A portion of the Rachel Carson Greenway trail (in yellow on above map) is closed for the next several weeks as part of a trail realignment project in the Northwest Branch Stream Valley. The closed stretch runs from the Capital Beltway to the beginning of the hard surface section of the Northwest Branch Trail. Watch for construction crews in that area of the park over the coming weeks, and stay tuned for a trail reopening date.
Did you get permission to reproduce this map? A real journalist would cite their sources.
ReplyDeleteA real man would sign his comments instead of hiding behind "Anonymous." This is a County government map, meaning I paid for it, and can do anything I want with it.
Delete"I paid for it [through sales taxes on my junk food purchases]"
DeleteNope. That's not how it works. You didn't create it. You need to cite sources. Always.
"Journalism 101", as you are in the habit of saying.
I own the map. I paid for it. Yep, that's how it works, belligerent drunk guy.
DeleteNo, that's not how it works. First, you are giving the false impression that you created the map.
DeleteSecond, even if you actually "owned" that map, that entitles you to only personal use, not unlimited publication.
By that mentality, Robert, I "own" anything that was paid for by the county? So the police won't mind when I take one of their cars?
Delete11:58: It's a public document. I have unlimited rights to unlimited publication of it. In fact, it was sent to me by the government, in their effort to alert the public to this trail closure.
DeletePeople who actually live there and use this trail are thinking you are the ultimate dumbass troll right now. Man up, "ya big baby."
12:22: A public document is not a police car. You have a right to make a records request with the government; you do not have the right to request use of a police cruiser or fighter jet.
"You have a right to make a records request with the government"
DeleteCorrect. Did you actually do so?
"4) Copyright Information
ReplyDeleteYou should assume that everything you see or read on the Sites is copyright protected unless otherwise noted, and may not be used except as provided in these Terms and Conditions. You may print or download material displayed on the Sites for non-commercial; personal use only, provided you also retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained on the materials. You must not, however, sell, reverse engineer, distribute, modify, transmit, reuse, re-post, use, or create derivative works based on the content of the Sites in whole or part for any purpose, without written permission from the County or any third party owner of such content in each instance. The County neither warrants nor represents that your use of materials displayed on the Sites will not infringe rights of third parties.
5) Use Of Images
Images of people or places displayed on the Sites are either the property of, or used with permission by, the County. The use of these images by you, or anyone else authorized by you, is prohibited unless specifically permitted by these Terms and Conditions. Any unauthorized use of the images may violate copyright laws, trademark laws, the laws of privacy and publicity, and communications regulations and statutes."
LOL - Any document produced by the County government is public property. In fact, it belongs to the public more than it does to the government, because they didn't pay to produce it - they forcibly took our money to pay for it.
DeleteYou probably also believe it is illegal to take photos on public property, as well. You're obviously not versed in the law.
I was an actual journalist, employed by real newspapers. The county website itself states the terms of use, of which I pasted above. It states EXPLICITLY that you are not allowed to reproduce the content without attribution.
DeleteNot the same as taking your own pictures from public property, which the courts have repeatedly upheld as a right provided via the first amendment.
Read the User Rights on the county website, Robert. It directly contradicts your statements above.
"it belongs to the public more than it does to the government, because they didn't pay to produce it - they forcibly took our money to pay for it."
DeleteThis is crazy, even for you. This sounds like something one of those sovereign citizen types would say, that laws don't apply to them just because they said so. Are you one of those people?
12:38: The County can make any false claim of ownership it wishes on the website. It does not change the law, just as a business is not immune to lawsuits merely by posting a sign declaring such behind the counter.
Delete12:52: If you are claiming the public's right to reproduce government documents does not exist, it is you who sound crazy. You seem to be asserting some Communist equivalent of sovereign citizen status on behalf of government.
1:20 PM
DeleteMy God, you're right. When do you make the citizens arrest of Dyer?
2:59 PM
DeleteLooks like someone took a highlighter to a basic map. Should be criminal!
3:27PM No one cares.
DeleteIt's a rudimentary map the government shared with residents. I'm sure they want the information distributed as wide as possible.
Be more concerned about all of the proprietary data our government turned over to Amazon. That's a much more interesting story for you to pursue.
Even if I believed that (I don't), a real news source would place "Copyright Montgomery County, Used With Permission" under the image.
Delete"LOL - not only is the map public property created with my tax dollars"
DeleteDude... delete this comment all you want, but the fact that it was "created with your tax dollars" has NOTHING to do with usage rights. Are you dense?
https://www.harrisbeach.com/new-york-municipalities-blog/state-and-local-government-works-may-be-copyrighted
7:49: The Montgomery Parks spokesman is laughing at you right now, after having sent me the map. I've never seen any area news outlet put such a convoluted credit under a photo or map. What are you smoking?
Delete9:36: Anyone can assert anything on a "harrisbeach.com" website - they would still lose in court. The idea that a government employee could copyright and profit from government documents he creates on public time and taxpayer dime is ludicrous and nonexistent.
Conversely, I can make unlimited use of those documents because they are public property, Matlock.
Robert... sigh. Read the case cited in the blog post I linked. It cites actual case law. In an actual court. In the United States. Jesus Christ.
Delete"Although much of the maps’ content was dictated by state law and regulations, the court held that the county could have a protectable interest in how those elements were presented. Further, although the public had the right to inspect and copy the records under New York’s Freedom of Information Law that did not give a private entity permission to distribute the county’s works commercially."
Delete-County of Suffolk v. First American Real Estate Solutions
"See N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 87(2). Suffolk County may comply with both these mandates while maintaining its copyright. FOIL also does not prohibit a state agency from placing restrictions on how a record, if it were copyrighted, could be subsequently distributed."
DeleteFrom the actual case cited. From:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1302264.html
Please tell me again how something paid for with your tax dollars is yours to do with as you choose.
That never went to the Supreme Court.
Delete"That never went to the Supreme Court."
DeleteThat's not how our American legal system works, Mr. Armchair Perry Mason.
A case doesn't need to go all the way to the Supreme Court for it to establish legal precedent.
11:53: That is how the legal system works - it only stands because no one has challenged it yet, just like Maryland's unconstitutional gun laws.
DeleteIn the real world, the editor would have rejected your copy and returned it to you for the copyright information.
ReplyDelete1:55PM
DeleteAlso in the real world: man wouldn't spend time making multiple comments about some county map.
Also in the real world, you wouldn't jump in my face over my one editorial comment.
Delete1:55: In the real world, the editor would have delivered a five finger death punch, and had you hauled off to the loony bin for having a 12-hour manic episode over a 6-inch map.
DeleteI've never had an editor throw a punch because my copy needed an update for attribution.
DeleteYour tantrum doesn't change editorial requirements.
Given your bizarre attack and 24-hour manic episode over a map posted on a trail closure report, it's not surprising your newspaper career is over.
DeleteWe are not the same person.
DeleteNo one is filing a suit on posting a map from a news release.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I thought the move is to pretend Dyer doesn't exist. LOL