Unlike you young marx-man, I didn't have to get out my fisher price dictionary to discover the meaning of that curious new word.

Fecetious as posted was the correct use. Just look at all the sh*t you've posted about it!

You have a fisher price dictionary cool can i have it mines broken trying to look up fecetious.

its a shame, good to point it out RashDog

no excuse nescessary, I misunderstood the reason behind your question

LOL!

facetious:
adjective
DISAPPROVING
not serious about a serious subject, in an attempt to be amusing or to appear clever:

Hes been fitted like a kipper

Can we hear it for the cambridge dictionary...
I didn't think I would see the day when sombody would use a reference from the cambridge dictionary. but one person did.

oh man...

That was worth every second.

Just a little question.
Why would this site feel any responsibility toward removing copywrit material? Legally, the site is not in the least bit
responsible for what it's users post.
It would be responsible if it used Copywrit material for the original source...but not what users post.

I don't think it works that way. Think of a public access station "user" broadcasting a just released movie. The station would be hit just as bad as the person broadcasting the show.

The providers of a means for distribution of media are, I believe, responsible for monitoring their users and displayed content.

Nah, I've looked into this pretty well.
A website is not responsible for what it's users post.
It's pretty clear in case after case.

The people responsable..

tofu is fairly accurate...


The chain starts from the creator and works its way down the line...

the simplest example...

I make a website in 3d. i put a heafty lable this site (lets say £2000 becuse of various specialist knowledge and time consumed at the rate of 30 pounds per hour 30 hours spent making the site...

They dont pay me. but in the mean time the site receives thousands of guests and the hit rate on the adverts are massive and as a result of the adverts the company are raking it in...

Every penny made by the site belongs to the creator if they dont pay

(under the law people who do not pay for somthing cannot profit from it)

Now i can go in all gung hoe and demand the money and any profits made or... court order

lets be reasonable they would turn over 10 times the amount because for the advertising. if done properly.

Lets make it worse so... lets say as a company with a tv show as extra advertising for the site they make £30,000 thats 28,000 profit

Whoops did i say they i meant to me I, they did not pay. and as such that means they breached thier contract and they dont own the site... and that means i still own it. and those profits are mine... even if they buckled and gave me the 2000 grand its too late now that just caps the money off they now own the site but wait they still owe me the capital/profits made on my site whilst it was under my possesion.

they stole my money!!!

I could get a court order to sieze thier stocks. profits and houses if they cant pay. and send the bailiffs round to empty thier offices... as far as they know all they got is three warning notices and then the bailiffs come a knocking with a writ to seize property and goods. They can sell the stock andd cut thier losses but i am not thick. as tat third leter was being posted i filed my seize order on the stock and the freezing of thier bank account. because as of 10 am some day it doesnt belong to them.

because in that contract they signed it says if you fail to make payment i can seize any profits made and that includes any shares that have increased, any property bought, anything bought using the sites revenue as what is to be expected under the fair trades act.

if they "fail to keep the books" then they will be facing a jail sentace for imbeselment or fraud...

Basically not paying can be a real bitch.

Which is why Youtube better be quik off the mark to remove comercially reliant programming like tv shows.

and not paying for advertisment is bad...

if sombody doesnt pay then you can take what is yours... not by force but by court order.

if a website choses to show material or sell good that doesnt belong to them well look at liksang.


sellingg psp's and undercutting sony without a contract ... sued out of buisness... dont pay then you will pay

For those who dont want to read all that...

If i sell you an chocolate bar for 50p and you then sell it for 1 pound and try to give me the 50p

I am entitled to the £1

Why...
BECAUSE
You didnt pay for the bar and unless there was a contract to the contrary the bar is mine to sell and the profits if sold are mine...

I can take it to court and ill win which means youll have to pay the courst costs on both sides. which will be a ton.

Dont think ill settle out of court bewcause i wont because i dont want to pay the court costs.

And all over a chcolate bar.

(chocolate bar being a metaphor for any product. Including websites and tv programming)

so its always in your best interest to pay for..
Because if your found wanting they will be taking.

this goes for...
any programs you intent to use commericallly.. especailly photoshop and other software.

So what does it all mean... well rashdog said in the politest of ways now i am using legal tender...

if you use a copyrighted peice of material and sombody buys it as art from you... or this site takes it as its own ((work submitted to www.photoshopcontest.com is therefore owned and distrobuted as the sites own and they hold the rights alongside the origional owner...) this is becuase copyright law is that nasty when breached the site has to cover its butt and it repays you with the prospect of prizes which under the law a possibility is considered a certainty unless there is evidence to the contrary... (fixing) like vote whoring. (so dont do it) because it may void the policy as it is a "fair contest.")


Unless its already copyrighted in which case photoshopcontest is a party to stealing by proxy and thats is bad. on a collosal scale. So dont use copyrighted work without informing the parties of what they will be loosing.

because if you dont they will be entitled to any profits or shares as a result.

and all it takes is one image to make the front page on a magazine to demonstrate art on photoshop contest to ruin it for the rest of the psc lovers. especially if the person decides to be ruthless.


Questions about the terms...

1Q the terms say photoshop owns the right to so technically when ya think about it...

1A... Stop right there as copyrighted material you do not have any rights to post work up as a proxy for the person or Enter thier work into a contract without thier consent.

2Q... I dont want to lose the rights to my work...

2A...Well dont post it up if you dont want to loose it... you agreed to the terms when you joined unless there is some overwhelming reason which will cause injury or loss of goods if you dont join the contract stands.
Besides its free advertising of your work as you have a profile on the site with links to you as the creator, you are refered to enough.

3Q... I want to use work i made from source on this site as part of my port folio. but i may make money from it.

3A... this area is very dependant on..
1. How much of the image is still source
2. how much external you used.
3. how uch time you put in.
It is always advisable to ask an admin in charge or the orgional poster of the source image you used if you plan to use it.
However if you are deomnstrating that coveres a different area... as you are only using the source as a means to demonstrate your ability. which would be very difficult to prove you are stealing from the source provider as your refering to only the work you did.

Marx hasn't spoken THAT much since he joined.

well ya know when it comes to contracts i like to make things clear...