We need a section like this

[kline1]

Since I obtain a Fiero, I been cruising the internet for information.

I hit the mother load....

This site rocks with information.

Check out the download section.

http://www.fieronews.net/fusion/downloads.php

They have an assembly manual available for download.
They even have the entire Haynes Manual available for download (under Tech downloads).


We need something like this for this site for the H-body.

Add the manuals (haynes, chilton) to the h-body library section

http://www.h-body.org/library/index.html

[ColinOpseth]

Well,
I think it's a good idea but the fact that it's an outright copyright violation. I'm not sure Dennis would like to be "served" by Haynes or Chilton's and be required to explain in court why we didn't ask our users to purchase the manual instead of giving it away.

We have some schematics but we tend to upload them quietly, attached to posts where prying eyes are less likely to see.

Take care,
Colin

[cjbiagi]

The Haynes and Chiltons are very basic manuals. They are not like a GM service manual.

[kline1]

I think it's a good idea but the fact that it's an outright copyright violation

You are right about that. Haynes and Chilton are still producing both for the Fiero. They should not be on the web site.

Actually, I wish Hayness and Chilton provide a pdf copy for sale. A pdf file takes much less space than an additional book...
But no matter what, you are right and I agree that the manuals should not be available for download.

However, I do have a few questions in regard to copyrights....

Curious, If you find an magizine article that is no longer being produce, does copyrights still apply?

Does copyrights apply with the downloadable owners manual (that came with the car)?

How about the Brochures?

Can you sell AMC Javelin T-shirts? If not, who owns the copyrights? (it can't be AMC)
If a TV show buys some footage of my car (which would never happen, but hypothetically), does GM get some of the proceeds?

I am not trying to be smart about this. I am just trying to get a good grasp of what is considered a violation of copyright?

[kline1]

here is a copyright issue that I thought was strange...

========================
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS

At the time of the series' (Dr Who) debut in 1963, the police box was still a common fixture in British cities. It provided a direct telephone link to the local police station, but contrary to popular conception, the telephone was on the exterior of the box, and the box itself was designed for use as a temporary holding cell

In 1996, the BBC applied to the UK Patent Office to register the TARDIS as a trademark.[10] This was challenged by the Metropolitan Police who felt that they owned the rights to the police box image. However, the Patent Office found that there was no evidence that the Metropolitan Police — or any other police force — had ever registered the image as a trademark. In addition, the BBC had been selling merchandise based on the image for over three decades without complaint by the police. The Patent Office issued a ruling in favour of the BBC in 2002

===========================

I wonder if any got a copyright on the Whitehouse?

[ColinOpseth]

The Haynes and Chiltons are very basic manuals. They are not like a GM service manual.

From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html

Section 501 of the copyright law states that “anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ...is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author.”

Generally, under the law, one who engages in any of these activities without obtaining the copyright owner's permission may be liable for infringement. Nevertheless, there are several limitations of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. The copyright law provides exemptions from infringement liability by authorizing certain uses under particularized circumstances. These exemptions are enumerated generally in sections 107-122 of the copyright law.

From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#sued

Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained.

I'd rather not even try it. I doubt Dennis or myself has the funds to fight a plagurism/infringement case against one of the largest publishers in the United States. It doesn't matter whether it's still in publication or not. Copyright is copyright. It's the property of the owner. It protects ideas. Should I be able to use Abraham Lincoln's speeches as my own just because he's dead? No. Those speeches are the property of his estate, or whatever. You get my point.

[ColinOpseth]

However, I do have a few questions in regard to copyrights....

Curious, If you find an magizine article that is no longer being produce, does copyrights still apply?

Does copyrights apply with the downloadable owners manual (that came with the car)?

How about the Brochures?

Can you sell AMC Javelin T-shirts? If not, who owns the copyrights? (it can't be AMC)
If a TV show buys some footage of my car (which would never happen, but hypothetically), does GM get some of the proceeds?

I am not trying to be smart about this. I am just trying to get a good grasp of what is considered a violation of copyright?

The way I understand it, Chrysler would retain copyright to anything related to AMC. GM is the copyright owner of brochures and you have to pay them if you want to reproduce them. Same with images of GM's cars. GM owns the copyright to the image of the car and if you want to have a Camaro shirt you have to have the image approved by GM for sale and GM would get a royalty on each shirt sold. Copyrights don't expire; unlike patents, they are the property of the owner for life (and beyond, I believe).

[kline1]

Thanks for the info.
It give me a clearer picture. I agree that the haynes, chilton guide should not be reproduced/provided (since they are still being produced) but copyrights are sometimes taken to extremes....


These days you can sued for even sounding similar....
============================

NEW DELHI, Sept 22: A New Delhi court on Monday dismissed a lawsuit by Hollywood studio Warner Bros against the makers of Bollywood film ‘Hari Puttar’ over its title, lawyers for both sides said.

Warner Bros, which owns the rights to the blockbuster ‘Harry Potter’ movies, argued the Indian film sounded too similar to the name of their young wizard hero.

“The case has been dismissed. The court said that Warner Bros had known the title of the film since 2005 and had delayed bringing the case to court until the last moment,” defending lawyer Pratibha Singh said.The Delhi High Court added that consumers who read the ‘Harry Potter’ books, written by J. K. Rowling, were sufficiently educated to know ‘Hari Puttar’ was different, Singh said.—AFP

==========================

Also sometimes copyrights don't make sense.

You are not allowed to download music (it is illegal)
However, you are allowed to stream music, record it, convert it into a mp3 file (with the same quality as the digital streaming music and no DRM), tag it automatically with Replay Music software ( http://www.applian.com/replay-music/index.php ) and it is totally legal ( http://www.applian.com/replay-music/legal.php )

[kline1]

oh I forgot to mention about the huri puttar lawsuit...

from:http://www.asianimage.co.uk/mostpopular.var.2433442.mostviewed.hari_putter_film_sparks_lawsuit.php

"There is absolutely nothing to link Hari Puttar with Harry Potter," said Munish Purii, chief executive officer of Mumbai-based producer Mirchi Movies. Hari is a common name in India and "puttar" is Punabji for son, he said.