Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One thing I do think is true, even though I am in possession of the document, and I'm the one who edits and copies it and sends it to the seller... I don't own it... the buyer does. Everything I do with it, I do with the permission of the buyer.
The buyer can do what they like with it... including sell it.
You can sell used books J_B. It's essentially a used book.
No, absolutely not. The buyer does not own the copyright unless the author specifically gives it to him. We've gone over all of this and frankly this is copyright 101.
Yes, under normal copyright you can give or sell the 'original' copy that you have. You cannot copy and distribute it to others. Forwarding an email with a pdf, for example, is likely to be copyright infringement unless you have permission to do so or under exceptional conditions which generally do not apply to what we are talking about.
But often inspection reports have further restrictions beyond normal copyright that prohibit ANY transferring or sharing them with others (see Ralph's linked example earlier in the thread), not just copying them. My last two most certainly did.
You might own your copy of Harry Potter but you generally can't legally copy it and sell or give it to a friend. Just like you own and can sell a used CD but you most certainly can't copy it and distribute MP3s of the work or physical CD copies. There is a difference between owning a copyright/owning the IP and owning a copy of a work. Again, all 101.
As a content creator, I've already pointed out when I'd not mind my work being shared, and thanks to Diana Holbrook for pointing out when I would.
I doubt there are any home inspectors who are under the illusion that their clients are not sharing their reports in order to gain price concessions or repairs.
I also doubt there are any home inspectors who are actually registering their reports with the Copyright Office, which is necessary in order to gain anything more than demonstrable losses.
No goal posts moved. I presented another scenario and even was clear that copyright is copyright (except for exceptional circumstances that very likely have nothing to do with what we are talking about here). I was clear it was another scenario and I was clear that I was using it to ask "where does it end?" and "who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong when the author has prohibited any copying and distribution".
As I'm sure you know, you don't need to register your works for them to be under copyright protection. Nonsense to suggest that this matters in whether someone is infringing copyright or not. More misinformation.
Can you explain how your own feelings about your own work that is under copyright has anything to do with copyright infringement of other's IP? you keep raising this and it makes no sense. I dabble in music and I have absolutely no problem with people taking files of my work and doing anything with them. This position has absolutely no relevance as to whether I can legally copy and distribute the work of others. It sounds like you're suggesting that everyone can apply how they personally feel about their own IP when dealing with the IP of others. In other words, if you don't mind someone copying your photos, you can copy anyone else's IP. However, if you have cases where you don't like your IP to be copied, then you should not copy the IP of others in similar situations. This doesn't even make any sense.
You've opened up a very flawed line of argument. Copyright laws and related casework are well documented even if there are some gray areas. They are not open to random interpretations based on your own views of how things should work or could work or how you want them to work for yourself.
j_b... You're wrong that inspection reports typically have restrictions on them that prohibit copying and sharing. They don't.
Here is a quote from a recent report done by one of the inspectors we frequently recommend. Read what it says.
Quote:
Finally, make note that this report is a specific snapshot in time and is not intended to be predictive. It is intended only for the use of the client named on the cover of this report and is not intended to be used by any other person or party. No other person or party has the right to rely on this report, and anyone sharing this report with third parties accepts any and all liability for any statements made or not made in this report.
He's not saying you can't copy or share it. He's saying he's not responsible for what happens if you do.
The one linked example upthread might have copy warnings... but it's not a real report, and may differ from real reports, even by that inspector. It's an example, made and posted online for a different purpose than a normal inspection report is.
j_b... You're wrong that inspection reports typically have restrictions on them that prohibit copying and sharing. They don't.
Here is a quote from a recent report done by one of the inspectors we frequently recommend. Read what it says.
He's not saying you can't copy or share it. He's saying he's not responsible for what happens if you do.
The one linked example upthread might have copy warnings... but it's not a real report, and may differ from real reports, even by that inspector. It's an example, made and posted online for a different purpose than a normal inspection report is.
I don't know the percentage of inspection reports that carry a copyright notice (e.g. c2018, copyright 2018, and/or more scary and written out in sentences). I'm guessing that the percentage of reports that are under copyright is very high. So I'm not wrong. I'm not going to argue if it's 'typical', 'common', 'not uncommon' or whatever. I think we can all agree that it's at least common. In addition to a standard copyright notice, some / many will have additional restrictions - e.g. like the one linked to and the latest ones that I've had done.
If your quoted example is under copyright, i.e. has a copyright notice, then he is prohibiting it from being copied and distributed. In his text, it's clear that he allows/accepts "sharing" whatever that means. It's also quite possible that some inspectors use unclear, sloppy, conflicting and imprecise notices. But copyright is copyright, regardless of the other stipulations.
Not legal advice or legal opinion, just my own understanding from reading your example as a layman.
j_b... You're wrong that inspection reports typically have restrictions on them that prohibit copying and sharing. They don't. .
I agree. In TX we reuse old surveys if there has been no changes. There is no copyright on that Survey or Inspection report. We just lose the ability to file an error lawsuit because the Inspector / Surveyor did not do the work for or receive $$ from my client.
Even so, I've never met an Inspector who had a problem with the Buyer sharing the report with the Seller. Good way for them to lose referrals.
...and i'm sure the rest of the board doesn't like being told what they are supposed to be doing or not doing...
I'm actually impressed that you got the joke, J_B! I was afraid it might have been too subtle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
