You can attach a video directly to a post by putting it in a zipped folder but it suffers from having to be compressed to fit within the 0.976mb forum limit.
Here's two,
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...-speaker-delay-using-triac-2.html#post3277146
post #24
and,
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...0-kss240-restoration-project.html#post3296233
post #1
Utube is probably the best option for anything more ambitious though as mentioned by SY.
Here's two,
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...-speaker-delay-using-triac-2.html#post3277146
post #24
and,
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...0-kss240-restoration-project.html#post3296233
post #1
Utube is probably the best option for anything more ambitious though as mentioned by SY.
It's not permitted as it infringes copyright.
If you scroll down the google books page you will find a "clicky" that details terms and conditions from the publisher of the book you are viewing. Simply, it says that no material from the book may be copied and used by any means.
Attachments
In point of fact, it's not permitted because it's not permitted. I'm cool with that so please don't take this post as argumentative. I fully understand and support that sites like this want to stay a good distance away from any potential copyright issue. However, IANAL, but, such use may or may not violate copyright. Just because the copyright holder asserts terms and conditions does not mean that a fair use defense does not apply. It may violate the agreement of the web site, but that's a contractual issue, not a copyright issue.
Fair use is an often misunderstood idea. Simply:
More details here.
The Copyright Site
When/if fair use applies, it means precisely that permission to use what is copyright is not necessary and that no actual copyright infringement has occurred.
That said, I'm not sure that the courts view public discussion on a forum such as this either as "teaching" or "research." I also know that in my own research we go to great lengths to either get permission or recreate (fact based) figures and cite our sources. The point being, I wouldn't rely on fair use as a defense unless I was getting advice from an attorney. The only reason that I bring this up is that, as an information worker, I have an interest in promoting understanding of intellectual property issues.
Best,
gs
Well, then, suppose I want to demonstrate a guy that he was taking about yet exist in the 70 decade and I only have to demonstrate, a book containing almost 3 circuits. How can I solve this question? The book is made in Argentina. Also I would want to demonstrate what I was saying to the entire thread, in place of sending a PM.
UK copyright law has a specific allowance for private study, including for hobby use. See here. Proper attribution must take place.
I suppose there is always a problem of jurisdiction. Courts all around the world seem keen on extending their reach into other countries.
If you reproduce only a small part of a work, say where you got it from, and are clearly making no money from it and not depriving anyone else of money then you should be OK. If in doubt, don't. Don't link to copyright infringement sites, such as those which pretend to be for self-publication by budding authors but actually mainly carry bootleg copies of commercially published books.
I suppose there is always a problem of jurisdiction. Courts all around the world seem keen on extending their reach into other countries.
If you reproduce only a small part of a work, say where you got it from, and are clearly making no money from it and not depriving anyone else of money then you should be OK. If in doubt, don't. Don't link to copyright infringement sites, such as those which pretend to be for self-publication by budding authors but actually mainly carry bootleg copies of commercially published books.
No, I only want to take a partial photo of a schematic of a circuit in a book to demonstrate that it isn´t my own idea that those I was saying. If you can refer to http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/228321-twin-output-stage.html and I have a book in where there are almost 3 schematics using what Sakis says is a "new topology". See there my discussion and perhaps understand what I want to do.
So, remember, it's the expression, not the fact, that's covered by copyright. In other words, the schematic is the fact, but the actual figure in the book is the expression. You are could redraw a portion of the schematic and say something to the effect of "so and so uses the following topology in their book on blah blah blah." This is no different, for example, than the many outlines of speakers shown all over this board.
Again, it's a common misconception that copyright applies to the entire content of a work, what it applies to, and how it applies is a function of what kind of work that we're talking about. As an example, the de minimis principle applies to most works, e.g. that the portion used was so minimal it is not subject to protection on it's own, but the Supreme court has given a bright line rule for sound recordings. So while you can argue that the first five words of this sentence should not be subject to copyright, you cannot argue that the first five milliseconds of me recording it are not subject to protection.
In short, schematics are a graphic work and copyright protects the drawing, not the circuit. While it's a violation of copyright to copy the figure, redrawing the schematic creates a new work that is yours.
From afzfx
It's usually not necessary to redraw the entire schematic to convey your point. Simply draw the portion demonstrates what you're trying to show and use that as a discussion reference.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.