NJT and Copyright Infringement

Well, it looks like the issue is somewhat resolved. NJT finally gave credit to Marc on their website. However, they should still ask for permission for the photo to be used. Sometimes you just need to make that phone call to complain, and they'll comply.

Mike77E9 wrote:Well, it looks like the issue is somewhat resolved. NJT finally gave credit to Marc on their website. However, they should still ask for permission for the photo to be used. Sometimes you just need to make that phone call to complain, and they'll comply.

I wonder, since proper credit was given, if it now falls under fair use. Unfortunately it's hard to find a clear set of criteria.

Since everone thinks they already know everything, I propose a website lenght boycott on all Railroaders making any comments here. I giv
I give the website 2 days before it shuts down.

Marc

Nice picture, thanks for sharing.

njt5140 wrote:

jimzim66 wrote:I second GE-RULES's comment about a NORAC Rule E violation. If they really want to shut you up (even though its a NS employee vs. NJT), they can certainly get you on a rule E violation.

It wouldn't stand up being NS is on a seperate rules system from NORAC, and if you read throught the pages on EO 26 on the electronic device ban, even though a video camera is listed, a still photography camera isn't, and to add I was NOT on a MOVING train when the photo was taken. And it was neither taken on NS OR NJT property.... So to those that are trying to make it look bad on my part and try to protect NJT you're WRONG, don't assume you know when you haven't heard the full story!

No one is trying to make you look bad. Some people with knowledge of how NJT works were simply playing devil's advocate and telling you what NJT might try and do if you were to make a big case out of the incident. Again, I can't find a single post that defends what NJT did other than to say that there probably isn't a legal case because no profit was generated from the infraction.

njt5140 wrote:Technically I shouldn't have to explain myself at all, it's nobody's business but my own how I obtained the shot, people should keep their traps shut in the first place! Typical meat puppets gotta poke and prod at every little thing! It's a no wonder why I don't post pictures or anything newsworthy anymore!

Not for nothing, but if you don't want people discussing or asking questions about this situation, DON'T POST IT ON A PUBLIC MESSAGEBOARD!

Nobody asked for you to tell us about how NJT wronged you and you claimed to have already contacted NJT with regards to the situation, so would it have really been that hard to just leave it at that?

cruiser939 wrote:

njt5140 wrote:

jimzim66 wrote:I second GE-RULES's comment about a NORAC Rule E violation. If they really want to shut you up (even though its a NS employee vs. NJT), they can certainly get you on a rule E violation.

It wouldn't stand up being NS is on a seperate rules system from NORAC, and if you read throught the pages on EO 26 on the electronic device ban, even though a video camera is listed, a still photography camera isn't, and to add I was NOT on a MOVING train when the photo was taken. And it was neither taken on NS OR NJT property.... So to those that are trying to make it look bad on my part and try to protect NJT you're WRONG, don't assume you know when you haven't heard the full story!

No one is trying to make you look bad. Some people with knowledge of how NJT works were simply playing devil's advocate and telling you what NJT might try and do if you were to make a big case out of the incident. Again, I can't find a single post that defends what NJT did other than to say that there probably isn't a legal case because no profit was generated from the infraction.

njt5140 wrote:Technically I shouldn't have to explain myself at all, it's nobody's business but my own how I obtained the shot, people should keep their traps shut in the first place! Typical meat puppets gotta poke and prod at every little thing! It's a no wonder why I don't post pictures or anything newsworthy anymore!

Not for nothing, but if you don't want people discussing or asking questions about this situation, DON'T POST IT ON A PUBLIC MESSAGEBOARD!

Nobody asked for you to tell us about how NJT wronged you and you claimed to have already contacted NJT with regards to the situation, so would it have really been that hard to just leave it at that?

... wait for it....wait for it...wait for it.... Thanks for coming in today.

Is it cat time yet?

Kaback9 wrote:Is it cat time yet?

CSX lost it at Selkirk.

Ken S. wrote:

Kaback9 wrote:Is it cat time yet?

CSX lost it at Selkirk.

Hovercats don't get transported via CSX fortunately there is a bigger Hovercat to transport them.

Kaback9 wrote:

Ken S. wrote:

Kaback9 wrote:Is it cat time yet?

CSX lost it at Selkirk.

Hovercats don't get transported via CSX fortunately there is a bigger Hovercat to transport them.

Hovercat transportation has been outlawed in the United States due to the high levels of hairball emissions.

I wonder, since proper credit was given, if it now falls under fair use.

Not unless NJT is suddenly some sort of University or Kindergarten, fair use would only apply under a very limited set of criteria.It would be the same thing if they posted the movie "Avitar", except the movie company has more invested. What if I wanted to use a Rolling Stones song in one of my video's, is giving credit enough?

Unfortunately it's hard to find a clear set of criteria

Try the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it might not be too clear but it's the law.

My advise would be a takedown, NJT has more to lose in P.R. than to gain with the publication of a tainted photo. Plus it would be the right thing to do, but i guess that does not enter into it...

sean3f wrote:

I wonder, since proper credit was given, if it now falls under fair use.

Not unless NJT is suddenly some sort of University or Kindergarten, fair use would only apply under a very limited set of criteria.It would be the same thing if they posted the movie "Avitar", except the movie company has more invested. What if I wanted to use a Rolling Stones song in one of my video's, is giving credit enough?

I dont know. Hence me saying "I wonder" followed by my next statement...

Unfortunately it's hard to find a clear set of criteria

Try the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it might not be too clear but it's the law.

That does me no good since I'm obviously not familiar with copyright law. Thanks for coming in today!

I dont know.

Ok , you have made that clear...

Where's the popcorn man?

howardr142 wrote:NJT and the state of NJ cannot be immune to copyright infringement, which I believe is federal law. Contact NJT to inform them of that, as they may not be aware of what is happening.

Sovereign immunity

Not sure if it extends to NJT though.