Patches...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asciiart/message/3110

http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/cyberpl@y/rotation-a.gif
http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/pics/ascii/ASCII1.HTML#kingofhearts

http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/cyberpl@y/note-x.html
(last paragraph)

-- 
    (,         http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/cgi/asciichat/
    /|__--__                       .                        __--__
    |\ '__                        /|\                        _{ _ 
    `.' / `.,_ _________           |           _________ _,.' (/ `.
    /  ||``._.'             ASCII ART CHAT!             `---'|:||,/
  .'   /|                                                   /|:| \
.'    /\ \         __   __                _                 `/|'\'
 ` `,/ /`,\        \ \ / /__ _ _ ___ _ _ (_)__ __ _         /,'\ \
   .'.'  /|         \ V / -_) '_/ _ \ ' \| / _/ _` |        |\  `.`.
 ,' /   / |          \_/\___|_| \___/_||_|_\__\__,_|        | \   \ `,
- `- -- `-'- -ejm-------------------------------------VK-- -`-' -- -' -

Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asciiart/message/3110
> 
> http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/cyberpl@y/rotation-a.gif
> http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/pics/ascii/ASCII1.HTML#kingofhearts
> 
> http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/cyberpl@y/note-x.html
> (last paragraph)

She has since changed that paragraph to include my name, but I still
have not given her permission to use that picture.


-- 
    (,         http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/cgi/asciichat/
    /|__--__                       .                        __--__
    |\ '__                        /|\                        _{ _ 
    `.' / `.,_ _________           |           _________ _,.' (/ `.
    /  ||``._.'             ASCII ART CHAT!             `---'|:||,/
  .'   /|                                                   /|:| \
.'    /\ \         __   __                _                 `/|'\'
 ` `,/ /`,\        \ \ / /__ _ _ ___ _ _ (_)__ __ _         /,'\ \
   .'.'  /|         \ V / -_) '_/ _ \ ' \| / _/ _` |        |\  `.`.
 ,' /   / |          \_/\___|_| \___/_||_|_\__\__,_|        | \   \ `,
- `- -- `-'- -ejm-------------------------------------VK-- -`-' -- -' -

Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> 
> Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asciiart/message/3110
> >
> > http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/cyberpl@y/rotation-a.gif
> > http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/pics/ascii/ASCII1.HTML#kingofhearts
> >
> > http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/cyberpl@y/note-x.html
> > (last paragraph)
> 
> She has since changed that paragraph to include my name, but I still
> have not given her permission to use that picture.

Actually i dont see you name there at all.

-- 
|"""""<`.THE PRINCE ,'>"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""|
|      `.`/""""""\,','            my sig is too big,      |
|SEE HIS (  /   \ \' SEE HIS      but its really cool.    |
| FACE    \/<> <>\/   SMILE                               |
|         /   W   \          Visit my ascii art site:     |
|       ,'\_|||||_/`.  http://www.gtcom.net/~krogg/ascii/ |
|     ,','   |||   `.`.     kro...@gtcom.net    |
|____<,' TIME TO DIE `.>____Remove no.to.spam to reply____|

Krogg wrote:
> Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> > Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asciiart/message/3110
> > >
> > > http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/cyberpl@y/rotation-a.gif
> > > http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/pics/ascii/ASCII1.HTML#kingofhearts
> > >
> > > http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/cyberpl@y/note-x.html
> > > (last paragraph)
> >
> > She has since changed that paragraph to include my name, but I still
> > have not given her permission to use that picture.
> 
> Actually i dont see you name there at all.

She removed it after I sent a complaint to her publisher. She didn't
bother to remove the picture though and keeps claiming that the reason I
can still see it is because it's in my cache (I set my disk cache to 0
kB years ago, to save quota, so that's not it, and I don't use a proxy
either). She then told me to get somebody else to try to access it from
another computer and confirm it's gone. It's a pointless exercise but I
asked somebody in a chat room somewhere to take a look at the URL and
tell me what he saw. He replied "It's a playing card, the king" (she
hasn't responded to that one yet, but the picture is still there).


-- 
    (,         http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/cgi/asciichat/
    /|__--__                       .                        __--__
    |\ '__                        /|\                        _{ _ 
    `.' / `.,_ _________           |           _________ _,.' (/ `.
    /  ||``._.'             ASCII ART CHAT!             `---'|:||,/
  .'   /|                                                   /|:| \
.'    /\ \         __   __                _                 `/|'\'
 ` `,/ /`,\        \ \ / /__ _ _ ___ _ _ (_)__ __ _         /,'\ \
   .'.'  /|         \ V / -_) '_/ _ \ ' \| / _/ _` |        |\  `.`.
 ,' /   / |          \_/\___|_| \___/_||_|_\__\__,_|        | \   \ `,
- `- -- `-'- -ejm-------------------------------------VK-- -`-' -- -' -

Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> 
> Krogg wrote:
> > Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> > > Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asciiart/message/3110
> > > >
> > > > http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/cyberpl@y/rotation-a.gif
> > > > http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/pics/ascii/ASCII1.HTML#kingofhearts
> > > >
> > > > http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/cyberpl@y/note-x.html
> > > > (last paragraph)
> > >
> > > She has since changed that paragraph to include my name, but I still
> > > have not given her permission to use that picture.
> >
> > Actually i dont see you name there at all.
> 
> She removed it after I sent a complaint to her publisher. She didn't
> bother to remove the picture though and keeps claiming that the reason I
> can still see it is because it's in my cache (I set my disk cache to 0
> kB years ago, to save quota, so that's not it, and I don't use a proxy
> either). She then told me to get somebody else to try to access it from
> another computer and confirm it's gone. It's a pointless exercise but I
> asked somebody in a chat room somewhere to take a look at the URL and
> tell me what he saw. He replied "It's a playing card, the king" (she
> hasn't responded to that one yet, but the picture is still there).
> 

Yes,It is still there.

I wonder what other art is there,but i cant find the rest.




-- 
|"""""<`.THE PRINCE ,'>"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""|
|      `.`/""""""\,','            my sig is too big,      |
|SEE HIS (  /   \ \' SEE HIS      but its really cool.    |
| FACE    \/<> <>\/   SMILE                               |
|         /   W   \          Visit my ascii art site:     |
|       ,'\_|||||_/`.  http://www.gtcom.net/~krogg/ascii/ |
|     ,','   |||   `.`.     kro...@gtcom.net    |
|____<,' TIME TO DIE `.>____Remove no.to.spam to reply____|

Krogg wrote:
> Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> > Krogg wrote:
> > > Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> > > > Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asciiart/message/3110
> > > > >
> > > > > http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/cyberpl@y/rotation-a.gif
> > > > > http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/pics/ascii/ASCII1.HTML#kingofhearts
> > > > >
> > > > > http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdanet/cyberpl@y/note-x.html
> > > > > (last paragraph)
> > > >
> > > > She has since changed that paragraph to include my name, but I still
> > > > have not given her permission to use that picture.
> > >
> > > Actually i dont see you name there at all.
> >
> > She removed it after I sent a complaint to her publisher. She didn't
> > bother to remove the picture though and keeps claiming that the reason I
> > can still see it is because it's in my cache (I set my disk cache to 0
> > kB years ago, to save quota, so that's not it, and I don't use a proxy
> > either). She then told me to get somebody else to try to access it from
> > another computer and confirm it's gone. It's a pointless exercise but I
> > asked somebody in a chat room somewhere to take a look at the URL and
> > tell me what he saw. He replied "It's a playing card, the king" (she
> > hasn't responded to that one yet, but the picture is still there).
> 
> Yes,It is still there.

I got another reply from her. Apparently she seems to think that
changing an <img> tag in an html document to point to a different gif is
the same thing as removing the image from the site (which is what she
said she had done).

> I wonder what other art is there,but i cant find the rest.

I wonder the same thing. I also wonder what other pictures might be in
the non-free chapters of the book. I have written to her and asked her
to put *all* the pictures from the book on a web page and show us here
in aaa, but she hasn't even commented on that (and considering that she
got the pictures from Patches...). Maybe if more people were to make the
same request...?


-- 
    (,         http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/cgi/asciichat/
    /|__--__                       .                        __--__
    |\ '__                        /|\                        _{ _ 
    `.' / `.,_ _________           |           _________ _,.' (/ `.
    /  ||``._.'             ASCII ART CHAT!             `---'|:||,/
  .'   /|                                                   /|:| \
.'    /\ \         __   __                _                 `/|'\'
 ` `,/ /`,\        \ \ / /__ _ _ ___ _ _ (_)__ __ _         /,'\ \
   .'.'  /|         \ V / -_) '_/ _ \ ' \| / _/ _` |        |\  `.`.
 ,' /   / |          \_/\___|_| \___/_||_|_\__\__,_|        | \   \ `,
- `- -- `-'- -ejm-------------------------------------VK-- -`-' -- -' -

>to put *all* the pictures from the book on a web page and show us here
>in aaa, but she hasn't even commented on that (and considering that she
>got the pictures from Patches...). Maybe if more people were to make the
>same request...?

Maybe you should ask your local library to pick up a copy of the book,
or head on down to the bookstore and check out the book itself...
Brendas website is a simple site that promotes the book itself.  One
really should see the book and have a look at it, because Brenda has
done an exceptional job of covering & supporting the ASCII art
community.  Instead, your on some binge about a "playing card" whose
design you probably got off a deck of playing cards and she didn't get
your permission to put it on the site, well who says she needs
permission.   Did you copyright a design that is probably already
copyrighted?  Or are you just trying to blow smoke up someones ass
again?  Did you ask the original playing card artist if you could
redesign his/her card?

You are making some kind of assumption that she got the pictures from
me, and I never once sent Brenda Danet any pictures of any kind.  She
could easily have gotten them and it is my understanding that between
#mIRC_Rainbow & #mIRC_Colors (now defunct) she captured images from
what was played in the channel. (which is also documented and shown in
the book)  (ASCII artists themselves are certainly not in the channel
100% of the time, saying hey.. thats my art.. you can't use or color
that)  and what you put on a website for someone to look at, copy and
use, is to my knowledge still game for the taking.... like it or not,
if you don't want it stolen or used, don't put it on a website for
people to do that to.  Most people who in IRC color the ASCII art,
leave the initials intact, but all of a sudden they need permission to
do so?  Since when?  If you put it on your site, its there for people
to do what they wish with, hopefully they are respectable enough to
give credit, and keep the initials intact.

Brenda also has a cd image of my website, which I never sent or gave
her, she must have downloaded it, or went thru and saved each page.
Do I care?  No, I do not. Oh wait, maybe I should sue her for
downloading my site... oh no, invasion of the html.... hahaa... NOT!!!

Neither here nor there, the only part I personally had in helping
Brenda with her book was with trying to distinguish who colored what
for mIRC art, and in no way, shape or form did I ever give her
permission to use ASCII colored art work.  I did give permission for
artists who are no longer in #mIRC_Rainbow or in IRC to have there art
published, since the only real thing is the fact that it promotes the
communities.  People such as TwoTall, Kris, & Kymmy, are featured
heavily in her book, and on her website.  (These people used original
art, never once to my knowledge using ASCII art)

It is my impression from Brendas emails in the last day or so, that we
have a misunderstanding at some point, I had made an assumption that
she had help finding out who the ASCII artists were.  Alot of the art
in her book is older mIRC & ASCII art, and most of the artists used
are actually original artists, using characters that are not
traditional to the use of ASCII art.  You see this thru her website as
well.

The way I see all this hoopla, is that while you have a point on
permissions and original art permission should be given, your
forgetting that this book would increase the recognition that ASCII
art deserves and the artists who today still create and continue to
support it's use.

The book does that very well, and it will increase the support and
recognition the ASCII art community so richly deserves.  The book is
not going to make Brenda a rich woman, the book's main purpose is to
educate and teach about the various uses on the internet and the ways
it can be used.  The fact that she gave so much notice to ASCII and
IRC colored art, shows that she appreciates and is intrigued by the
art itself. I would for one look at the fact that she has tried to
give credit and is willing to fix any mistakes that happen adding in
details and corrections in the book as well.

Tell me, Veronica, just where did you get the idea of the playing
card?  Certainly you didn't make it up on your own, maybe you saw it
on a deck of playing cards and drew it in ASCII art.... So, does that
make it yours, or the person who originally drew the design that is
featured on the card.  Before you make accusations which I personally
know you are all to famous for, you should be sure you are innocent
yourself.  Why is it, you always see the bad versus the good side of
things.  People try to show something they love, try to support a
community, and you go after them like a raging bull.

She has removed the picture and the html page it sat on, replacing it
for another image.  Trying the link creates a 404 error. Yes,
yesterday, when I tried it, it was still there, I am not sure Brenda
has the html knowledge to realize she needed to totally delete it off
her site for it "not to be there".  However, that image is now gone,
and the page does create a 404, and I doubt very seriously she heard
from her publisher to get her to do it, since your remarks here and
her watching has made her aware that she'd made a mistake in the first
place trying to remove it.

>Maybe if more people were to make the
>same request...?

and for your information, most of the art featured in the book, is by
Joan Stark, I think yours is probably one of the only ones that isn't
on Joans website.  Brenda featured Joan Stark and Allen Mullen in her
book, probably the two people willing to allow her permission to use
there work to help in the writing of the book.

Brendas next book was to featuer ASCII artists, the community, and to
some degree the art in IRC, I bet she will think twice before she does
that book... and while we'd love for her to support the art created in
IRC... something that can't be created anywhere else, that goes with
ASCII art as well... funny thing is.. a book of ASCII art would only
enhance the community and give it a worldwide recognition like nothing
else could do, and your outrage at one simple little playing card
picture that was obviously taken off someone elses design in the first
place, makes it very dificult if she will not have the support of the
ASCII community to promote the recognition it deserves to have in the
internet community.

Please don't sit here and tell me that you didn't get the idea of your
depiction of a a playing card design off the top of your head..... I
know better than that.

patches
#mIRC_Rainbow - Undernet
http://www.mirc-rainbow.com

In article <42m...@4ax.com>, patches wrote:
 [snip]
>that)  and what you put on a website for someone to look at, copy and
>use, is to my knowledge still game for the taking.... like it or not,
>if you don't want it stolen or used, don't put it on a website for
>people to do that to.  Most people who in IRC color the ASCII art,
>leave the initials intact, but all of a sudden they need permission to
>do so?  Since when?  If you put it on your site, its there for people
>to do what they wish with, hopefully they are respectable enough to
>give credit, and keep the initials intact.

Without commenting on the rest of your post, this is incorrect.  Making
content, such as ASCII art, available over the WWW does emphatically not
place it into the public domain.

I Am Not An Intellectual Property Lawyer.  However, if all of the WWW
was in public domain, all the copyright notices you see on websites
would be useless.  As many of these have been written and/or reviewed by
competent lawyers, I feel justified in stating my common sense belief --
that material on the WWW is not freely usable -- as fact.

Allowing unrestricted access to content over the WWW, and particularly
providing a link to said content, does effectively grant an implicit
permission for said content to be downloaded and viewed, and arguably
also for it to be stored and distributed by proxy servers.  Just like
posting a message to Usenet grants an implicit permission for the
message to be distributed and read, in fact.  It does not, however,
affect the fact that the material is still under copyright, and may not
be otherwise used without permission from the author.


>Brenda also has a cd image of my website, which I never sent or gave
>her, she must have downloaded it, or went thru and saved each page.
>Do I care?  No, I do not. Oh wait, maybe I should sue her for
>downloading my site... oh no, invasion of the html.... hahaa... NOT!!!

If you do not care, you should consider stating so on the website.  Then
mirroring it would be completely legal.

In general, it is true that copyright law is not enforced much,
especially not in minor cases like this.  It still does exist, and
should be respected.  And when actual, printed books enter the picture,
the probability of someone caring enough to sue someone else does go up,
as there is actual money involved and as publishers are notoriously
paranoid about copyright.



>The way I see all this hoopla, is that while you have a point on
>permissions and original art permission should be given, your
>forgetting that this book would increase the recognition that ASCII
>art deserves and the artists who today still create and continue to
>support it's use.

I agree with the latter sentiment.  In fact, I agree with it so much
that in my opinion it would morally justify a copyright violation, if
that was the only way to accomplish the goal.  In this case, however, no
such necessity exists, so there is no excuse, legal or moral, for not
respecting Veronica's wishes.


>Tell me, Veronica, just where did you get the idea of the playing
>card?  Certainly you didn't make it up on your own, maybe you saw it
>on a deck of playing cards and drew it in ASCII art.... So, does that

As far as any playing card can be original, Veronica's certainly is.  It
is based on the same basic design as any traditional King of Hearts, but
a) this design is ancient, and b) even if it were recent enough to fall
under copyright laws, these do not forbid drawing inspiration from a
work as long there is no identifiable duplication in the result.  By the
very virtue of being an ASCII drawing, Veronica's card isn't a duplicate
of any existing non-ASCII playing card.

Further, even if Veronica's picture was a derivative of an existing
work, created without permission, that would only make her also guilty
of copyright violation.  It would not reduce the guilt of anyone further
violating Veronica's copyright.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

-- 
Ilmari Karonen - http://www.sci.fi/~iltzu/
"Although, I'm quite willing to believe both sides rant and get hysterical.
 From my observations such would be human normal."
                           -- Michelle Bottorff in rec.arts.sf.composition

Oh, a lovely little essay!

patches wrote:
> 
> Maybe you should ask your local library to pick up a copy of the book,
> or head on down to the bookstore and check out the book itself...

Maybe I will, but that has nothing to do with the rest of this
discussion.

<snip>
> again?  Did you ask the original playing card artist if you could
> redesign his/her card?

It's a bit hard to talk to somebody who has probably been dead for a few
hundred years, so obviously I have not.

> You are making some kind of assumption that she got the pictures from
> me, and I never once sent Brenda Danet any pictures of any kind. 

It's not an assumption. She says so on her site.

<snip>
> and what you put on a website for someone to look at, copy and
> use, is to my knowledge still game for the taking....
<snip>
> If you put it on your site, its there for people
> to do what they wish with,<snip>

Um, no.

> Brenda also has a cd image of my website, which I never sent or gave
<snip>
> downloading my site... oh no, invasion of the html.... hahaa... NOT!!!

Is she printing it and *selling* it?

> Neither here nor there, the only part I personally had in helping
> Brenda with her book was with trying to distinguish who colored what
> for mIRC art, and in no way, shape or form did I ever give her
> permission to use ASCII colored art work. 

Quote from her site:

"These graphics are reproduced here with the permission of <patches>,
leader of rainbow on the Undernet and Webmistress of its Website, on
behalf of the artists."

<snip>
> It is my impression from Brendas emails in the last day or so, that we
> have a misunderstanding at some point, <snip>

Yes, there was one misunderstanding between her and me. That has been
sorted out.

> The way I see all this hoopla, is that while you have a point on
> permissions and original art permission should be given

"should"? That's your opinion. My opinion happens to be different. Live
with it.

> , your
> forgetting that this book would increase the recognition that ASCII
> art deserves and the artists who today still create and continue to
> support it's use.

I didn't know ascii art "deserved" anything. If you mean "it would be
more PR for ascii art", well, sure, but my choice is still not to be
part of that PR.

> The book does that very well, and it will increase the support and

"will"? You're a psychic now too?

<snip>
> Tell me, Veronica, just where did you get the idea of the playing
> card? 

I got the idea for that picture from a person named Ebrahim Ismail:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5otbc1%24n64%40groa.uct.ac.za&output=gplain

> <snip> does that make it yours, or the person who originally drew
> the design that is featured on the card. 

Both. His picture (whoever he was) is his, and mine is mine.

> Before you make accusations which I personally
> know you are all to famous for,

"famous"? Um, I doubt my criticising you in the past has made me
"famous" (except in your mind).

<snip>
> community, and you go after them like a raging bull.

You're the one who writes looooooooong angry essays and *I'm* the
"raging bull"? Right!

> She has removed the picture and the html page it sat on, replacing it
<snip>
> place trying to remove it.

Like I said above, that misunderstanding has been sorted out.

> and for your information, most of the art featured in the book, is by
> Joan Stark,<snip> Allen Mullen <snip>
> there work to help in the writing of the book.

That is their choice. My choice is not the same as their choice.

<snip>
> makes it very dificult if she will not have the support of the
> ASCII community to promote the recognition <snip>

I don't see how she has lost "the support of the ASCII community".
AFAIK, she never had such support, or she had it from somebody else. The
only support she has "lost" is mine, but then she never *had* my
support.


-- 
    (,         http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/cgi/asciichat/
    /|__--__                       .                        __--__
    |\ '__                        /|\                        _{ _ 
    `.' / `.,_ _________           |           _________ _,.' (/ `.
    /  ||``._.'             ASCII ART CHAT!             `---'|:||,/
  .'   /|                                                   /|:| \
.'    /\ \         __   __                _                 `/|'\'
 ` `,/ /`,\        \ \ / /__ _ _ ___ _ _ (_)__ __ _         /,'\ \
   .'.'  /|         \ V / -_) '_/ _ \ ' \| / _/ _` |        |\  `.`.
 ,' /   / |          \_/\___|_| \___/_||_|_\__\__,_|        | \   \ `,
- `- -- `-'- -ejm-------------------------------------VK-- -`-' -- -' -

On 2001-09-11 asc...@hotmail.com said:

   >patches wrote:
   >
   > > ...makes it very dificult if she will not have the support of
   > > the ASCII community to promote the recognition...
   >
   > <snip>
   >
   >I don't see how she has lost "the support of the ASCII community".
   >AFAIK, she never had such support, or she had it from somebody else.
   >The only support she has "lost" is mine, but then she never *had* my
   >support.             
                       ......           ......
                    .:::```::::.     .:::''':::.
                   .:::      :::.  .:::      :::.
                   :::         ::;;::         :::
                   :::           ''           :::
                    :::  Oooh!  I love your  :::
                     :::       Swedish      :::
                      :::.   feistiness,  .:::
                        :::.  Veronica! .:::
                          :::.        .:::
                            :::.    .:::
                              ::.  .::
                                :;;:
                                 ::

patches <pat...@mirc-rainbow.com> wrote in message news:<42m...@4ax.com>...

Patches ramblings:

Maybe you should ask your local library to pick up a copy of the book,
or head on down to the bookstore and check out the book itself...
Brendas website is a simple site that promotes the book itself. One
really should see the book and have a look at it, because Brenda has
done an exceptional job of covering & supporting the ASCII art
community. Instead, your on some binge about a "playing card" whose
design you probably got off a deck of playing cards and she didn't get
your permission to put it on the site, well who says she needs
permission. Did you copyright a design that is probably already
copyrighted? Or are you just trying to blow smoke up someones ass
again? Did you ask the original playing card artist if you could
redesign his/her card?

My Opinion:

From what I read on the book's website, it is an in-depth study about
irc, chatters and its various forms of communication.  Ascii or
EXTENDED ASCII used by irc were studied and examined surrounding the
evolution of irc and its various communication tools.  There was no
in-depth study about the REAL ASCII COMMUNITY that I could see
readily, so there is nothing benefiting the ascii community, elicited
or not; its all ABOUT PATCHES.  Who gives a shit about who started
what chat and where?  Certainly not Ascii artists - irc is not their
community - ascii art in its true form originated elsewhere, not IRC;
what you people play with did not originate with chatters - it was
founded and used way before chatters discovered how to use it in their
environment.  Unfortunately, the study in chatters and their evolution
failed to identify the inception of this new form of communication -
oh, but thats in the NEXT book?  appears to me and probably others, a
bit backwards in describing this evolution???

The book concentrates on endless blah blah blah about chatters; but
then again, blah blah is the point, isnt it?  Not the ascii community.
 And, the continued mention of ascii art and mirc; how about EXTENDED
ASCII and mirc.  Extended characters is mentioned, but of course, its
minimal; mirc-ers think Ascii art on mirc (little colored shapes with
extended characters) is the real deal; ummm, it is not. It is easy to
find, the chart, that lists true ascii characters, which makes it a
unique form of art, considering there is a limitation of characters. 
Extended characters mixed with true ascii, is considered 'bogus' and
cannot be termed "ascii art". Extended characters mixed with ascii is
another breed.


Let me point out some drawings that you claim are infringed upon by
copyright and not considered original: mona lisa, jesus, cartoon
characters, disney characters, ON AND ON AND ON.  Wonder if all the
ascii artists called up Disney and asked if their own ascii art
renderings are infringing on copyright.  Jeez, Joan's site pays
extreme homage to well known characters created by someone else.  So
Joan is not an original artist either; go tell her as you just told
Veronica.  So a playing card, which originated tons of years ago and
rendered in a million different renderings, in millions of card decks;
well, Veronica's ascii drawing is no different; IT IS ORIGINAL based
on a million year old drawing which carries no known copyright, but
rather each deck is copyrighted for originality based on the game
piece; namely a card.

Patches, you are so misinformed and semi-conscience me thinks.  What
is more scary is that you propagate this trash to your blind
followers.  Blind leading the blind.




Patches blah blah/blame shifting:

You are making some kind of assumption that she got the pictures from
me, and I never once sent Brenda Danet any pictures of any kind. She
could easily have gotten them and it is my understanding that between
#mIRC_Rainbow & #mIRC_Colors (now defunct) she captured images from
what was played in the channel. (which is also documented and shown in
the book) (ASCII artists themselves are certainly not in the channel
100% of the time, saying hey.. thats my art.. you can't use or color
that) and what you put on a website for someone to look at, copy and
use, is to my knowledge still game for the taking.... like it or not,
if you don't want it stolen or used, don't put it on a website for
people to do that to. Most people who in IRC color the ASCII art,
leave the initials intact, but all of a sudden they need permission to
do so? Since when? If you put it on your site, its there for people
to do what they wish with, hopefully they are respectable enough to
give credit, and keep the initials intact.

Me again:

Wonderful.  I will make sure to copy a load of crap from your website
for my own use and say I created it or designed it.  Better yet, I
think I will copy your whole layout and make it my own.  EVEN better,
Ill create a webpage about mirc and download ALL THE FILES YOU HAVE
THERE and place on my site for download.  Well, you said it, its there
for the taking and I shall do what I please with it.  Don't put it on
the website if you don't want people to take it. Well, I am gonna take
all your files (even though they are not yours personally) and put
them on my website, perhaps call it the Mirc Crap-o-Ramma.

Patches Mantra 1:

"Most people who in IRC color the ASCII art,
leave the initials intact, but all of a sudden they need permission to
do so?

Patches Mantra 2: 
"...and what you put on a website for someone to look at, copy and
use, is to my knowledge still game for the taking...." 

Me:

I will make sure I alter some of the files too because they are there
for me to alter, I may choose to be disrespectful AND who says I need
permission to take this file and alter it?  You said it plain as day;
who has to ask? *See Mantra 1 and 2*


Joan Stark, the majority of your references to ascii art; go check her
website.  She reminds of copyright law and asks that her initials stay
there, just like many other web sites.  But, again, tell Joan, tough
boogers, who cares what she wants.  Its there and it is the mirc
communities' prerogative to take it and ignore her request and the
copyright laws.

And, of course, Brenda DOES make mention as someone already pointed
out, that she got permission from YOU for all the mirc images on
behalf of the arteests.  Veronica is not an artist?



Patches saying, "hey, no problemo!":

Brenda also has a cd image of my website, which I never sent or gave
her, she must have downloaded it, or went thru and saved each page.
Do I care? No, I do not. Oh wait, maybe I should sue her for
downloading my site... oh no, invasion of the html.... hahaa... NOT!!!

Me:

Hmmm, a bunch of claims on your website about HOW ITS YOURS AND IN NO
WAY IS ANYONE ALLOWED TO TAKE ANYTHING without your permission. HA HA
HA-YEP.  Depends on who is taking your stuff, eh?????   Maybe I should
download your site and do my own study in mirc and create a book
without prior permission to copy everything on your website.  Hey, is
that ok with you?  (Refer to Patches mantra 2 - its ok! :)

Patches Still ShifTing:

Neither here nor there, the only part I personally had in helping
Brenda with her book was with trying to distinguish who colored what
for mIRC art, and in no way, shape or form did I ever give her
permission to use ASCII colored art work

Me:

One drawing by Veronica and, originally, you could not even provide an
identity to Brenda, nor ask Veronica prior to?  (Refer to Patches
mantra 1).

In closing, Joan, who you mention, is not an original artist if we
were all to believe Patches.  Again, tell Joan you do not believe her
drawings are originals, tell all the other artists what they produce
are bogus, copyright infringements.  Lets all sing along with patches
the praise of square colored boxes, triangles, etc. that repeat
irc-ers names; after all, its ORIGINAL ascii!  Or so YOU think.

Patches, try taking some courses in good manners.  That is about all I
can recommend to you at this time because everything else you think
and believe is skewed;  start with the truth and some manners. A
simple "oops" would have been in order, an apology for allowing that
little bogus drawing, as you infer, to go uncredited.  Instead, you
chose to slander ascii artists, promote stealing and deny your
involvement in the irc-ee book (when convenient).  When in fact, you
had voluminous input.

Catherine
(Lurker, but stepping out for a moment)

Catherine,

Actually, no, the book itself is about various areas of the Internet
in general.. such as Various ways to do Email, a group who has a
theater production in IRC, Greeting Cards and ways to Communicate,
an entire chapter on the history of ASCII art, in which Joan Stark
helped Brenda with I do believe, and Joan did ask on behalf of Brenda
last October here in the newsgroups for those who would like to
participate, and since no answers followed, I gather Brenda assumed
noone was claiming some of the art that appears in the book....

It also focuses on the seemingly font addicts of the web, and there is
the chapter about the color in mIRC, which is actually smaller than
the ASCII art chapter.

I don't need to go to the library, I already have a copy of the book.

Not till she makes an announcement that it is there and a trip to her
site makes the rounds of the community.

You can sit here and be mad all you like but this isn't about just a
website, this is also about the book, and all you've seen is a segment
on the website that features a chapter about IRC and to a degree a
website.

If the book were about me, I shoulda wrote it myself.

patches

>Without commenting on the rest of your post, this is incorrect.  Making
>content, such as ASCII art, available over the WWW does emphatically not
>place it into the public domain.

This is true, and I do realize the copyright laws of the internet are
still being written, however, someone who would be unscrupulous in
nature would still take advantage of what he can take off the web...
If the source code was no so easily available, it might have been
harder for people to take off the web, if you couldn't right click and
save, it would still be hard, in the end, the file still downloads to
your pc and even the most determined person could go looking for
something they want, and alter, change, steal or do whatever they like
without obtaining permission first to do so.

You can put a @copyright 2002 all you want on a site, but unless you
actually copyright, it means very little in a court of law.

Most people on the web, are simply wanting a link back to a site, or
credit for there art, and that is understandable and should be given.
When I first was learning html, I had little knowledge of how to do
things, and now I try to be more careful, but even I admit that it
gets difficult to trace exactly where you might have gotten something.
Now, I tend to stick to graphics I have had made for my site, or have
captured from IRC... trying to use art with the initials kept in it so
credit can be given.

>If you do not care, you should consider stating so on the website.  Then
>mirroring it would be completely legal.

My site changes to much to be mirrored, someone could mirror it all
they like, but in the end, they'd not have a perfect mirror since I
change things on a fairly regular basis... Her cd image shows a very
different site.. I wouldn't care what she does with it now.

>especially not in minor cases like this.  It still does exist, and
>should be respected.  And when actual, printed books enter the picture,
>the probability of someone caring enough to sue someone else does go up,
>as there is actual money involved and as publishers are notoriously
>paranoid about copyright.
>
I agree.

>such necessity exists, so there is no excuse, legal or moral, for not
>respecting Veronica's wishes.

well I don't see where Brenda didn't do that, she made the attempts
last year to get people to come forward about art she wished to use,
but few if anyone came forward.  Second, Brenda is also just learning
html, her site was mostly built by her friend and Brenda I believe had
to figure out how to remove that stuff, she has done so, and it was
done within a few days, when she realized she needed to remove the
entire image off the site.

>As far as any playing card can be original, Veronica's certainly is.  It
>is based on the same basic design as any traditional King of Hearts, but
>a) this design is ancient, and b) even if it were recent enough to fall

still she used a design based on something someone else did.

patches

>> You are making some kind of assumption that she got the pictures from
>> me, and I never once sent Brenda Danet any pictures of any kind. 
>
>It's not an assumption. She says so on her site.
>
No, she says that I gave permissions, although not stating what
permission I gave.  She does not say anywhere on her site that I sent
her any graphics.

>> Brenda also has a cd image of my website, which I never sent or gave

>Is she printing it and *selling* it?

no, but Brendas book is also not a book that is going to make her
rich, it is for educational purposes.

And very little could be gained by my sloppy html from the first years
:p~~~

>"These graphics are reproduced here with the permission of <patches>,
>leader of rainbow on the Undernet and Webmistress of its Website, on
>behalf of the artists."

That doesn't mean I sent them, and I only gave permission for original
graphics, nothing with ASCII art, as I don't have that kind of ability
to give that to her.

>Yes, there was one misunderstanding between her and me. That has been
>sorted out.

fabulous, I will no longer worry then.

>"should"? That's your opinion. My opinion happens to be different. Live
>with it.

should is not the right word, but Veronica, you know what I mean
hopefully, I've always felt the ASCII art community did not get the
recognition they deserved.  I've long admired ASCII art since the
first time I saw it in genie online services, and was both infatuated
with it, but even tried a bit of it... lord knows, I wasn't any good,
nor did I have that creativity that so many of you do have, but I have
loved the art for some time, and from what I see, it would be
wonderful to see the art get more recognition than it currently does.

>> The book does that very well, and it will increase the support and
>"will"? You're a psychic now too?

hehee, I have a copy of the book, I know what it does since I've read
most of it now.

>Both. His picture (whoever he was) is his, and mine is mine.

true, but the idea was still his to start with, and you've added to
his idea.... 

>"famous"? Um, I doubt my criticising you in the past has made me
>"famous" (except in your mind).

lets not make any quibbles here, I rarely talk in this group, you on
the other hand.. well... I don't have it in me any longer go belittle
you.. it's just nor worth it after the events in the USA yesterday.

Either or, my point in this was mostly to say that the picture had
been removed even tho it seemed at the time a small thing was being
made into a huge thing and 3 hours after I wrote that note the other
night, tragedy and devastation hit the USA, and nothing, nor anyone
can compare to the sadness I have felt over it.

I wish you all luck, best wishes, and I will crawl back to my little
hole now.

patches

> You can put a @copyright 2002 all you want on a site, but unless you
> actually copyright, it means very little in a court of law.

The Berne copyright convention states that almost everything created privately
after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected regardless of any copyright
notice. You might be confusing "copyright" with "registered trademark", which is
something you have to register for it to be effective, hence the name.

Read about copyright:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

--

http://www.ite.mh.se/~joaal98/ascii  ___
__  _   _   _ ________   _          /  \\\ Read it,
\ \| `.| `.| `\ \ \ \ `.' \        [.[.]-\\ , it's fun.
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  _, \       /_   /|/
 /\ \ \ \   \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (jg)  {-} |=
 \__/`._|\_\_\_,_\__|\_\_\ \_\       #// (\


"patches" <pat...@mirc-rainbow.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:dcf...@4ax.com...
> >Without commenting on the rest of your post, this is incorrect.  Making
> >content, such as ASCII art, available over the WWW does emphatically not
> >place it into the public domain.
>
> This is true, and I do realize the copyright laws of the internet are
> still being written, however, someone who would be unscrupulous in
> nature would still take advantage of what he can take off the web...
> If the source code was no so easily available, it might have been
> harder for people to take off the web, if you couldn't right click and
> save, it would still be hard, in the end, the file still downloads to
> your pc and even the most determined person could go looking for
> something they want, and alter, change, steal or do whatever they like
> without obtaining permission first to do so.
>
> You can put a @copyright 2002 all you want on a site, but unless you
> actually copyright, it means very little in a court of law.
>
> Most people on the web, are simply wanting a link back to a site, or
> credit for there art, and that is understandable and should be given.
> When I first was learning html, I had little knowledge of how to do
> things, and now I try to be more careful, but even I admit that it
> gets difficult to trace exactly where you might have gotten something.
> Now, I tend to stick to graphics I have had made for my site, or have
> captured from IRC... trying to use art with the initials kept in it so
> credit can be given.
>
> >If you do not care, you should consider stating so on the website.  Then
> >mirroring it would be completely legal.
>
> My site changes to much to be mirrored, someone could mirror it all
> they like, but in the end, they'd not have a perfect mirror since I
> change things on a fairly regular basis... Her cd image shows a very
> different site.. I wouldn't care what she does with it now.
>
> >especially not in minor cases like this.  It still does exist, and
> >should be respected.  And when actual, printed books enter the picture,
> >the probability of someone caring enough to sue someone else does go up,
> >as there is actual money involved and as publishers are notoriously
> >paranoid about copyright.
> >
> I agree.
>
> >such necessity exists, so there is no excuse, legal or moral, for not
> >respecting Veronica's wishes.
>
> well I don't see where Brenda didn't do that, she made the attempts
> last year to get people to come forward about art she wished to use,
> but few if anyone came forward.  Second, Brenda is also just learning
> html, her site was mostly built by her friend and Brenda I believe had
> to figure out how to remove that stuff, she has done so, and it was
> done within a few days, when she realized she needed to remove the
> entire image off the site.
>
> >As far as any playing card can be original, Veronica's certainly is.  It
> >is based on the same basic design as any traditional King of Hearts, but
> >a) this design is ancient, and b) even if it were recent enough to fall
>
> still she used a design based on something someone else did.
>
> patches