BDL,
In answer to your question. I note your apparent belief that one needs to be qualified in Law to be able to give an opinion. I am sure that you would understand that Law is a matter of opinion. That is why we have Courts, so that when legal opinion differs, the Court can decide which opinion is most correct.
I am also sure that you would be aware that 'ignorance of the Law is no excuse'. In most countries, including the U.S and here in Australia, people are duty bound to be aware of all Law that applies to them. It is a requirement that every person (of proper age and responsibility etc) form an opinion of the Law as it applies to whatever it is they are doing.
You, however, are implying that a person that has an opinion of Law without being formally qualified as an attorney or lawyer, is to be fround upon. However, the truth of the matter is that every person is duty bound to ensure that they make themselves aware of the Law and form an opinion of the Law and how it applies to them.
As for the rest of your post, I am not going to address everything you have stated. However, I will correct you on a few things...
"You are wildly incorrect"... I did not state it as a fact. I specifically used the word "may" as in maybe, possibly, might etc. I am not aware of the matter ever being tested and therefore it remains a "may". I am sure you would understand it is not possible to be incorrect with a maybe...let alone "wildly incorrect".
My summary is correct...Copyright is AUTOMATIC.
Copyright can be very, very complex. Especially when there are multible owners. For example, a photo can have one owner of the image another owner of the film the image negative is on and yet another owner of the paper the image is printed on...and that is just one SIMPLE example of how complex Copyright can be! In affect a Copyright Owner might need to seek permission to use their own Copyright !
"While your list of excepted activities is correct in some respects,"...No, my short list of 3 examples is correct...It is not correct in some respects...The 3 examples are 100% correct.
It does relate to the subject matter. If a person posts a photo here, for example, as a news announcement, then it would not breach Copyright!
"When writing on legal matters it is important to be precise"...I was. In fact, I will state again, if you are not 100% sure that you are allowed to publish material, then chances are you are not (allowed).
You stated - "Giving credit is more a matter of ethics than of law"
I stated - "Giving credit does NOT give a right of use."
So what is your point?
I agree with your comments regarding Admin and the Forums. However, a small correction, it is public not "private".
In closing, I will state again that it seems people are confused with the Copyright Law and how it applies to them. People should not confuse what the U.S wants with what the Law actually is.
And again I state - At the end of the day the simplest thing to do is what Admin asks...Don't breach other peoples Copyright.
