copywriting

[reliantappraisals]

What sort of verbage/additional page are you including in your reports to copywrite them. I would like to start doing this.

 

[Richard Carlsen]

Why? Are you thinking of publishing them?

 

[Ray Miller]

I have found the only thing it does is:

1. they call you up and ask you to remove the verbage.

2. they never send you any more work if you don't

3. I assume many just remove the verbage.

4. Some don't care what you say, because you will never know if they used your data or not.

Question: How would you knonw if you data has been used else where?

 

[DWiley]

I have found the copyright.gov web site to be a great resource. I suggest looking there for additional information. I would start with the FAQ.

As for the comment in a previous post about someone using the data, the following is a quote from that web site:

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

 

[Carnivore]

What sort of verbage/additional page are you including in your reports to copywrite them. I would like to start doing this.

Expend your time registering the copyright on batches of appraisals.

3 months worth for $45.00 or whatever you choose. One appraisal cost $45, one to hundreds or even thousands batch processed cost just $45.00.

http://www.copyright.gov/


There are naysayers on here who will try and discourage you. They claim without citing sources that an appraisal report is not intellectual property and can not be copyrighted.

The US federal Attorneys at the US Copyright office disagree with those naysayers. The naysayers can not or will not disclose their sources or back up there ascertions. Pay no attention to them.

FTR, the US copyright office has reviewed and approved for copyright registration numerous Standard URAR 1004 reports. They also have registered other forms of appraisals reports.

I am not going to enter a debate with anyone on this issue. I have cited on numerous occasions my sources and made my arguments. The naysayers take out of context through there own interpretation bits and pieces of copyright law to make their weak arguments.

e'nuff said...

oh wait, Welcome to the Good and right side of the fight!

 

[Ray Miller]

Who has the money to bring a copyright case? Who would you bring it against? How would you know?

I do place verbage in my reports. But I think it has cost me more business then it will ever pay back.

 

[Carnivore]

Who has the money to bring a copyright case? Who would you bring it against? How would you know?

I do place verbage in my reports. But I think it has cost me more business then it will ever pay back.

Ray

Its important to register so that you have standing when that day arrives.

Danny,

Your taking that out of context. For example, I know that Ken Brown thinks its crazy to claim the GLA number in a URAR(specifically the URAR) is not information that is protected by copyright. I disagree in several ways and I can make my case by using the cert page of the URAR.

First point is that you must understand or at least think of the sketch as an artistic rendition. I dont think there is argument there, but who knows what you two really think.

2nd point, read Cert number #2 and you will understand how the GLA is not an actual fact.

3rd point - How does the law interpret what is or is not an actual fact and is it it entitled to copyright protection. This is crucial point IMHO.

I can carry both arguments. I don’t believe that you can or are willing to for your own reasons.

I will give you an example of how narrow minded you are on this issue. Under your strict interpretation you would claim phone books are not protected by copyright. You might be surprised but, I would agree with you on the phone books.

Yet, encyclopedias are entitled to copyright protection. (The case law is there if you really need to see it. I don’t have it handy).

How is that possible? Both are a collection of facts! The answer can be found in the portion of copyright law that you and Ken Brown and other naysayer’s conveniently bypass to make your point.

Partial clue is that it pertains to content and how and why that content was presented.

Now I have said enough.

 

[DWiley]

Carny,

I do not dispute that appraisal reports are protected by copyright. And, for example, if someone used photos and sketches from my report without my permission they would be in clear violation of copyright law in most cases.

However, the copyright law does not protect facts. Again, quoting from copyright.gov

Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.

Yes, encylopedias are copyrighted, because they present facts in a unique way. The copyright on an encyclodeia does not prevent someone from publishing something with exactly same same data, they just can't present it in the same way.

Question: If registration is so important, why does the copyright office show that you have registered a copyright only only one appraisal report?

DW

 

[Carnivore]

Question: If registration is so important, why does the copyright office show that you have registered a copyright only only one appraisal report?

DW

I actually dont know why. I should have numerous. I am selective.

Your a lot smarter about Copyright then you let on to be.

 

[Restrain]

Actually, you can assert that MLS data is not a fact but an opinion (condition, etc). Images can be copyrighted. The description, analyses, etc is all copyrighted.

For years, we've put a copyright statement in the assumptions, and at the bottom of the page. All you have to do is put in the report that it is copyrighted (copyright 2008).