin censorship just like is already done on TV and radio. See at the FCC (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016837841).
At least having read this you have been warned in the United States COPY+RIGHTS do not apply to visual art on the Internet wire communication WAS defined in 1934 in 47 USC § 153 ¶(52 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000153----000-.html#52)).
The Eighth circuit gets to examine this beginning this month in (11-2558 (http://www.curtisneeley.com/NameMedia/2011-2558/2558_Docket.htm)). How backwards will the United States remain regarding the personal rights of creators?