Are there more new US sets in this list?

[Bill Blackhurst]

Bill, I don't think that any normal conversation which takes place here at Playmofriends (or elsewhere) rises to the level of an original work protected by copyright, so I don't think we have to worry about that.  You could post that "Indianna is a silly dodo-head" and, no matter how clever, original, and witty this might be, anyone would be free to copy and paste it or say it to other people.  Now if you were to create a Playmobil diorama that expresses the same idea you could justifiably complain if someone else took credit for it.  But I doubt that you would bother to sue them in court over it unless they were making money from it.  Now, if Walmart put it on a T-shirt . . . .    

But that is what is being discussed regarding this situation, Indianna. Klickywelt is accusing individuals here of stealing their information & contributing it here, violating a copyright situation. How far can this situation go? Will this make individuals not want to share information if they're always called into question? Legal actions may not be done but the constant accusations will cause people to with hold information in the future.

[tonguello]

reading the copyright definition that indianna posted, I understand that it refers to "works" that has any type of artistic nature or at least some "creativity" basis.
So we all agree it applays to photographs, photostories, dioramas, even customs, etc, etc. All of them with a creativity process.

Now....information has any creation process??? beside the fact that someone had to type it??? 
I don't think so. Information is to repeat and to pass what one learnt. So information would not enter in the definition of copyright.
A list of possible new sets IMO is information, therefore, what copyright has to do with it. Information is meant to inform. Information goes mouth to mouth..... as someone said, no one calls the news to ask permittion to tell a friend what they saw on tv.

So maybe next time no one should said that "certain info" was read in "certain forum". Just post it as general info.
"hey I've heard that......bla bla bla."
Problem solved.

[bonniebeth]

Very well said, Gaston. And I agree 100%!

[Playmoholics]

Yes, very well said! Is there some way we could work out some kind of friendly truce with klickywelt? After all, I think we all have the same interest at heart 

[bonniebeth]

Yes, I've been thinking on this too. I wonder if we could have an agreement between us about sharing things. Information and news specifically.

[Bill Blackhurst]

From the way it sounds, there is a split between the members on Klickywelt. Some are willing to share while others have no intentions of ever sharing. I would like to know what side has the majority there. It may come down to finding out who would be the person in charge to ask & reasons why if nonmutual sharing is determined.

[Playmoholics]

I don't understand what the hangup about sharing would be anyway since both sites are PUBLIC anyway 

[klicky32]

who has ( had) Pics from this new Items?

greetings KLicky32

[tonguello]

who has ( had) Pics from this new Items?

greetings KLicky32

we haven't seen any pic of those items

[henry_martini]

who has ( had) Pics from this new Items?

greetings KLicky32

Noone has.



My comments:
1. This is not a case of Klickywelt against PF. Klickywelt is very correct about any possible legal issues because they want to protect their owner from being sued for stupid things/errors/mischief he has not done but would be held responsible for. If in doubt they chose to be very picky. They surely claim no rights they would not grant to others, share their own information and respect without doubt the rights and claims of others too and will act (even without request) if they get to know about any issues. They are not disclosing information on their own and are not in other way responsible nor can they do anything about if like in this case single users of them claim to have rights on their 'work' or input that they actually have or assume to have.
2. It might be that if a certain amount of effort has been invested into something the result can be under copyright too. E.g. if one makes a digital typewrite of some old (hence not copyrighted anymore) book he maybe can claim to have rights about this text (in his electronic preparation, not the text itself) that prevent it from just being copied and used elsewhere (even if available on the internet for reading). At least such claims frequently can be found while e.g. Project Gutenberg explicitly allows the use of it's texts. Copyright applies to any picture no matter how creative it is or how skillfully made and might hence apply to any text no matter if 1000 pages or just a few lines.
3. This kw member is (as far as I am aware) always very strict about copyright issues and not only his own. E.g. he fought (as a kw moderator) stubbornly a long struggle against all who copied pictures from Playmodb just for reference after Heather had asked not to copy them.
4. Maybe he got upset too because he did not want this piece of information roaming around all over the place prematurely to 'protect' his sources. It is after all the first mention of pcc exclusive sets of which noone has ever heard before.