Folks, It's a little early for the monthly report and that will come in a few days but this is just a note to let you know that we are presently out of money. I just bought about $80 worth of slides and paid for them out-of-pocket as I could not let them go. If anyone feels generous after Christmas, a few bucks would help us get more slides. Thanks, Charlie
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report Charlie, Sorry I'm sure I've missed this but what's the process to donate?
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report Charlie, where are you finding these slides? Are they all coming off ebay, or are there other sources? GS
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report Derrick, The support link in the blue bar at the top is the way. Greg, Mostly eBay but there have been a few private sales. Charlie
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report Their seems to be quite a few slides on ebay, I certainly couldn't tell if they are ones that we need or doubles. Its a good deal to post them on here, we can all use them.
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report What is it that you want to see posted: The ebay listings or the material we already have? GS
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report I thought we were talking about buying slides for the archive, I can look at ebay myself, but it is nice to have them posted in the archive. Any of the slides, the ones we have or some we can get off ebay is ok with me, I was just saying, I don't know what we need to get or already have.
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report I have pulled a lot of images from ebay slide auctions and saved them to my computer. Then I can share and post them as I please. If they don't have sellers names covering the image they are free for the picking.
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report Use them for your own purposes, but please don't repost them. That is an absolutely clear violation of copyright. There is some fuzziness with copyright as it applies to scans of slides. Technically, the image is copyrighted by the person who took it ( by current US copyright law, the image does not have to be registered for this to be true). If you are buying the copyright with the slide, then you can obviously do what you want with the image. ( buying the copyright is NOT implied when you buy the original slide. ) Where there is some fuzziness with scans is that when you buy a slide, you are buying an implied right to display the image, so if you scan an image, that scan may be something you can share ( again, I am not sure of the legality here...I am not sure if this has been tested in court... ). The key thing here is that YOU have to make the scan, which is a work derived from the slide. If someone else made the scan, they have copyright on the derivative work, so you can't repost it without permission. Paul
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report Tom, I must of understood also. I just like seeing us get the slides into a place where they can be used in the future. Sorry if anyone, like myself, didn't understand
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report I agree with you totally William. I have seen the dialogue about who, can show what to whom, when, before on this website, and was just sayin "here we go again". I enjoy the Archive and support it whole heart.
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report Every day photos and videos go viral on the web and are shared by millions of people. When I copy images from ebay auctions, it is only the images that the seller does not put his information over, or asks others not to copy. I have built a huge index of images over the years and I share them on facebook from time to time. There is an old saying that when you put an image on the internet you can never take it back. I do not think anyone will ever go to the trouble of suing someone over the copyright of a train slide that sells for a few bucks.
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report I also get images by doing google image searches for various keywords like "Frisco caboose" or Frisco steam" etc and tons of images pop up on the search engine. then I can save the ones I like and post them on various web pages. Its not like the image is being stolen and sold for a profit. The image is just being moved around on the internet. Its a heck of a lot easier, cheaper, and faster then buying a slide and then turning it into a computer image. If this activity was illegal, I would think our computers would be disabled from having this capability. Just my thoughts.
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report Sharing links that point to the owner's site is legal. Copying the image to your site is not allowed. Also, linking to an image that you don't own the copyright to in such a way that it looks like it is coming from your site, but is really on someone else's site is not allowed. This is actually irrelevant unless the image is in the public domain. Just posting the image to the Internet does not put the image in the public domain. I am sorry you feel that way, but as someone who makes his living on copyrighted material, I can tell you that your posting of images you find elsewhere on the Internet IS stealing. Publishing something on the Internet is no different than publishing something in some other form. As a viewer of that information, you have the right to use that information, but you don't have the right to steal potential first sales from the creator of the work. From my point of view, and the view of copyright law, your copying information from one website and publishing it somewhere else is the equivalent of making a photocopy of a book or an article and giving that to someone else. It's hard for me to stop you from doing either of these things,but both are copyright violations. Note here that no money has to change hands for a copyright violation to occur. You just have to circumvent a potential first sale. The Internet is advertising driven, so your copying of an image from a random site you found on google potentially takes advertising revenue away from the publisher of that information. Paul
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report Some members may remember a web site called Napster, wherein people would buy a record or a CD, upload it to their computers and "share" it or trade it to someone else for another recording. This eventually did spawn lawsuits for copyright infringement--not a lot of suits, just a few slapped against some of the more egregious offenders, who were hit with judgments that were ruinous. It's just like at the end of a ball game where the announcer says the broadcast is for the enjoyment of the audience and may not be rebroadcast or re-transmitted without permission. You really do have to be careful when you start re-posting something for which you do not hold the rights. Download an image if you want, save it to an archive and use it for modeling purposes or just to look at, but leave it at that. My publisher goes after people all the time, and while it may or may not lead to financial penalties, it's a pain to have to defend yourself in those instances. If you didn't take the photo originally or didn't acquire the publication rights when you bought it, you don't own it, and if you don't own it you do not have the right to re-post it. GS
Re: Frisco Archive - Monthly Report Thanks Paul and Greg. I would add another wrinkle to this discussion. I have written three publications for the Colorado Geological Survey, and since these are government documents, they are not copyrighted, however the "ideas" expressed in these works do require citation when used in other works. I confess that it's very flattering to see ones name in the bibliography of another work. On several occasions, I have been surprised to see some of "my stuff" plagiarized and misused on Frisco dot Org. Years before this site came to be, I provided photocopies of primary source material to an individual. Several years ago, this same person offered CD's of these documents for sale on Frisco dot Org. Really?! There are several threads on this site which discuss the Clintons Sub's "chick operations". On one of these threads, I provided the specifications of the cars, which the Frisco converted after passenger operations on the Highline ceased. An individual cut and pasted my words into another thread without any citation. In each case, no copyright was violated, but in the first case the individual commercialized materials given to him for his personal use. A trust was broken. The second case demonstrates nothing but plagiarism. In short, please respect the work, and property of others.
