Now this is a nice garage!

I wouldn't care, expcept I saved one of Redcar Guy's pictures to my Autopia album, and he threw a fit and alerted the moderators. Just seems hypocritical to me.
Click to expand...



I hope that is a joke.
 
Joe K -- 01 Green said:
WELL -- who wouldn't like it! Duh?



I'd have to go with the 2 pillar lift though, I could see mysel leaving the car door open and lifting the car
Click to expand...



Even if you left the car door open, it wouldn't matter. Those two blue rails above the car is the rack lifted in the air. Normally, the car would be on that, and the doors couldn't hit anything. And don't think you would be safe with a 2 pillar lift either. My door was forgotten open and there is a nice 1 inch lip right in the middle of the pillar that caught the door molding and almost ripped it off! :angry Oh well, I don't own that car anymore, so it's water under the bridge now.
 
hey someone posted a pic of my garage? howd u get that? stalkers...



:D



i wish that was my garage tho... and porsche turbo
 
ZaneO said:


I wouldn't care, expcept I saved one of Redcar Guy's pictures to my Autopia album, and he threw a fit and alerted the moderators. Just seems hypocritical to me.
Click to expand...



You know I try not to be a ***** but some times…



The pic that ZaneO is talking about I posted in a thread as an attachment (when you could do this here at autopia) I did this on purpose because you couldn’t link it to another site or foum. It was a pic that was photoshoped and could have been taken wrong if used in the wrong way. I asked him to take the photo down so It wasn’t taken the wrong way by people that didn’t understand the meaning of the pic when it was out of the thread I posted it on. Well need less to say he tried to be Mr cool and say he could do what ever he wanted and bla bla bla.. He could have said “oh ok I understand that it was your pic that you Made and I will take it down� But he didn’t he started some pissing match like a 10 year old. I let it go then DavidB took the pic down. I could talk till I was blue in the face about his but some times I see that I does no good. Think what you want, Zane, I tried to let this go but I see the immature crap has been started again..
 
Redcar GUY said:
You know I try not to be a ***** but some times…



The pic that ZaneO is talking about I posted in a thread as an attachment (when you could do this here at autopia) I did this on purpose because you couldn’t link it to another site or foum. It was a pic that was photoshoped and could have been taken wrong if used in the wrong way. I asked him to take the photo down so It wasn’t taken the wrong way by people that didn’t understand the meaning of the pic when it was out of the thread I posted it on. Well need less to say he tried to be Mr cool and say he could do what ever he wanted and bla bla bla.. He could have said “oh ok I understand that it was your pic that you Made and I will take it down� But he didn’t he started some pissing match like a 10 year old. I let it go then DavidB took the pic down. I could talk till I was blue in the face about his but some times I see that I does no good. Think what you want, Zane, I tried to let this go but I see the immature crap has been started again..
Click to expand...



That's not entirely correct. I received PM's from both Brad B. and David B. asking me to take it down. I took it down.



Sorry you feel it's immature...I feel it's hypocritical.



It's over now. Have a nice evening:wavey
 
I just want to point out that the prohibition against copyrighted material....a post is NOT copyrighted. Copyrighted material might be an ad, etc. Just because someone creates something, doesn't mean they have copyrighted it, but if someone HAS gone through the process to copyright it, and they don't like the way you are using it, the penalties can be severe.



I'm half asleep and rambling...perhaps someone can explain this better than I.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
I just want to point out that the prohibition against copyrighted material....a post is NOT copyrighted. Copyrighted material might be an ad, etc. Just because someone creates something, doesn't mean they have copyrighted it, but if someone HAS gone through the process to copyright it, and they don't like the way you are using it, the penalties can be severe.



I'm half asleep and rambling...perhaps someone can explain this better than I.
Click to expand...



Having worked as a paralegal to a copyright and trademark attorney for the last year, I can say that what you are saying is not true at all. "This Post is Copyright © 2004 Jngrbrdman" is implied on every single word I write online. Anything that you can prove you wrote is copyrighted to you. Its not just for books and advertising. Intellectual propertly law is an interesting subject if you are ever interested. You may not have filed a petition with the copyright office to certify your claim on the words, but there is an implied ownershop that you can argue in court. In fact, if you look on the bottom of the "House Rules" page then you'll find this language:



"All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments and pictures are property of their posters.



All the rest Copyright©, 1999-2004, Autopia Car Care. All Rights Reserved."
 
Having worked as a paralegal to a copyright and trademark attorney for the last year, I can say that what you are saying is not true at all. "This Post is Copyright © 2004 Jngrbrdman" is implied on every single word I write online. Anything that you can prove you wrote is copyrighted to you. Its not just for books and advertising. Intellectual propertly law is an interesting subject if you are ever interested. You may not have filed a petition with the copyright office to certify your claim on the words, but there is an implied ownershop that you can argue in court. In fact, if you look on the bottom of the "House Rules" page then you'll find this language:
Click to expand...



You are correct!!!
 
Jngrbrdman said:
Having worked as a paralegal to a copyright and trademark attorney for the last year, I can say that what you are saying is not true at all. "This Post is Copyright © 2004 Jngrbrdman" is implied on every single word I write online. Anything that you can prove you wrote is copyrighted to you. Its not just for books and advertising. Intellectual propertly law is an interesting subject if you are ever interested. You may not have filed a petition with the copyright office to certify your claim on the words, but there is an implied ownershop that you can argue in court. [/B]
Click to expand...



Well, thanks for clarifying that, and no offense, but this kind of silliness is why everything is made in China now...we are just so messed up and litigious in this country. So that business where Scottwax said the other day that someone's car looked like it just rolled out of the paint booth, and someone else asked permission to use that line....if I type right here "it looks like it's going to rain this afternoon" everyone else has to credit me if they say that? That's ridiculous.
 
The rules aren't that tight. Look at it this way... If a rapper steals a hook from a popular song and makes a million dollars and doesn't get permission from the original artist, well... that's just a lawsuit waiting to happen. Ask Vanilla Ice how it feels. Or ask The Verve how it feels. Being on the bad end of a copyright infringement lawsuit is not where you want to be. If someone decided to make a TV ad with the latest track from U2 and not ask permission first, then they are going to get their pants sued off. If I decide to take David's book and post it on my own website and try to pass it off like I wrote it, then he would sue my pants off. If I find articles that I wrote and put on my website posted on some message board where someone was trying to take credit for writing it, then I would sue their pants off. Its only when someone takes something that has value to the creator that you get into lawsuits. If you copy this post and put it somewhere else on the internet, chances are that I won't sue you. I don't have any damages to show for it. The fact that someone may like an analogy or tagline that someone used, doesn't mean that they are going to be able to sue if they hear somebody else using it. Do you think that Nike runs around suing people for saying "Just do it"? I doubt it.



There is a big difference between copyright infringement and trademark infringement. "Just do it" is a trademark. "Everybody loves Sara Lee" is a trademark. Its more than just an image. If Scottwax decided to trademark the saying "Looks like its going to rain tomorrow" then that would just keep other businesses from using it as their tagline. Did you know that right now Donald Trump is trying to trademark the phrase "You're fired"? Well, he is. In fact, the emoticon for ;-) is a trademark as well. So is the normal smiley face. Go to www.despair.com and read their litigation information on there. Technically you could be sued for using it, even though they would never really do that to you. Welcome to America.... If only you could trademark a concept. Ever notice how the generic colas always try to look just like a Coke can? They can't copy the phrases or logo exactly, but they can come close.



Anyway, just because something is written doesn't mean that you are going to be able to sue for it. However, you do have ownership of it and there is a much greater chance of being sued if you are using somebody's words or images without their permission and you refuse to cut it out. The fact that everything is made in China or India has nothing to do with litigation. It is all about labor costs. It costs a company a lot less money to do business outside of the US and then ship it over. You can still sue somebody if it breaks. That's another issue though...



Bottom line is that you really aren't going to get away with copying somebody's pictures or text that they write on a public message board if you get caught doing it. If you can prove that you wrote it (and really, who else would have done it?) then it belongs to you. Same thing for original artwork or photographs.



On a funny sidenote... Did you know that if you take a picture of your car, then the manufactuer actually owns the trademark of the image and you can't use it for any business purposes? There is a disc you can buy that has all the authorized pictures that you can use on product labels. Do you really think that Lamborghini on the lable of Blackfire ever saw the product? Their graphic designer just pulled that image off the disc. Same thing for any product you see with a vehicle on it. Interesting, huh? So that picture you just posted of your car is a trademark and copyright of the company that made the vehicle and they can bar you from making an iron on transfer and putting it on the back of your shirt. :lol The law is so much fun. :)
 
Jngrbrdman said:
The fact that everything is made in China or India has nothing to do with litigation. It is all about labor costs. You can still sue somebody if it breaks.

Click to expand...

But it *is* about litigation, and a lot of other things. It's about litigation because the WORKER in that Chinese factory can't sue the US reseller; that is an element in reducing labor costs--a manufacturer here has huge exposure (employees, health insurance, OSHA, EPA). The US reseller has exposure (product liability, but to a lesser degree than if they design or manufacture it), but not as much.

Jngrbrdman said:
The rules aren't that tight. Look at it this way... If a rapper steals a hook from a popular song and makes a million dollars and doesn't get permission from the original artist, well... that's just a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Click to expand...



I wasn't suggesting that it was ridiculous that someone be sued for making money from someone else's, um..."copyrighted" material. I was suggesting that it's ridiculous that this thread has been hijacked because someone used a picture of a guy's garage without asking. If my friend gave me a snapshot of his garage and I put it in my wallet and whenever I met a car buff I pulled it out and showed it to them...should the viewer ask "did the guy who took that give you permission to show me a picture of his garage?" Should I clear it with my sister before I show anyone a picture of my nephew? It's HER intellectual property. I'm not arguing that the picture belongs to someone else, nor am I arguing the law, I'm suggesting that the extremes that all this has been taken to is wrong.



Another ridiculous thing? You're saying if you write words on here, they are yours and I can't use them. However, if I make a product, and I don't patent it, or trademark it, anyone can make a product that looks, works, and IS just like mine, and I can't do a damn thing about it, even if they hire people from my own company to design/make it (presuming the employee is not bound by a non-disclosure or non-compete agreement), and as long as they don't sell it as "Setec's Widget".



If you want to argue this more (which I don't), let's start a Hot Tub thread or do it PM, cuz this garage discussion has been hijacked enuf. :nono
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top