Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Anyone have a "how to" on modifying the bumper support to fit when using the SpeedART or FVD Brombacher sport exhausts? It needs to be cut but have not seen how or where. I know Gator Bite originally did an install but he doesn't seem to be around anymore.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Gator Bite is on the CR if you can get on there.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
34,474 Posts
Thanks, Found Mike. Here is his mod.

It has come to my attention that the individual who operates the Cayman Register site has requested that this screen captured image taken by Nice Rumble be removed from this website. The individual claims that if information available on the Cayman Register site is shared outside of the Cayman Register site that it loses its value and that the owner loses control of his intellectual property.

I'd like to provide the position of Planet-9.com in this regard so as to clear up any misconceptions that may exist.

First, and foremost, the image capture taken by Nice Rumble was of an article that was originally created on this website, originally published here and as such per our rules grants this site a license to use/retain any items created on or uploaded to this site. The copyright owner didn't lose control of his intellectual property, he merely granted this site a license to use it when he created the item here originally. In addition I might also add that since this individual was compensated by this site in the form of receiving a free/discounted exhaust system due to the arrangement between this site and the exhaust provider that his work might also be considered a "work for hire" in which case we actually own the copyright to the work, not him. Now I have no wish to pursue this individual in court or strip the Cayman Register of this article because it was originally created here, but I will defend Nice Rumble's ability to post an excerpted screen capture of said article as he has done above.

Second, let's pretend for a moment that the individual who created the article didn't grant us a license, that in fact they are the exclusive copyright holder, something that I and I think most copyright/IP attorneys would say isn't the case, but let's go ahead and grant the individual the sole copyright. Even if this were true the use of Nice Rumble's screen capture falls under the Fair Use doctrine as it passes the 4 part Fair Use test. If you'd like a quick primer on this please watch this video: Copyright Basics Video

Factor 1: The purpose or character of the use - In this case the screen captured image is not displayed here to make money or derive any financial or business gain, but rather to simply provide information on how to cut a metal bracket so that an exhaust system won't rub. Even this information isn't being sold but rather freely viewable to anyone who visits the site and reads this topic.

Factor 2: Nature of the original work - This isn't a painting that has been captured but rather a factual work, factual works such as a how-to article are much more likely to be subject to the Fair Use doctrine. There is nothing unique, artistic or creative in this screen capture of images showing factually what a bracket looks like and factually how to cut/alter that bracket so an exhaust system will work.

Factor 3: Amount and Substantiality - If Nice Rumble had taken multiple screen captures showing the entire article and posted it here simply to duplicate an article from elsewhere then I think you could make the argument that it isn't Fair Use (again if we ignore the fact that the article was originally created here and still resides here in a cut-down form). That isn't what Nice Rumble did, he simply took 1 screen capture showing only 2 images pertaining only to the bracket modification, dozens of other photos and the rest of the exhaust install procedure are not shown. The bracket modification is hardly the heart of the article either so as such it passes the 3rd portion of the test.

Factor 4: Effect on the Market - The posting of this screen capture photo has no effect on the market or the copyright holder financially. The original author is not losing money because this screen captured excerpt image appears on this site. The author isn't in the business of selling/making modified Porsche exhaust brackets. There is no proof that someone didn't join PCA (btw the original author claims he isn't paid by PCA anyway) because they saw this photo. If anything the reverse may more likely be true that someone seeing this excerpt photo might wish to see the article in its entirety and thus join the Cayman Register site in order to do so (although the original cut down version of the article does appear in our Articles section as well).

Given that the screen capture image passes the 4 part Fair Use doctrine test it is clear that there is no reason for Planet-9 to pull this image from the site and that the individual's request for Nice Rumble to do so is either in error, an overly zealous interpretation of copyright law, or a pattern or practice of attempting to intimidate users of this site and to curtail the free flow of purely factual and potentially helpful information among the Porsche enthusiast community. I don't know which it really is, no one contacted me or made a request or explanation to me, but I will defend the rights of our members to act in accordance with the law and freely/openly share information whenever and wherever the law permits them to do so. In this case Nice Rumble acted within the law and did nothing wrong.

There are certainly items from this site that from time to time get quoted on or displayed on the Cayman Register site but I don't make it a point of trying to over extend copyright law and make a fuss about it if the law isn't being violated and the results aren't detrimental to myself or this site or its members. I thought we had all moved beyond some sort of underlying animosity between the sites and that people for the most part were able to co-exist peacefully and get along, but then along comes a request like the one made of Nice Rumble to remove the screen capture that he shared. Sadly I don't think he even knew the history of the article in question and simply got caught in someone's cross-hairs.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter for anyone who is/was concerned. If you have any questions for me or my IP legal counsel please send me a PM and I will do my best to address your questions in a timely manner.
 

·
Cayman Register Advocate
Joined
·
7,305 Posts
Ken,

This is precisely why I do not post here any more. Because of this blatant lack of respect for simple rights. Copyright law is very simple. Those photographs were taken by me, with my camera, and altered by me. The text that accompanies them, also written by me. The fact that I own exclusive copyright to them is indisputable. Your lack of respect for that is not unpredictable.

I am not going to waste my time challenging each of your points of nonsense, but I would like to set the record straight on one thing. Not that it makes any difference at all in regard to the copyright issue at hand, but I paid more for my SpeedART system than the participants of the group buy that resulted from it (feel free to compare My Invoice to the Group Buy Price). I also spent money dyno testing my car for the article, and I spent countless hours writing the article. This is the thanks that I get from you, the person who gained two Gold Level ($2,500 each) sponsors from my work (GMP Performance and FVD).

Ken, I tried to handle this privately and respectfully. You have chosen to make this public. You are displaying my photos and writings without my permission. I am respectfully requesting that you remove the unauthorized copy of my work.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
Would it be possible to resolve this by posting a link to the Cayman Registry site where the original image resides? I ask this as I'm not clear if posting links to other websites is OK. I post links to my personal website here all the time, but I realize that's somewhat different to posting links to commercial (not meaning for-profit!) websites.
As a Cayman owner, I like to visit both CR and P9, athough I find the traffic on P9 to be much higher.
 

·
Cayman Register Advocate
Joined
·
7,305 Posts
Would it be possible to resolve this by posting a link to the Cayman Registry site where the original image resides? I ask this as I'm not clear if posting links to other websites is OK. I post links to my personal website here all the time, but I realize that's somewhat different to posting links to commercial (not meaning for-profit!) websites.
As a Cayman owner, I like to visit both CR and P9, athough I find the traffic on P9 to be much higher.
Yes Phil, that is perfectly acceptable. That is what I asked of the original poster. He couldn't edit his post because it was too old, so he contacted the site administration here asking them to do just that. Apparently that was not acceptable to them.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
34,474 Posts
Would it be possible to resolve this by posting a link to the Cayman Registry site where the original image resides? I ask this as I'm not clear if posting links to other websites is OK. I post links to my personal website here all the time, but I realize that's somewhat different to posting links to commercial (not meaning for-profit!) websites.
As a Cayman owner, I like to visit both CR and P9, athough I find the traffic on P9 to be much higher.
Actually that doesn't work because the link he wanted Nice Rumble to post REQUIRES that someone is a paying PCA member to gain access to the Cayman Register site and said photo, so posting such a link here would be worthless for anyone who isn't a PCA member, meaning the vast majority of people who might view the picture. It's a shame that GB and the CR can't abide by copyright law or even take the time to watch the copyright primer they direct people to watch. Shameful, simply shameful.

Now with regard to the bracket it would be interesting to know why some people have had to modify theirs and other people have not. Has the manufacturer of the aftermarket exhaust changed their design? Is there some difference in the brackets? Or is it something else?

BTW I would spend more time correcting the inaccuracies in GB's post above but I am out of time at the moment...
 

·
Cayman Register Advocate
Joined
·
7,305 Posts
Actually that doesn't work because the link he wanted Nice Rumble to post REQUIRES that someone is a paying PCA member to gain access to the Cayman Register site and said photo, so posting such a link here would be worthless for anyone who isn't a PCA member, meaning the vast majority of people who might view the picture. It's a shame that GB and the CR can't abide by copyright law or even take the time to watch the copyright primer they direct people to watch. Shameful, simply shameful.
Hence my prior statement that my works "build value into the Cayman Register", and therefore into PCA membership.

Please educate me on how we are so shamefully not abiding by copyright law.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
34,474 Posts
Hence my prior statement that my works "build value into the Cayman Register", and therefore into PCA membership.

Please educate me on how we are so shamefully not abiding by copyright law.
Mike, no one is saying that your articles don't help provide "value" to the Cayman Register site, clearly they do, whether they are articles you created here first and then moved over to the Cayman Register site (is that called taking/transferring value?) or whether they are articles that you've authored new since setting up the CR site. The question isn't whether or not your articles provide value to the CR site but whether or not the posting of a single screen capture of a small element of a single article on another website (this one or ANY website) constitutes a Fair Use of your article under copyright law. As mentioned above it is a 4 part test. One of those parts is NOT does Mike's article provide value to the CR site, but rather the 4 part test is:

Factor 1: The purpose or character of the use - In this case the screen captured image is not displayed here to make money or derive any financial or business gain, but rather to simply provide information on how to cut a metal bracket so that an exhaust system won't rub. Even this information isn't being sold but rather freely viewable to anyone who visits the site and reads this topic. The reason Nice Rumble posted the picture he took of a slice of your article was to educate others on a specific item, how to cut a bracket so an exhaust system would fit. Educational and Factual - It passes the first factor.

Factor 2: Nature of the original work - This isn't a painting that has been captured but rather a factual work, factual works such as a how-to article are much more likely to be subject to the Fair Use doctrine. There is nothing unique, artistic or creative in this screen capture of images showing factually what a bracket looks like and factually how to cut/alter that bracket so an exhaust system will work. If Nice Rumble had taken a screen capture of say a Cayman Register t-shirt, then slapped that image on another shirt and tried to sell it that would be a problem, or if as I said he was taking an entire creative work like a painting, but he wasn't. It's the same thing as Nice Rumble walking into his public library where he goes and finds a book authored by Mike on how to install exhaust systems. He goes to the copy machine and lays the book down and makes a single copy of one page of the book showing how to cut a bracket. The author of the book would not be able to sue the library or Nice Rumble or Xerox for him making that copy of that one page so again he passes Factor 2.

Factor 3: Amount and Substantiality - If Nice Rumble had taken multiple screen captures showing the entire article and posted it here simply to duplicate an article from elsewhere then I think you could make the argument that it isn't Fair Use (again if we ignore the fact that the article was originally created here and still resides here in a cut-down form). That isn't what Nice Rumble did, he simply took 1 screen capture showing only 2 images pertaining only to the bracket modification, dozens of other photos and the rest of the exhaust install procedure are not shown. The bracket modification is hardly the heart of the article either so as such it passes the 3rd portion of the test. This is pretty self explanatory, but much like the book example used above he only excerpted a small fraction of the original and that small fraction is not the heart of the item, in other words the rest of the items stands even without the photos of the bracket modification. We know this to be true because the remains of the article still published on Planet-9 don't contain that section yet the article has worked to inform people how to swap their exhaust. We also know from member posts that some people haven't needed to modify their bracket making that portion of the article less substantial and only relevant to a sub set of people who are doing exhaust work. So once again, it passes Factor 3.

Factor 4: Effect on the Market - The posting of this screen capture photo has no effect on the market or the copyright holder financially. The original author is not losing money because this screen captured excerpt image appears on this site. The author isn't in the business of selling/making modified Porsche exhaust brackets. There is no proof that someone didn't join PCA
(btw the original author claims he isn't paid by PCA anyway) because they saw this photo. If anything the reverse may more likely be true that someone seeing this excerpt photo might wish to see the article in its entirety and thus join the Cayman Register site in order to do so (although the original cut down version of the article does appear in our articles
section as well). To further extrapolate let's assume for a moment that the market isn't the market for modified brackets, but rather the market for automotive web forums. The Cayman Register doesn't sell advertising in its forum like we do, in fact it claims to be a non-profit 501(c)(3) entity and thus would not be competing in any market for automotive web forums. Since posting the image of the bracket had no effect on any market, and in fact could only potentially have the effect of increasing PCA membership so people could read the full article, it passes Factor 4 as well.

So as long as you don't ignore the 4 part test commonly used in US Copyright law cases it is quite easy to see that Nice Rumble didn't do anything wrong and that there is no requirement for him to remove his screen capture image. Hence my point about not abiding by copyright law....


All that being said I have sent a more detailed response directly to Gator Bite and will be closing this topic thread if anymore copyright nonsense continues to be brought up as opposed to people working to try and help fellow members. I have informed Nice Rumble that I will provide him an alternative means to modify his bracket and an alternative means to educate anyone who might be interested in how to perform the factually mundane task of altering a bracket so to potentially ease the installation of an aftermarket exhaust system. I apologize to anyone who wasted time reading all this instead of having fun with their cars instead! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Thank you K-Man for your stance in running P-9. I'm brand new here, just got my first Porsche, and am enjoying reading all of the old articles. I'm astonished to read that a long time helpful member with 7000+ posts, who has done so much to benefit this community, would decide to hide their content behind a paywall. By doing this you decrease the value of these older articles, hurting everyone who comes across this and enriching no one. There is no social good in that action.

As enthusiasts we should want to share and disseminate all knowledge to help others, at all times.
 

·
Cayman Register Advocate
Joined
·
7,305 Posts
So in short, you are saying "No, I won't grant your request to remove you material." Right? I just hope everyone is paying attention so they realize that if anything is ever posted here, Ken will assume all ownership.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
34,474 Posts
So in short, you are saying "No, I won't grant your request to remove you material." Right? I just hope everyone is paying attention so they realize that if anything is ever posted here, Ken will assume all ownership.
Nope, not what I said. Each such request would be evaluated on a case by case basis to see whether or not all laws are complied with as well as all agreements between the parties and of course the impact or damage that any such request or related action may present. Each case is unique and will evaluated on its own merits. While it might be easier to run a website where you simply set up a black and white draconian rule and execute against that, the world isn't black and white and so we take the time and make the effort here to try to do what is best by everyone to the extent that we can.

And since I said it was time to get back to exhaust discussion and people don't want to do that I'm going to go ahead and close this topic and trust that Nice Rumble will share his exhaust work in a new thread in the near future for any interested parties. Kudos to Reach for hitting the proverbial nail on the head!
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top