Types of copyright licenses:

• Attribution (BY)
Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these.

• Share-alike (SA)
Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work.

• Non-commercial (NC)
Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.

• No Derivative Works (ND)
Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.

And finally, of course:

• All Rights Reserved ©
Indicates that the copyright holder reserves, or holds for their own use, all the rights provided by copyright law, such as distribution, performance, and creation of derivative works; that is, they have not waived any such right. In copyright law, by default all rights are reserved; nothing may be done with a copyrighted work without explicit permission.


All Rights Reserved is the default copyright, unless explicitly stated. It does not need to be said.

obiscolly:

Well...i never heard that. But if it did happen, she's wrong at that. But, Mr Ay Dee insists that referencing the source isn't enough; that she has to obtain a written permission from the writer. That doesn't make any sense to me. Truth is most materials people use on their blogs especially in Nigeria aren't copyrighted. So anyone that takes advantage of that can't be held liable for copyright infringement. We should establish clearly what plagiarism is here. Take the instance of a blogger using the picture of the President of Nigeria in a post. This picture wasn't taken by the blogger, but they go ahead to use it anyway (this many bloggers and even the complainant is guilty of. How many people have even had the opportunity of taking pics of the President afterall...lol). Does that still count as plagiarism, especially if the picture isn't copyrighted?
I'm open to learn. I've never given the issue of copyright and plagiarism much attention and I'll be glad I get the facts right.

We are all guilty of plagiarism in this country. Yes if a blog uses pictures of mr president without referencing the source is plagiarism. There are open source contents online which you can use,some only requires you to give them credits while some require a express written permission of the owner.
We are all guilty in nigeria and she won't be the first or the last, she was just unlucky to steal from someone who means business and an organisation who won't want any third party to tarnish its image.

MissMeiya:



Citing is not enough. She was still making money from someone else's work. The original writer has the right to deny reproduction without consent, even with citation. Can you start a business selling dubbed Disney movies, just because you said they were made by Disney? Please look up copyright law.

The fact that people generally do not press for legal action doesn't not mean it is not illegal. Look at how often Google removes copies of music videos from YouTube. You think those users didn't put the name of the artist? But if the recording company chooses to complain to Google, they will take the video down.

On another note, Google can do whatever the hell they want. Blogger is their property. Even if they decided to make a rule that no one on Blogger is allowed to post pictures of green apples, they can.

READ THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

I get your point. Most of the videos Google takes down on YouTube have violated copyright laws. That means the original materials are copyrighted. The question now is how many of the blogger crying foul have copyright protection on their materials?

...Lah lah lah la...story story? But everything in Naija na copy copy masked as originality. They wil dub ya album, copy your books, copy your product, copy your service. This is not new, Linda should not be the only one singled out. Just censor every blog in Nig. for fairness otherwise we go to Hague to iron it out.

adepiero:


http://www.punchng.com/i-punch/google-shuts-down-linda-ikejis-blog/

There you have it, told y'all it wasn't personal.

jmoore:
They have spoken.

"My people perish for lack of knowledge"

$20 for a domain name per year + around $1,200 for hosting(dedicated server) per year she can't spend.

Words of wisdom. This is a lesson for all. Business is for serious minded individuals. At a point miss linda should have thaught of how to build an institution in order to protect the business.
Linda's story will be adopted as case study in my next business training.

obiscolly:

I get your point. Most of the videos Google takes down on YouTube have violated copyright laws. That means the original materials are copyrighted. The question now is how many of the blogger crying foul have copyright protection on their materials?

See the following:

• All Rights Reserved
Indicates that the copyright holder reserves, or holds for their own use, all the rights provided by copyright law, such as distribution, performance, and creation of derivative works; that is, they have not waived any such right. In copyright law, [size=14pt]by default all rights are reserved[/size]; nothing may be done with a copyrighted work without explicit permission.

As for the persons wailing over the shutdown of the blog. yall show cry me a river. Gossip blog that doesn't add anything meaningful to ones life.

remsonik:

We are all guilty of plagiarism in this country. Yes if a blog uses pictures of mr president without referencing the source is plagiarism. There are open source contents online which you can use,some only requires you to give them credits while some require a express written permission of the owner.
We are all guilty in nigeria and she won't be the first or the last, she was just unlucky to steal from someone who means business and an organisation who won't want any third party to tarnish its image.

This is just a case of witch-hunt. The same guy who you say means business has a case with Volkswagen for cyber squatting. He also registered several lindaikeji domains hoping to make money selling them off. If anyone is to talk about morality and ethics of journalism, it's definitely not him.

remsonik:

We are all guilty of plagiarism in this country. Yes if a blog uses pictures of mr president without referencing the source is plagiarism. There are open source contents online which you can use,some only requires you to give them credits while some require a express written permission of the owner.
We are all guilty in nigeria and she won't be the first or the last, she was just unlucky to steal from someone who means business and an organisation who won't want any third party to tarnish its image.

obiscolly:

This is just a case of witch-hunt. The same guy who you say means business has a case with Volkswagen for cyber squatting. He also registered several lindaikeji domains hoping to make money selling them off. If anyone is to talk about morality and ethics of journalism, it's definitely not him.

Google is not the police. They do NOT have to go around enforcing copyright law. When they receive a complaint, they DO have to respond, or risk legal action.

You think Google is going to go to court for one Linda Ikeji?

obiscolly:

This is just a case of witch-hunt. The same guy who you say means business has a case with Volkswagen for cyber squatting. He also registered several lindaikeji domains hoping to make money selling them off. If anyone is to talk about morality and ethics of journalism, it's definitely not him.

Well the guys case is a different issue. Volkswagen can decide to go after him and he will loose a lot in litigation fees.
But you know blogger offers a third party agreement. I think they just did that to protect their image
Let's say linda went to steal an image on getty images without getting permission to use it. Getty image won't sue linda its google they will sue.

remsonik:

We are all guilty of plagiarism in this country. Yes if a blog uses pictures of mr president without referencing the source is plagiarism. There are open source contents online which you can use,some only requires you to give them credits while some require a express written permission of the owner.
We are all guilty in nigeria and she won't be the first or the last, she was just unlucky to steal from someone who means business and an organisation who won't want any third party to tarnish its image.

obiscolly:

This is just a case of witch-hunt. The same guy who you say means business has a case with Volkswagen for cyber squatting. He also registered several lindaikeji domains hoping to make money selling them off. If anyone is to talk about morality and ethics of journalism, it's definitely not him.

Newsflash, this is the www. If Nigerians want to keep stealing with impunity then, they should go and create their own NigerianWideWeb then.

There is no justification for her act, she claims to be number one yet keeps stealing from Stella Dimokorkus and other bloggers with no shame on her part and just because she could, but like that proverb says "everyday for the thief, one day for the owner"...MyAyedee posted proofs about how he has been pleading with Linda to stop stealing his work since last year, Linda in her rant dismissed this as spam to tarnish the guy's image and also lied that they had brought all her domain names YET lindaikejionline was registered in her younger Sister's name. Meaning she is so tightfisted, she does not want to part with one kobo and has no shame stooping so low to steals crumbs off people/her fellow bloggers.

MissMeiya:


See the following:

• All Rights Reserved
Indicates that the copyright holder reserves, or holds for their own use, all the rights provided by copyright law, such as distribution, performance, and creation of derivative works; that is, they have not waived any such right. In copyright law, [size=14pt]by default all rights are reserved[/size]; nothing may be done with a copyrighted work without explicit permission.

I don't think it's all about putting 'all rights reserved' on your website; anyone can do that. It has to be a registered copyright, just as in the case of trademarks. Copyright holders are usually given a certificate of copyright which clearly most bloggers in Nigeria don't have. Your work has to even meet a minimum standard of originality before you are even granted a copyright.

obiscolly:

I don't think it's all about putting 'all rights reserved' on your website; anyone can do that. It has to be a registered copyright, just as in the case of trademarks. Copyright holders are usually given a certificate of copyright which clearly most bloggers in Nigeria don't have. Your work has to even meet a minimum standard of originality before you are even granted a copyright.

Untrue. Copyright is not trademarking or a patent.

MissMeiya:



Google is not the police. They do NOT have to go around enforcing copyright law. When they receive a complaint, they DO have to respond, or risk legal action.

You think Google is going to go to court for one Linda Ikeji?

Thank you oh.

The annoying thing I read on twitter was the MrAyedee's friends mocking him that Linda Ikeji is Nigerian and thats how they lie and steal in that Country and that is why even her family members were brutally attacking him online with no thoughts that the outside world was watching their antics.

Oh well, our beloved Nigeria will rise from the ashes someday. Hmmm.

Busybody2:



Thank you oh.

The annoying thing I read on twitter was the MrAyedee's friends mocking him that Linda Ikeji is Nigerian and thats how they lie and steal in that Country and that is why even her family members were brutally attacking him online with no thoughts that the outside world was watching their antics.

Oh well, our beloved Nigeria will rise from the ashes someday. Hmmm.

You see? Shaming Nigeria yet again.

MissMeiya:


Untrue. Copyright is not trademarking or a patent.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Wikipedia is your friend

MissMeiya:


You see? Shaming Nigeria yet again.

Well, they have concluded it is our nature, cos it seems that presently the whole 178 million Nigerian population descended on the guy's 9jalife.com website and have defaced it with curses extended to his generation unborn

Not funny but what can we do than accept these unfair labels

obiscolly:


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Wikipedia is your friend

wiki is not a reliable source in any argument.

Not saying you are wrong or right thou

Missy89:


wiki is not a reliable source in any argument.

Not saying you are wrong or right thou

I'm not saying you should hold credible everything on Wikipedia. I just want you to know there's such a thing as Copyright certificate.

obiscolly:

I'm not saying you should hold credible everything on Wikipedia. I just want you to know there's such a thing as Copyright certificate.

i wasn't the one debating you we just have similar names buddy

I was only watching you two

pazienza:


Thank you. Linda clearly stated that she often post the source of her news. Cos if posting a news article and it's source without the permission of the original article writer and owner constitutes plagiarism,then even NL would be in trouble.

Nairaland is different because it is a forum. The owner is only responsible for controlling the content, and his website - and not the users. So, if it were against NL, and whatever issue it is, didn't come from the owner directly, they will just ask him to remove the content.

However, your woman is extremely lucky she is also on a third party platform. And she won't suffer that much due to legal issues involved with third party agreements. Apart from what Google did. I'd say she is extremely smart and she is decent hustler for sticking to blogger. If it had been her own domain, she would have coughed out a lot of money. Necole Bitchie had to pay a few thousands of dollars some months back for something similar.

Just tell her to learn from this, and make she understands how the internet works. And also stay humble. You know how your naija folks act when they start making loose change with the non-existent ego tripping lol.

Missy89:


i wasn't the one debating you we just have similar names buddy

I was only watching you two

Oh, my bad! Sorry bout that

obiscolly:


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Wikipedia is your friend

Shaking my head. You didn't understand what this meant:

"Copyright is a form of intellectual property (as patents, trademarks and trade secrets are)"

What the sentence means, is this: Copyright is a form of intellectual property. Other forms of intellectual property are patents, trademarks, and trade secrets.

This is NOT saying that copyright is the same thing as patents, trademarks, and trade secrets.

Don't be so smug next time. And read carefully.

Missy89:


wiki is not a reliable source in any argument.

Not saying you are wrong or right thou

He actually misunderstood the thing he linked. Wikipedia is right. He is still wrong.

MissMeiya:

Shaking my head. You didn't understand what this meant:
"Copyright is a form of intellectual property (as patents, trademarks and trade secrets are)"
What the sentence means, is this: Copyright is a form of intellectual property. Other forms of intellectual property are patents, trademarks, and trade secrets.
This is NOT saying that copyright is the same thing as patents, trademarks, and trade secrets.
Don't be so smug next time. And read carefully.

bigt2:
That's a bad one from google.

That they caught one of you Nigerians who specialises in stealing other people's property. Sick pple. Instead of them to try and understand what is happening. You think others are sick like you.

obiscolly:

I'm not saying you should hold credible everything on Wikipedia. I just want you to know there's such a thing as Copyright certificate.

Congratulations on being wrong again. There are some things you don't need to argue about. Just look it up. Let's visit Wikipedia again:

"Is registration required?

It is a common misconception to confuse copyright registration with the granting of copyright.

Copyright in most countries today is automatic on "fixation" – it applies as soon as the work is fixed in some tangible medium. This standard is established internationally by the Berne Convention (1886), which most countries have signed onto since. Registration may be required by countries before joining Berne. For instance, the US required registration of copyrighted works before it signed onto the Berne Convention in 1989; at that point, registration was no longer required for works to be copyrighted in the US. Registration is still required in the US for some benefits, such as awards of statutory damages. U.S. Courts are split on whether a completed copyright registration is required to commence an infringement lawsuit, with the Fifth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits holding that the receipt of an application for copyright registration by the Copyright Office was sufficient. The case Kernel Records Oy v Mosley found that registration is necessary for a lawsuit and that anything published online is considered a US work."

So, no. You do not need a stupid copyright certificate before you can be protected from plagiarists. Only to receive certain benefits in a US court after a successful lawsuit.

MissMeiya:


Shaking my head. You didn't understand what this meant:

"Copyright is a form of intellectual property (as patents, trademarks and trade secrets are)"

What the sentence means, is this: Copyright is a form of intellectual property. Other forms of intellectual property are patents, trademarks, and trade secrets.

This is NOT saying that copyright is the same thing as patents, trademarks, and trade secrets.

Don't be so smug next time. And read carefully.

See who's talking about reading carefully. Lol. Did you read the section of 'Obtaining and Enforcing Copyright'? I guess not.
So don't be so smug next time.

Typically, a work must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for copyright, and the copyright expires after a set period of time (some jurisdictions may allow this to be extended). Different countries impose different tests, although generally the requirements are low; in the United Kingdom there has to be some 'skill, labour, and judgment' that has gone into it.[20] In Australia and the United Kingdom it has been held that a single word is insufficient to comprise a copyright work. However, single words or a short string of words can sometimes be registered as a trademark instead.

obiscolly:

See who's talking about reading carefully. Lol. Did you read the section of 'Obtaining and Enforcing Copyright'? I guess not.
So don't be so smug next time.

Stop being a fool. You stated that bloggers must receive a copyright certificate before they can claim they have been plagiarized. Then you claimed that copyright is the same thing as a trademark.

WHERE DID I ARGUE THE BASIS FOR DETERMING COPYRIGHT ELIGIBILITY?

Stop arguing. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

MissMeiya:


Stop being a fool. You stated that bloggers must receive a copyright certificate before they can claim they have been plagiarized. Then you claimed that copyright is the same thing as a trademark.

WHERE DID I ARGUE THE BASIS FOR DETERMING COPYRIGHT ELIGIBILITY?

Stop arguing. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Kk...quote me again when you have some more sensible to say.. got to go now

...and this is not explanation