Copyright issues front and center

Since I’ve been accused of copyright infringement recently (for posting a trailer to a movie that I had nothing to do with making or promoting, nor am I hosting the trailer, I simply linked to it from YouTube) I find the subject interesting.

There is something called “fair use” that gives you the right and freedom to use SOME information without it being a copyright infringement. This includes news reports. You can freely use a portion of an article FOR DISCUSSION AND COMMENTARY. You cannot reprint (yes, even online) an entire article stripped of bylines. Whether to a news site, or a blog.

So take a look at these:

Creating an Unmanned Aircraft That Can Sense and Avoid by Juan Miguel Pedraza

Astronaut Neil Armstrong dies at 82 by the Associated Press

Lower Costs Via Aircraft Certification Reform? by Glenn Pew

LN: Czech Silence on Syria’s use of Albatros Plane embarrassing by Czech News Agency

That’s enough for now. All of these will come with some sort of disclaimer. That last one states very specifically:

Copyright 2011 by the Czech News Agency (ČTK). All rights reserved.
Copying, dissemination or other publication of this article or parts thereof without the prior written consent of ČTK is expressly forbidden. The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its content.

Basically that means you canNOT cut and paste the articles to YOUR site (or blog). It is their work, they own it. It’s COPYRIGHTED.

The Associated Press has also gone after blogs for doing exactly that.

I have, on this site, copy and pasted a couple of articles from Aero News. In all instances I have also linked to the original article and given credit as to where the article came from. Most importantly, I received permission from Jim Campbell, the editor in chief of ANN to do so.

I would be interested to know if the same can be said for Dave Riggs at Mach One Aviation.

Someone there is copying and pasting news articles in an “aviation news blog” .. stripping by lines and not providing links to the original articles. It’s still a copyright violation even if you link to the original though. You cannot copy and paste an ENTIRE article.

The associated press has gone after bloggers for doing this in the past. They will do so in the future.

You are stealing someone’s work when you do that. You are stealing the hits that should be going to their site (i.e. potentially messing with ad revenue).

As per usual, some people are just not willing to do the work and have no problem stealing someone else’s.

Yes, they stuck a picture of Riggs with Armstrong into the article. That doesn’t make it theirs. And poor Neil would be rolling in his grave if he new he was standing next to a convicted felon who looks constipated in that picture. I REPEAT, THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT YOUR ARTICLE.

My opinion is, this is another way for Riggs to try to overpower Aviation Criminal, the LA Times, Aero-News, and others in the Google rankings to hide his 30 years of criminal activity that has been exposed. By doing so, he’s just breaking more laws. He just can’t seem to help himself.

P.S. In the article about the drones, It was the University of NORTH DAKOTA, not South. You might want to fix that.

Share on Facebook
Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Copyright issues front and center

  1. f_stop says:

    I find it interesting that he goes after you on copyright violations when he has done it more times than I can count. Using other peoples photographs to advertise his “air racing”, illegal rides and others while the copyright holder gets no credit and no compensation. What an idiot.

  2. admin says:

    Well this time its Tony tiscareno coming after me..but you’ll never convince me that Riggs isn’t the one pushing him to do it.

  3. Ed Jeszka says:

    A little off the main topic but I would still like to know who is Riggs’s FAA lap dog in VNY. If he has made public the “rides” and other activity why is he not in the FAA cross hairs? Who else is associated with the illegal activities he appears to have been given FAA blessing?

    • admin says:

      That is the $64,000 question Ed. I’ve been asking here .. loudly for over a year. Others have been trying to get someone to address it for SEVERAL years. Someone has to be in his pocket. Either that, or everyone at VNY is completely and totally worthless. Either way someone needs to address it, and someone needs to be held accountable.

  4. AVIDWIZ@aol.com says:

    I vote WORTHLESS

  5. David Nguyen says:

    U n b e l i e v a b l e

  6. Ed Jeszka says:

    As a retired FAA Inspector (Operations) I can merely say that if it were simply a case of worthless it would have been uncovered long ago, especially with the negative press associated with Riggs activity. There are many very sharp inspectors still left that would have found this and disclosed the problems. However, if it were corruption, it would be very well hidden and more difficult to uncover. Who got the perks? Who took the flights? Who got the gifts? The questionable activity seems to be untouchable by the honest inspectors. How about an inspector getting a Lear type rating with a .5 oral and .5 flight check. That was certainly disclosed to the FAA and was summarily buried. The inspector got promoted and transferred.

    I guess one could ask the ops folks in VNY what is going on. Maybe the manager, Swanson, or supervisor Goodell or inspectors Kline, Moss, Rizzo, Hoffman or Boutib or Cirigliano or Robinson might be able to shed some light on why Riggs seems to have been given a pass on any enforcement action. Somebody has the answer. But maybe $64,000 might not be the right amount.

    • admin says:

      Well we know that more than one person got in trouble and/or was told to stand down when they tried to investigate him, the L-39 flights and the condition of his planes. That speaks volumes to me.

      It does seem that quite often when something goes wrong, or someone makes me mistakes, they simply get moved to a new FSDO and that sometimes takes a promotion to get it done. It’s always amazing to me when someone is rewarded for being a bad employee. Even worse when they are rewarded for being a criminal.

  7. Nunzio says:

    Riggs comes on like a tough guy who is “Not afraid of anybody”. He’s a coward who’s Sunday punch is a bullshit copyright lawsuit. Riggs, you’re about as tough as an opossum who just plays dead.

    • Vinnie says:

      Nunz

      I gotta hand it to ya – you know riggs like a well read book and I believe u’r commenting with first hand knowledge regarding his blustery antics and bullying threats. My guess is you’ve whipped his ass a time or two and you see thru his all bark and no bite behaviour. He must of been some big “bubbas” bitch in prison or he’s been beaten to a pulp otherwise.