my new web page

"Rob Forey -- The Man With No Nails" <rforey@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040204074812.25867.00000625@mb-m05.aol.com

> >Rob if you have a look at the Patent Office website at the address that
> >I have pasted below, you will see that what I stated above is correct.
> >http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/definition.htm
>
> You are right that copyright comes into effect immediately, as it does indeed
> say on the website you gave. Much easier is to place a prominent copyright notice on your main
> page so as to prevent the claims of innocent infringement.
>
> PS You can find an online copy of the US Code at
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

(snipped again, Rob you have too much time on your hands, and type too
much )

All the points that you made are correct, and while I accept that web
sites are in the worldwide domain, I was quoting UK law, which for
example does not require that copyright be claimed. In the US you do
have to "file" a copyright. In any case copyright is pretty well useless
as a means of protecting intellectual property, unless you are talking
about musical scores, or literary work etc. This because, as I tell
clients that I advise daily, It is only protection against "actual
copying" rather than someone independently coming up with the same idea.

Just as an afterthought, do all you people out there realise that if
your website was designed by someone else, then it is that company that
holds the copyright in your website, and not you, (unless a contract is
drawn to the contrary)
Steve


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

>
>(snipped again, Rob you have too much time on your hands, and type too
>much )

Hehe, too true

>Just as an afterthought, do all you people out there realise that if
>your website was designed by someone else, then it is that company that
>holds the copyright in your website, and not you, (unless a contract is
>drawn to the contrary)

Very true, I always used to add an inclusive fee into the invoice of websites I
made for clients to transfer the copyright to them. Acted as an easy way to
prevent any future issues over who owned the content and gave the impression
that I was giving them something for free, which is always good for business!

Rob F.

"ferret" <ferret@cruelmail.com> wrote in message
news:osh120dgksdvlob8mcn737o6l57ovs5894@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:26:27 -0000, "Zak" <Zak@nospam.cruelmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >and of course... the number of people browsing with text only are
> >significant and influential. As for the blind reading it.......
well......
> >its a visual medium
>
> Frankly, this kind of heartlessness makes me sick.
>
> Plenty of blind people use the 'net. Is it important that they are
> part of an "influential group"? No.
>
> I wonder what your tone would be like if you were somehow deprived of
> your sight...
> --
> ferret
> Best before: see end

PC gone mad.... take that in both meanings ;)

My point was, why worry about how you label the picture... the blind cant
see it anyway, so why get hung up on that. The useful content for them is in
the text.

I dont see that as discriminatory, but you're welcome to your opinion.......

Of course, if you're volunteering to go and write a paragraph to describe
each picture on the web, Im sure your contribution would be welcomed ;)

> My point was, why worry about how you label the picture... the blind cant
> see it anyway, so why get hung up on that. The useful content for them is
in
> the text.

I think the point in this instance was that the picture was there soley for
the purpose of displaying some embedded text, containing the only real
description of the site. Without an Alt tag, how would a prospective
non-image user be able to tell what he was looking at?

Gav.

"Gavin Carey" <gicarey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvu1l3$6d7$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>

>
> I think the point in this instance was that the picture was there soley
for
> the purpose of displaying some embedded text, containing the only real
> description of the site. Without an Alt tag, how would a prospective
> non-image user be able to tell what he was looking at?
>
> Gav.
>
>

Bugger. granted then ;)

"Zak" <Zak@nospam.cruelmail.com> wrote :>

> Bugger. granted then ;)

very gracious of you ;)

Gav.