| Welcome to SP! - Sign-In | Register | ||
| | |
| MbPost.com -- It's SP for Mountain Biking! | ||
Lake Tahoe Basin > Tahoe OGUL Peak List > Comments
|
| 1000Pks | Intellectual Property | |
Hasn't voted | Briefly, the copy of this list may be posted without permission and thusly pirated. There is no organization left responsible for its origin, but I hope you have gotten permission from the true author, as well as those who contributed to the making of this list (including me). The posters that have put this on climber.org are not legally the owners, and have presumed such without any approval. I'd urge for you to remove this list from your site, and also take it up with climber.org to remove the pirated lists and information so that no one else will make this mistake, or support this criminal act. | |
| Posted Feb 17, 2006 5:17 am | ||
 | ||
| davis13 | Re: Intellectual Property | |
Hasn't voted | Man, I never thought a list of peaks would be intellectual property. I didn't intend to infer that I developed the list. I ran across it on climber.org and have started working to complete it. I thought it would be good info to share on SP. I thought lists like this were intended to be shared. If I had or could find the info for the authors I'd be happy to give credit where credit is due. I don't want to start a spat on SP, I'm just trying to contribute to make the site even better. Perhaps you could send me an email if you had the time and tell me the whole story. If it's that big of a deal I'd be glad to pull it. Just tryin' to share. JD | |
| Posted Feb 17, 2006 6:12 am | ||
| ||
| brendon | Re: Intellectual Property | |
Hasn't voted | There is no organization left responsible for its origin... so then why should we care? Who is the "true author" that you talk about? Names? Phone numbers? I'll call them myself, and I don't even care about the list. Why are you so passionate about this? It really doesn't make any sense. You are making this list sound like it's more than a guidebook or this website. It's not. I say put it back! | |
| Posted Feb 24, 2006 5:18 pm | ||
| 1000Pks | Original Work | |
Hasn't voted | The OGUL list was developed by a few of us in the old Peak and Gorge, about 1982. I never contributed to this list, to which I provided significant input, so that it could be stolen by climber.org and the individuals that claim credit for posting this list. Climber.org is currently publishing my own personal work, the NAS (Northern Alpine Section) 1985 list, totally without my permission. To your credit, you haven't re-published that list (which illegally appears as the "WSC" list). This is an original work, and you may visit the Federal Copyright office website to read the law. Most people wouldn't try to publish books, magazines, songs, movies, and all, online, without permission of the creator of such works. This is the same case. You might try to contact the author, being none of those who are involved in this theft by climber.org. If he says it's O.K., then that's fine with me. The developing section has long been disbanded, and peak climbing is no longer supported by the local chapter of the Sierra Club, the way we all had it before their ban. I was informed that we should not have this list available if we are not maintaining it, or supporting it. The incorrect assertions or misinformation subjects the chapter and club to liability, and then lawsuits. You definitely can get lost, hurt, or killed, following the idea of what this list was meant for. Not something I'd like to have on my head. If you wish to assume liability, and piracy is fine for you, don't do anything. Not much I can do but let you know. But, I hope you'll delete this taken property from your own website, and join the rest of us exploring, enjoying and protecting, and all, responsibly and lawfully. | |
| Posted Feb 17, 2006 3:44 pm | ||
| ||
| davis13 | Re: Original Work | |
Hasn't voted | I assumed lists like these were meant to be shared. I wouldn't infer liability on the original authors of any list for anything that happened to me just as I wouldn't infer liability on this site for anything that happened while I was using info I gathered from SP. I guess I kind of see the point if you are offering emblems or patches or conferring status for achievements. Regardless, I'll gladly pull the info down because it seems to be very important to you, especially in regards to climber.org. Perhaps there is some way that this list can be available to the public that is suitable to the original contributors and authors. I'd welcome that and I think SP would be a great place for people to get the info on these mountains and enjoy going through this list again. | |
| Posted Feb 17, 2006 4:56 pm | ||
| 1000Pks | Sharing | |
Hasn't voted | Everyone who creates an original work probably does it so people can read, hear, or view it. But there are costs incurred to do so. Therefore, a charge or price is attached. Back in the days before the Internet, we had to print out a booklet which was sold for some nominal fee. The local chapter that mandated the list changed their minds about all this, and the peak section was disbanded. If I were in charge, I'd love to have as many climber/hiker/skiers, as can be, purchase the booklet, and work on the peaks to climb. But it's a real world, and people do suffer injury and loss, even death. I see accidents and incidents happen all the time. If you chose to work on the peaks list to achieve some badge or honor, and got hurt, lost, or even killed, who's at fault? Attorneys will go after the Park Service, as seen in a recent case, because presumably they might win several million dollars for wrongful death. I wouldn't want any such things happen to you or anybody else. If you are saavy about the peaks on that list, you may see at climber.org that several representations are incorrect, and there are people who may tend to malicious disinformation. I'd have loved to see the club chapter continue to support mountaineering, especially locally. But they don't, and therefore the list is not available, except illegally, for the world to see and read. I'm still working, then, for an adventurous, and hopefully responsible, set of people to partake in climbing the peaks we have about here. I've been supporting the chapter in Southern CA who have their list and information online, and would have liked to see that all supported up here in a similar fashion. But the local chapter said, no, and I feel bound to respect their decision, even as we can't do any peak climbing under the auspices of the chapter, even with insurance (already paid, by my understanding). This OGUL list is a part of that. I'd also have tracked down the author of this list, and asked him personally for permission to re-publish it. This you can still do. Although I wouldn't know what he would say, I'd like for the list to be shared, legally, and safely. But climber.org doesn't seem to really care about the law, as I have been taking up this issue with them for years, and the webmaster refuses to abide by author ownership. There might have been hundreds, or even thousands, locally, climbing, hiking, and skiing the peaks, all safely and successfully, by this list, with good guidance. But the vote was no. Many will see I am at issue with the local chapter, about all this, but the decision was made 19 years ago, and I don't "force (as they may say)" people to climb mountains. If you wish to have a better list of the Northern Sierra and vicinity, I have one, with directions and support. But I went ahead and got my copyright registration, so it is presumably a protected creation. For awhile, we offered copies for a donation or charge, and it did pretty well. But now, I think, liability concerns may have weighed in. We all have to watch out for lawsuits and claims. Some may consider publishing any urgings to a dangerous sport foolish. We are using disclaimers and waivers, but that is said not to be legally reliable. The purpose of all this is to try to keep peak climbing safe and good. You are to be commended to complying with that general principle, as well as thusly compliance with copyright law. I just wish climber.org would comply with these laws and views, and keep all of us safer and better! | |
| Posted Feb 17, 2006 5:44 pm | ||
| ||
| davis13 | Re: Sharing | |
Hasn't voted | And that, as they say, is the rest of the story. Well, it's a shame that once again the suit happy crowd has made something that only exists for good reasons so hard to accomplish. I'm in the military and it's firmly established that if we get hurt doing something off duty that is considered hazardous we can't in turn sue the government for anything. I think it's called the "I told you so" clause. I sustained a life threatening injury snowboarding long ago and while my insurance paid for medical care I can't claim disability from the government or sue the ski resort because "they told me so". The same concept should apply to any information about such activities gained from the web. A simple disclaimer should be enough. I understand the whole "club" point of view though. If they have dues, bylaws, regulations and insurance then they have a responsibility to thier members. I did notice several instances on climber.org were data was incorrect or missing. On most of them I found correct general info myself through USGS. I agree that anyone posting info should make every effort to insure it's accurate and up to date. Well, enough said about all this. If there is ever a breakthrough on the ability to publisize this list in full on a site like SP then I would be more then happy to volunteer my time to compile info and publish web sites. I don't have a domain I can offer up but I can put a site together and FTP it anywhere. Until then I'll keep working on climbing my own private version of this list in my little corner of California and hold only myself and Murphy accountable for anything that happens to me. Best of luck with your efforts. | |
| Posted Feb 18, 2006 2:53 am | ||
| 1000Pks | Your personal website | |
Hasn't voted | Not to be a spoilsport, but the copyright laws would also apply to personal websites, not just SummitPost. You'd then be still potentially liable for damages, should someone suffer loss perhaps by climbing as this re-published OGUL list may seem to direct. Nice to hear you wouldn't sue, but other people might have a different mind about it, should loved ones or relatives suffer injury because someone failed to heed good common sense advice. Course, we never know what's going to happen. As you will--I did my part. | |
| Posted Feb 18, 2006 4:23 am | ||
| Bob Burd | Respectfully disagree | |
Voted 5/10 | Sorry Pete, but I do not agree with your stance or your take on copyright law. A list of peaks is *not* copyrightable. It is simply a list of places. While there may be creativity in coming up with the list, there is *no* creativity in the writing of the list. I could make a list of my favorite Starbucks in California, but it is not covered by copyright law. I would be happy to publish the OGUL list in its entirety and invite anyone to sue me. I think there is far too much fear of lawsuits out there and this is a case of taking that fear too far. In a similar fashion, your route descriptions *are* copyrightable, because they have creative use of words to describe the places and routes. The facts involved with the routes (their difficulty, mileage, elevation gain) or *not* copyrightable. | |
| Posted Feb 21, 2006 1:58 am | ||
| 1000Pks | Word for Word, Almost | |
Hasn't voted | I will be the first to admit I'm not a patents attorney, but a very close or 100% match with the text in the booklet, and what appeared on the website seems to indicate a copy. Most will consider that plagiarism. Same with the choice of peaks to fit the list. It is described as "Tahoe OGUL" list, which wasn't even changed a bit like the "WSC" list to try to hide the crime. I was mildly chastized for using elevations I got from the SPS list. It is not considered public domain. An associate of mine copyrighted his CA County HP list, and it was granted. I hear there was some discussion of rights, then, when Suttle came out with his book. I have no idea of any settlement, though. If you had a copy of my 1985 NAS list revision, you'd see the obvious copying. How a selection of 283 peaks could be matched exactly the same is no coincidence. This is definitely intellectual property theft, or my name is Gomer. I know these people, and crime means nothing to them. If you wish to defend them, fine. When someone gets hurt or killed, climbing peaks as directed by these lists and websites, I will have done my part. We urged to remove these lists from publication, and since they appear on SP, climber.org, or JD 1.0, that's where beginners will see them, and thusly their attorneys will go looking for blame, there, not anything I had to do with. I saw I was being copied from my website as far as my peaks guide, too. I had to join SummitPost to address this issue. I have little idea of how much plagiarism really goes on here, but I suspect it's substantial. I saw posts about stolen photos, and credit for copying, big time. There are extremely bad posts, too, with misleading or dangerously misleading directions. I didn't want to get into this, but then in 2004, the site improved a bit. It comes down to word against word, and I've seen how that can work. The side with the most friends wins. Truth, then, means nothing in the eyes of the law. Five supposed witnesses to one is a slam dunk, for the judge. Well, have it as you will. I was hesitant to go and suggest to this person that anything he was doing was infringement. He could still get permission from the true author or owner, and that would be that. But with my own works on the Net, I feel compelled to protect my rights, and I'm sure you would too, if another webmaster came out with, say, SummitPost 3, or even your own site, taking these ideas (or material) and stealing them. Good to hear from you, though. I appreciate having other views. No attorney I know will handle this case of mine--it's small potatoes, I'll admit. But should people feel it's open season on whatever print or web publishing, to steal whatever and however you will--that's not my world! | |
| Posted Feb 21, 2006 5:57 am | ||
| steeleman | UR A Loser | |
Hasn't voted | Pete, you are disgrace to SP. Get off your high horse. you don't even know the difference between a patent and a copyright and you're in here trying to lecture people about theft of a fricken LIST? are you kidding? Put the list back up. No one is gonna sue anyone, and if they do, I'll represent you for no fee and vee vill krash zem!!! | |
| Posted Feb 23, 2006 6:24 pm | ||
| Matthew Holliman | Useful list | |
Hasn't voted | Bob, please post your list of favourite California Starbucks. It would be far more useful than some of the dreck that's posted on here now. | |
| Posted Feb 23, 2006 7:06 pm | ||
| ||
| Bob Burd | Re: Useful list | |
Voted 5/10 | #1 on the list has to be the 24hr one located in Manteca at the junction of US99 & SR120. You get your caffeine fix in the wee hours on the way to Yosemite or the Eastern Sierra. How cool is that? | |
| Posted Feb 27, 2006 6:19 am | ||
| Jeff Moore | bring back the list! | |
Hasn't voted | this is really dumb. | |
| Posted Feb 23, 2006 8:21 pm | ||
| Misha | doh | |
Hasn't voted | bring back the list and use volunteered steeleman's legal service if required. he is da man!!! | |
| Posted Feb 24, 2006 1:02 am | ||
| 1000Pks | Excuse me | |
Hasn't voted | That'll be patents and copyrights attorneys, then. This is not in my hands. Contact the Northern CA SC chapter, and tell them to bring back peak climbing (as we all had it, so well) as well as the OGUL list. And, Heaven forbid, the certified messenger looking to serve papers will need more than an e-mail address. | |
| Posted Feb 24, 2006 1:19 am | ||
| Klenke | You can't copyright a fact | |
Hasn't voted | If the information is objective then it cannot be copyrighted. Anyone could create a list with the same ordering, numbers, etc. (such as Top 100 lists). If the list is subjective then it can be copyrighted. This would be list for things like "My favorite California Starbucks Cafes" because it is implied that there were artistic liberties taken in creation of such a list. But who would want to reproduce someone else's blog-like list like that anyway? Basically, you can't copyright a list of facts. You can copyright the presentation of the list on a webpage but not the list itself. | |
| Posted Feb 24, 2006 3:44 am | ||
| 1000Pks | Law | |
Hasn't voted | B, It's a matter of property rights, specifically copyright. I have no problem about it's web distribution, except that apparently no permission was sought. Just can't have people ripping off whatever's on the web (pirated as it is), or otherwise published, to re-publish to one's own website. We need a legal scholar or professional legal advice to determine this correctly, I guess. Opinions are worthless, except, in the end, by a judge and jury. JD, that's a nice website, but the words are hard to read. Maybe try using a different font? And, I last heard, the true author was working with Siskiyou County SAR, but decades ago. We all lost contact when they (SC) "got rid" of all of us. You can ask the local SC chapter, but they're now involved with other things, and they apparently consider peak climbers a nuisance. As I've said many times, already, you can probably do as you like. But with any legal repercussions, you may be held liable. I'm not a legal professional, so I am not any sort of final decision. But people sue for anything, nowdays, and with a list to encourage whatever or however, I'd say that makes a webmaster a potential target. If you think that's all ridiculous, that's your view. You may be right (I hope). But civil court may rule differently. I do not make those decisions. | |
| Posted Feb 24, 2006 6:04 pm | ||
| HandjamMasterC | Hi Gomer! | |
Hasn't voted | "This is definitely intellectual property theft, or my name is Gomer " - Your name is now Gomer then! 1000Gomers!! | |
| Posted Feb 24, 2006 6:15 pm | ||
|
