So, about time you people knew why I get pissed off doing a blog and still have that cut off date in mind.
I opened my email this morning to find this from blogger:
"Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that certain content in your blog is alleged to infringe upon the copyrights of others. As a result, we have reset the post(s) to "draft" status. (If we did not do so, we would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. The URL(s) of the allegedly infringing post(s) may be found at the end of this message.) This means your post – and any images, links or other content – is not gone. You may edit the post to remove the offending content and republish it, at which point the post in question will be visible to your readers again."
The post in question, from April, 2015, is Zhong Kui -The King of Ghosts!
No copyright infringement there.
The images -the earliest is c 1304 and the latest 1800s. I've checked and no copyright infringement there.
Is Zhong Kui complaining about my using his name? As we have seen in court cases: you cannot copyright mythology nor mythological characters -unless, say, you are using Kirby's version of Thor but then, if you are using this fairly to show how Thor has been depicted over the centuries and the image is credited -no copyright infringement.
The site where the complaint is registered is Lumen: https://www.lumendatabase.org/ but nothing is listed there (yet). So a link to Wikipedia is a copyright infringement? Using centuries old prints is copyright infringement?
None of it makes sense. However, US law has been cited which means blogger has to supply me with details of the complainant.
Am I going to alter the post after 2 years? No. Blogger blocks it then they block it. Malicious complaints from anonymous sources against me are nothing new. Like other lies I've dealt with them weekly, some times daily, since 1999.
This should be taken as a warning to those people. I am not playing nice any more.
I opened my email this morning to find this from blogger:
"Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that certain content in your blog is alleged to infringe upon the copyrights of others. As a result, we have reset the post(s) to "draft" status. (If we did not do so, we would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. The URL(s) of the allegedly infringing post(s) may be found at the end of this message.) This means your post – and any images, links or other content – is not gone. You may edit the post to remove the offending content and republish it, at which point the post in question will be visible to your readers again."
The post in question, from April, 2015, is Zhong Kui -The King of Ghosts!
Now, I quoted Wikipedia: "A free encyclopedia built collaboratively using wiki software. (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License)" Wikipedia itself quotes from a book. Rather than re-type everything I cut and pasted and gave full credit.
No copyright infringement there.
The images -the earliest is c 1304 and the latest 1800s. I've checked and no copyright infringement there.
Is Zhong Kui complaining about my using his name? As we have seen in court cases: you cannot copyright mythology nor mythological characters -unless, say, you are using Kirby's version of Thor but then, if you are using this fairly to show how Thor has been depicted over the centuries and the image is credited -no copyright infringement.
The site where the complaint is registered is Lumen: https://www.lumendatabase.org/ but nothing is listed there (yet). So a link to Wikipedia is a copyright infringement? Using centuries old prints is copyright infringement?
None of it makes sense. However, US law has been cited which means blogger has to supply me with details of the complainant.
Am I going to alter the post after 2 years? No. Blogger blocks it then they block it. Malicious complaints from anonymous sources against me are nothing new. Like other lies I've dealt with them weekly, some times daily, since 1999.
This should be taken as a warning to those people. I am not playing nice any more.
No comments:
Post a Comment