tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post4323831971884360464..comments2024-03-28T04:49:07.788-04:00Comments on SafeLibraries®: Ginny v. Maria: Hijacked Library or Safe Library in West Bend, WISafeLibraries®http://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-42443671813653017762010-09-04T10:24:57.021-04:002010-09-04T10:24:57.021-04:00Duh, I'm well aware that copyright and patents...Duh, I'm well aware that copyright and patents are different. But both are part of the legal framework of intellectual property, and presumably you took at least one class on IP generally in law school (where was that, again?).<br /><br />None of those 8 things you enumerate have any bearing on whether the logo (or anything, for that matter) has copyright protection.<br /><br />Your stubbornness doesn't make you right. Just foolish, I'm afraid.Localhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798329694350161856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-14590815542887833062010-09-02T22:25:12.864-04:002010-09-02T22:25:12.864-04:00Copyright and patent law are completely different....Copyright and patent law are completely different. What's not different is your continuing effort to attack the messenger. <br /><br />I agree it is automatically granted, but it may be lost subsequently depending on various conditions, possibly including certain actions or inactions that may be present in the instant matter.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-21647525968455802012010-09-02T22:20:17.747-04:002010-09-02T22:20:17.747-04:00Where is the straw man argument?
You claim here t...Where is the straw man argument?<br /><br />You claim <a href="http://www.safelibraries.org/unequalaccess.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a> that you are (or were in 2007) a practicing patent attorney. It is frightening to think you were giving legal advice on issues related to intellectual property given you complete lack of understanding of how copyright works.<br /><br />Numerous times you were informed on this thread that one does not need to proactively claim or assert copyright; it is automatically granted on eligible content.<br /><br />Why do you refuse to acknowledge this legal fact? Should I pull the case law for you?Localhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798329694350161856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-7786477291738211842010-09-02T21:44:45.032-04:002010-09-02T21:44:45.032-04:00Cute, Local_MLIS_Student. The strawman argument. ...Cute, Local_MLIS_Student. The strawman argument. I never "claimed expertise as an attorney." Quite the contrary, and that's why I stuck to listing the facts. And you are no expert on copyright law, unless, of course, you were named Local_ESQ_Student.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-34429985541933757142010-09-02T21:15:15.991-04:002010-09-02T21:15:15.991-04:00"Instead, the Friends have failed to properly..."Instead, the Friends have failed to properly protect the mark. "<br /><br />Again, you utterly fail to understand copyright law. Amazing.<br /><br />And that's not an ad hominem, but a direct commentary on your claimed expertise as an attorney.Localhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798329694350161856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-51557070367809735282010-09-02T18:48:58.920-04:002010-09-02T18:48:58.920-04:00Maria, I am certain if we were to meet we would ge...Maria, I am certain if we were to meet we would get along very well.<br /><br />As to the logo issue, you have revealed more facts that further sink your case. 1) You are not the author. 2) The author is not publicly known. 3) The only publicly known authorship is falsely named "Maria." <br /><br />No rights are violated where the author is not made public, where the author is misrepresented as someone else, and where the other facts already discussed apply. No violation occurred given these new facts and the previous ones. Instead, the Friends have failed to properly protect the mark. That's a shame, but it's your problem for failing to do so, not my problem for using such a logo.<br /><br />That said, I agree you are a winner.<br /><br />MLIS loves me. He never fails to ignore the issues and make <i>ad hominem</i> comments. At a certain point it becomes monotonous yet entertaining.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-84393633996015527762010-09-02T17:59:54.890-04:002010-09-02T17:59:54.890-04:00Dan, you need to stop making assumptions. You see...Dan, you need to stop making assumptions. You seem to claim you are not in violation of copyright law because you indentified the author of the logo...? You do not know who created the logo. The logo was uploaded onto the Friends of the West Bend Library Facebook page by me. That doesn't mean I created it; I didn't. Neither did my co-president. A community member with talents in the area of graphic arts created it for the Friends group and the logo (and copyright for it) now belongs to the Friends.<br /><br />You never acquired permission to use it, and using a copyright protected work (common law/unregistered or not) without permission puts you in violation. I'm not going to waste time at this point contacting an attorney about your violation, but I do enjoy watching you feebly defend your actions. As MLIS said, I hope no one relies on your legal advice.<br /><br />Dan, I can't imagine a world where we'd ever be <i>friends</i>, but I do so enjoy sparring with you. Rock 'Em Sock 'Em. (I win.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13751723547912389162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-91814992168166621422010-09-02T10:59:34.939-04:002010-09-02T10:59:34.939-04:00"As to copyright, I am aware of what you said...<i>"As to copyright, I am aware of what you said, but my including the graphics as I have and for the purpose I have and given the facts such as they are, including identifying the author of the logo only by a first name, does not violate that common law copyright. I have not disregarded copyright law, and your saying I have is a legal conclusion you are not in a position to make."</i><br /><br />I think it's now clear this is a legal conclusion that <b>you</b> are not in a position to make. I truly hope no one relies on your legal advice in the future. And that's not a personal attack, but a genuine fear.Localhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798329694350161856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-43115215821327276072010-09-01T23:25:14.596-04:002010-09-01T23:25:14.596-04:00Maria, I am telling you as an outsider that the We...Maria, I am telling you as an outsider that the West Bend library story is unique precisely because of the constant and direct manner in which people from different sides confront each other as they do, and thereby confront the community, as you pointed out. I know of no other community like West Bend in this regard. It really is fascinating to see. That's why Pew Research Center found it more alluring than the controversial arrest of Henry Louis Gates. That's why your local paper wrote a story about the hot tempers in West Bend.<br /><br />I am happy you are now satisfied with the manner and placement of the two logos. The point is to improve the readability of the opinions by adding pictures. To the extent I help bring attention to your organization, that is a bonus; indeed, send me the URL when it is official. Thanks to the input of the commenters here, I have improved the article in this regard. <br /><br />As to copyright, I am aware of what you said, but my including the graphics as I have and for the purpose I have and given the facts such as they are, including identifying the author of the logo only by a first name, does not violate that common law copyright. I have not disregarded copyright law, and your saying I have is a legal conclusion you are not in a position to make. Actually, I have made an excellent suggestion to get a little help from an attorney so you won't make the same mistakes.<br /><br />I am happy I did not cave to your multiple demands made in just a few days. They were overbroad, to say the least. <br /><br />It is constantly pointed out that libraries must use the least restrictive means to effect the intended protection of children. The same goes here. Placing the two logos as I have represents the least restrictive means to comply with your demands. Now you are satisfied, I am satisfied, and the public gets an improved product. <br /><br />So my "blatant refusal to honor [your] request to remove the logo [that] clearly indicates [my] stubborn disregard" of this or that was really just the application of the same standard people having your point of view constantly demand. Indeed, COPA was found unconstitutional for this very reason--because filters represented a less restrictive means than what COPA required. I just complied with that standard and prevented yet another double standard. No "blatant refusal" was involved.<br /><br />So, can we be friends now?SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-43438776877470508702010-09-01T22:39:33.658-04:002010-09-01T22:39:33.658-04:00Back to the matter at hand. Your statement that G...Back to the matter at hand. Your statement that Ginny and I both made extraordinary statements directed at each other is misleading. I believe Ginny's statements were directed to the community, and my personal opinion is that the comments were made in an attempt to damage my credibility (bribe comment, etc.) My statements were not "directed at" Ginny; instead, my editorial refuted her statements and provided factual information concerning Ginny's allegations (bribe, covert activity, ALA "hijacking", etc.) to the community.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13751723547912389162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-66253977694285069072010-09-01T22:31:39.141-04:002010-09-01T22:31:39.141-04:00Dan, while I object to the fact that you refused t...Dan, while I object to the fact that you refused to remove the logo, I am now satisfied with where the logo appears in your blog post. Before, it actually appeared closer to the title of Ginny's editorial than mine, but now the logo is distinctly located with my editorial.<br /><br />However, the comments here make it clear that you do not understand (or at least acknowledge) copyright law basics. Please see <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what" rel="nofollow">US Copyright in General FAQ</a>. Please note the following concerning copyright:<br /><br /><i>When is my work protected?<br />Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.</i><br /><br /><i>Do I have to register with your office to be protected?<br />No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created.</i><br /><br />Copyright also exists even when copyright notice is not given. I'm not sure what your discussion of consulting an attorney to protect the logo has to do with anything, as copyright existed the moment the artwork was created, and exists even if the copyright is unregistered.<br /><br />Your blatant refusal to honor my request to remove the logo clearly indicates your stubborn disregard for copyright law and for the wishes of the group that owns the rights to that logo.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13751723547912389162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-60770018152017835862010-09-01T21:26:42.808-04:002010-09-01T21:26:42.808-04:00Marshwood, I told you before, the issue here is no...Marshwood, I told you before, the issue here is not me or my legal acumen. The issue here is Ginny v. Maria. They both made extraordinary statements directed at each other. This blog post and its comments are or should be directed to them and the issues they raised. Discuss that, not anything personal to me.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-56256302453909468072010-09-01T20:55:16.122-04:002010-09-01T20:55:16.122-04:00Sir, re-read your copyright law. The logo is autom...Sir, re-read your copyright law. The logo is automatically protected under copyright. One doesn't need to assert anything. <br /><br />Your inability to recognize - or do some quick research to confirm - this fundamental legal fact places doubt on all your other "legal" analyses.Marshwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09966791524173150350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-46041156968678043032010-09-01T19:49:50.308-04:002010-09-01T19:49:50.308-04:00Maria, Local_MLIS_Student asks, "Why not bala...Maria, Local_MLIS_Student asks, "Why not balance the visual representation of the parties by including a logo from Ms. Maziarka's group?" Good idea. So I have done so. <br /><br />I moved the Friends logo down to the first paragraph of your opinion and added the Eagle logo near the top, in the first paragraph of Ginny's opinion.<br /><br />I am making every effort to be as even handed as possible on this particular blog post. So the idea of including both logos was a good one, even if Ginny's logo has nothing to do with the library controversy as it is not library related.<br /><br />I truly am sorry you did not take the proper steps to protect your rights in the logo, as is evident from the facts of this case or lack thereof. I suppose a remedy would be to create a new logo and protect it properly from the start. I am not joking now when I say perhaps you can use some of the ALA's $1000 grant to obtain an attorney to ensure this kind of thing does not happen again. Really, I'm sorry. <br /><br />There are lots of times when people save some money by avoiding legal assistance, and this seems to be one of them. Please consider seeing an attorney for the proper protection of your next logo.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-67843497760810903492010-09-01T18:34:58.401-04:002010-09-01T18:34:58.401-04:00Dan, the only way to end this kerfuffle and the on...Dan, the only way to end this kerfuffle and the only way to NOT be in violation of copyright law is to REMOVE the logo completely from the post/blog/site. How many ways do I have to say this to make you understand?<br /><br />REMOVE THE LOGO. You do not have permission to use it. In any way, shape or form. In any capacity. For any reason. Updates, notations and disclaimers are NOT satisfactory and never will be. REMOVE THE FRIENDS LOGO.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13751723547912389162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-28730766956964823102010-09-01T15:16:57.354-04:002010-09-01T15:16:57.354-04:00Of all the "facts" you state to support ...Of all the "facts" you state to support your use of the logo in question, this one is perhaps the most incorrect and the most dangerous if you, apparently a trained lawyer, truly believe it:<br /><br /><i>8) Most material that has become open to the public without any reservation of rights becomes part of the public domain.</i><br /><br />Anyone that has taken the most basic intellectual property class (or CLE) knows that one does not have to explicitly claim copyright protection for such protection to exist. <br /><br />Now, you might very well have a fair use argument, but nothing that you've stated indicates that's what you're trying to do in your justification. And simply adding some kind of disclaimer about who the logo represents means nothing in terms of its use from a copyright perspective.<br /><br />In the end, I don't see what value the particular logo adds to the post. You only include one logo from one of two groups that one of the parties is affiliated with. For what purpose? Why not balance the visual representation of the parties by including a logo from Ms. Maziarka's group? <br /><br />This is all quite puzzling.Localhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798329694350161856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-47666776721694623952010-09-01T09:00:05.729-04:002010-09-01T09:00:05.729-04:00Maria, in respect of your legitimate concern, I ha...Maria, in respect of your legitimate concern, I have added "see update below" to the text of the logo's caption. Then, at the bottom of the blog post and not just in the comments, I have added the following:<br /><br />"UPDATE 1 SEP 2010: Neither the Friends of the West Bend Library nor its logo is not connected in any way to SafeLibraries or to me, Dan Kleinman. To the best of my knowledge, it is not connected in any way to Eagle Forum of WI/Washington County or to Ginny Maziarka."<br /><br />This should put an end to this kerfuffle.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-4817344107762053942010-09-01T08:40:32.699-04:002010-09-01T08:40:32.699-04:00As I said in a private email to you, This is your ...As I said in a private email to you, <i>This is your second notification to remove the Friends of the West Bend Library logo from your blog/website. My previous comment should not be taken as permission to use it. Permission was never granted to you, and the logo is protected by copyright.</i><br /><br />I told you my comment did not grant you permission, and even if you believe it did, any supposed permission has obviously been revoked by my subsequent requents to remove the logo. Argue as you might, you have no legal argument for keeping the logo on your website after being notified to remove it.<br /><br />At the time I thanked you for adding the caption, I was still unclear about whether or not I had the right to demand you remove it, and I was unable to research it at the time because of another commitment. Upon research, I learned I was well within my right to ask you to remove it, therefore I did.<br /><br />Again, I do not want to suppress the logo or info of my association with the group, but I do not want anyone to visit your website and read the blog post and mistakenly make a connection between the Friends group and Safe Libraries, Dan Kleinman, or Ginny Maziarka.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13751723547912389162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-22894082075362449762010-09-01T01:34:40.388-04:002010-09-01T01:34:40.388-04:00Maria, only a few days ago you asked me to remove ...Maria, only a few days ago you asked me to remove the logo for certain reasons. I responded by adding a caption to that logo to address your concerns. You were satisfied with that saying, "Thanks for adding the caption." You are welcome. That was your consent, even if only implicit.<br /><br />Later, after Marshwood commented and I responded, you echoed Marshwood and re-raised your initial claim. But you had already implicitly consented.<br /><br />Add these facts to those I previously provided.<br /><br />And I am not "a sneaky guy." I have no significant Facebook presence and know little about how it works. That said, anyone seeing the text that all is open to the public could reasonable believe that all is open to the public, particularly where no notice was provided otherwise and the authors where named as "Maria" and "Mary," leaving authorship almost completely unknown. And "Maria" and "Mary" supported "free and unrestricted access," no less.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-87532156179663507672010-09-01T00:33:58.546-04:002010-09-01T00:33:58.546-04:00Dan, you are a sneaky guy, trying to work your way...Dan, you are a sneaky guy, trying to work your way around copyright law, but you are wrong. The website you found is a Facebook page, and the "Privacy Type" with all content referred to as public pertains to the Facebook page privacy settings; the page is available/public to all Facebook users. This does not mean the content is public domain.<br /><br />As you probably know, material is not public domain unless the owner/author/creator of the work specifically declares it so. Friends of the West Bend Library has not done this, on the Facebook page or elsewhere. You are in violation of copyright law by refusing to remove the logo from your site after being notified by a representative of the organization that owns this copyrighted image.<br /><br />You are wrong in your assumption that my request to remove the logo is my first public action as co-president of the Friends of the West Bend Library. I was elected co-president four and a half months ago, and have been involved in public Friends activities here in West Bend since then. Since you are in NJ and WI is a long way from there, I can imagine it may seem that this group just sprang out of nowhere. However, the group began to take shape last fall and officially and publicly began recruiting members in February of this year. Sorry you did not get the memo.<br /><br />I am not attempting to break the connection of my editorial to the Friends of the West Bend Library; after all, I did include the info of my co-presidency of the Friends group in the bio tagline of my article. I have no problem with you using that information, in the reprint of the editorial, here on your site. However, as previously stated, the logo image was not part of that article, it is NOT public domain, and it is protected by copyright. I know you are not a practicing attorney, but ask any lawyer and I'm sure they will tell you that if someone 1) tells you to remove material from your website because it is protected by copyright and 2) permission has not been granted to you, it is in your best interest to remove it. This is your third notice to do so.<br /><br />Your discussion of censorship is amusing; I am not trying to curtail your free speech, but your use of the Friends logo here has been made without consent and is copyright infringement.<br /><br />I do not know the identity of Miss West Bend of the Fear and Loathing in West Bend blog, but I do know the identity of my co-president (Mary Reilly-Kliss) and I highly doubt she is behind F&L.Maria Hanrahanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16326682270775760864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-55795112819312457342010-09-01T00:16:47.986-04:002010-09-01T00:16:47.986-04:00I listed several facts. I made no legal conclusio...I listed several facts. I made no legal conclusions, Marshwood. <br /><br />The issue here is not me or my legal degree. The issue here is Ginny v. Maria. They both made extraordinary statements directed at each other. This blog post and its comments are or should be directed to them and the issues they raised. Discuss that, not anything personal to me.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-5959324772471377562010-08-31T23:47:21.202-04:002010-08-31T23:47:21.202-04:00Wow, you really don't know the first thing abo...Wow, you really don't know the first thing about copyright law or the fair use doctrine.<br /><br />When and were did you get your law degree?Marshwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09966791524173150350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-53579170123917255732010-08-31T21:22:17.100-04:002010-08-31T21:22:17.100-04:00(… Continued from above)
Another of the people jo...(… Continued from above)<br /><br />Another of the people joining in on the effort to suppress the idea that it is discretion, not censorship, to keep inappropriate material from children, was you, Maria. You said, "How is anyone trying to curtail your free speech? YOU haven't said anything. You've merely copied and pasted someone else's article on your blog, without providing any commentary." If I were to remove the logo, wouldn't you then make that exact same claim here in an effort to get me to remove even more? I think so.<br /><br />By the way, this followup is a must read showing the legitimacy of what you and all other commenters sought to remove from the SafeLibraries blog: "<a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.ssf/2010/05/library_neednt_supply_pornogra.html" rel="nofollow">Library Needn't Supply Pornography, Court Rules</a>," by <b>Elizabeth Hovde</b>, <i>The Oregonian</i>, 7 May 2010.<br /><br />My take away from this whole thing is the true amazement at watching an ALA grantee make her first public action on behalf of the Friends of the West Bend Library be the attempt to suppress information that is in the public domain. And she's the co-president of the Friends of the West Bend Library. Co-president. And the ALA argues they have no control over local community libraries. And the suppression effort may have been to break the linkage between your accepting a $1000 ALA grant and your being co-president of the Friends organization (with "<a href="http://fearandloathinginwestbend.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Miss West Bend</a>," by the way). It's truly breath taking.<br /><br />(Part 3 of 3)SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-11254996526923350142010-08-31T21:20:00.236-04:002010-08-31T21:20:00.236-04:00(… Continued from above)
Based on your comments, ...(… Continued from above)<br /><br />Based on your comments, it appears this is the first time the connection between you and your co-presidency of the Friends of the West Bend Library has been made public. <br /><br />It appears that your very first public action as co-president of the Friends of the West Bend Library is an attempt to suppress the speech of others with whom you disagree; besides me, you have asked Ginny to remove the graphic, and she did, apparently for reasons of pure comity.<br /><br />One of the reasons people like you claim for a reason to ignore the perfectly legal effort to keep children from inappropriate material is the <a href="http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/07/slippery-slopes-okay-for-gays-but-not.html" rel="nofollow">false "slippery slope" argument</a>. You know, if you keep x from children, y will be next. Well, I can use it too. If I remove the logo, removing your opinion piece will be next. Is this idle talk? No. I reprinted an article by Elizabeth Hovde entitled, "<a href="http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/07/sensible-censorship-surfing-for-porn.html" rel="nofollow">Sensible Censorship: Surfing for Porn Shouldn't Be a Public Library Service</a>." She said, for example, "Limiting what's on the shelves -- or accessible on a public computer -- is not censorship. It's discretion."<br /><br />Result? 37 comments. Every last one of them, other than my responses, were an effort to get me to remove my re-publication of the article. This effort included one of your community informing the publisher of my re-publication. <br /><br />(Part 2 of 3 - Continuing with Part 3 below…)SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-16156023520111410952010-08-31T21:17:43.759-04:002010-08-31T21:17:43.759-04:00Maria, thanks for writing. Let me suggest you als...Maria, thanks for writing. Let me suggest you also contact your local Wisconsin bar association for legal assistance. Advise them of these facts:<br /><br />1) The graphic appears on a public web site here: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=106749976014426&ref=search" rel="nofollow">Friends of the West Bend Library</a>.<br /><br />2) That page includes, "Privacy Type: Open: All content is public."<br /><br />3) The graphic is part of the content that is open to the public.<br /><br />4) Neither the graphic nor any of the text on the page contains any notice of any ownership or reservation of rights pertaining to the graphic or anything else.<br /><br />5) The name associated with the graphic is "Maria" and the "Admins" are "Maria" and "Mary."<br /><br />6) The stated mission of the Friends of the West Bend Library includes that the Friends exists "to support and defend the library's mission of providing free and unrestricted access to materials and services."<br /><br />7) It is reasonable to assume that "free and unrestricted access" applies equally to all, including the content on the web page, especially where all material is marked as "public."<br /><br />8) Most material that has become open to the public without any reservation of rights becomes part of the public domain.<br /><br />Based upon the above facts and other facts not stated, the logo will stay.<br /><br />(Part 1 of 3 - Continued below…)SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.com