[Malcolm Moore]

Can you post this fact that he has made this statement.?

Dear "Brian Withers"

We do know that "Fred Smith" claims to have registration.

Look at

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=99fad6b86cc3a7b6&rnum=1

Given the header of the e-mail carried that well known line

Received: from roger(203-79-83-241.cable.paradise.net.nz
[203.79.83.241]) by smtp-2.paradise.net.nz

the conclusion was inescapable!

The Electricity Act 1992 contains the following:

.........

160.Offences relating to registration

snip

(2)Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction
to a fine not exceeding $10,000 who,


snip


(b)Not being registered or licensed under Part 9 of this Act,
in any way holds himself or herself or itself out as being so
registered or licensed; or

etc etc.

.........

The full Act can be found at

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/

Regards
Malcolm.

 

[cowboyz]

pete wrote:

Just check the web site that lists regestired people, no sign of a
roger (or woger) Sheppard

Are you surprised?

 

[Mainlander]

Bzzt ! Only the logos that were designed for the company had exclusive
rights attatched to them.

Seeing that the logo was for the Tai Poutini Polytech, and the Polytech has
chosen to publish these logos in the public domain, showing people these
published logos would not be a breech of copyright.

Tai Poutini Polytech has given Lennier a certificate, on which is a supposed
copyright logo. This certificate is, by design, to be shown in the public
arena (public domain). Reproducing the entire document is NOT a breech of
copyright.

It can be displayed in the public domain but REPRODUCTION of the design
could constitute a breach of copyright. You can go out and buy a book
from a bookshop. You have the right to read it, but not to publish a copy
of it.

When it comes to documents, there can be multiple copyrights - on the
individual components, the design and the document as a whole.

Say I publish a web page. I may copyright the design of the site, but the
content in that page might be copyright to someone else, or even several
people.

Polytechs often have copyrights on all sorts of things to prevent PTEs
and the like from setting up using IP taken from the polys. It happens a
lot.

Showing a logo that is already published in the public domain is not a
breech as such, but reproducing them and passing them off as your own work
is.

Where would the media be if they couldn't show logos in the newspaper, tv,
magazines ?

There is a limit, you can't put my logo onto your web site without
permission.

It's a common misconception that holding copyright forbids other public
display.

The issue here is that lennier claims the image is copyright to him. But
in fact, he doesn't hold copyright over the certificate - parts of it are
almost certainly copyrighted to others.

 

[Mainlander]

Pigs arse it does.

You wouldn't have a clue

David claims he owns the copyright on that document, but he doesn't. The
copyrights on parts of it are almost certainly held by others.

The issue is not whether he can republish, but whether he holds the
copyright as he claims.

 

[Jason M]

Are you surprised?

If he works under the supervision of a registered person, isn't that
good enough?

 

[Richard Malcolm-Smith]

Modern PCs use ATX power supplies, that do not have external mains

switches, it's only if you choose to open the power supply case that a
certificate is needed, people who work on PCs without opening the power
supply case DO NOT NEED REGISTRATION.

Most of mine have an external switch on the back where the AC out would have
being if it was an old AT style one. This is the main power, but its not
something that would change it so you need a cert on a PSU.

 

[T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz]

There is no need to call Dunford a "sheepfucker" - he's not from Auckland!

hahaha, oops, I laughed at one of lenniers' jokes...
by the way, that would be the helpfullness that I have seen from Rod Speed.

 

[T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz]

URL for that one?

no idea man... I don't bookmark things like this, but some links
provided in this thread are helpfull.

http://www.med.govt.nz/ewrb/pdf/elink/update200102.pdf

 

[T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz]

Only in stupid sheep-raper-land.

As this nick name is used in both nz and au to describe the opposite
nation, I think that some clarification is needed here.

 

[T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz]

You will find that hardly any of the Posters here that Fix computers and other
stuff have any formal training, let alone Electrical Registration.
I think it would be very wise for these posters to front up and be checked, so
why just pick on Woger.?
Or is it just a Witch hunt.?

Dave Hall, and no I'm not on the list... as I'm not required to be, I
don't work with 240v.

 

[Malcolm Moore]

If he works under the supervision of a registered person, isn't that
good enough?

Maybe.
That registered person must be a supervisor of electrical work
and, no part of the equipment being worked on may be connected to a
power supply
and, the testing and connection to a power supply must be done by the
supervisor. (section 109 of the Electricity Act). This would make
servicing televisions (for example) a frustrating task.

Also, the unregistered worker must still undertake the two yearly
course on safe working practices etc. (Regulation 26).

The EWRB has a document on their website about Supervision Guidelines

http://www.med.govt.nz/ewrb/content/supervision-guidelines/index.html

Regards
Malcolm

 

[Rod Speed]

[email protected] wrote

It can be displayed in the public domain but REPRODUCTION
of the design could constitute a breach of copyright.

Not in that situation it couldnt.

Similarly if he say has it framed on the wall and its
filmed for a TV news item or a newspaper photo either.

You can go out and buy a book from a bookshop. You
have the right to read it, but not to publish a copy of it.

Separate issue entirely.

When it comes to documents, there can be multiple copyrights - on
the individual components, the design and the document as a whole.

And displaying a scan of the certificate on his web site
does not constitute a copyright infringement and does
not need the permission of the copyright holder, just like
those other two examples I mentioned above dont either.

Say I publish a web page. I may copyright the design
of the site, but the content in that page might be
copyright to someone else, or even several people.

Irrelevant to the situation being discussed.

Polytechs often have copyrights on all sorts of things to prevent PTEs
and the like from setting up using IP taken from the polys. It happens a lot.

Irrelevant to the situation being discussed.

There is a limit, you can't put my logo
onto your web site without permission.

You can if its say in a picture of something that includes the logo.

Most street scenes of other than residential areas have those logos.

The issue here is that lennier claims the image is copyright to him.

Wrong. He makes no such claim. He just
says that its a certificate with his name on it.

But in fact, he doesn't hold copyright over the certificate

He never said he did.

- parts of it are almost certainly copyrighted to others.

And it does NOT constitute an infringement of that
copyright to have a scan of his certificate on his web site.

 

[Rod Speed]

You wouldn't have a clue

We'll see.

David claims he owns the copyright on that document, but he doesn't.

Irrelevant to whether he infringes copyright by displaying a scan
of his certificate on his web site. He doesnt, even in NZ.

The copyrights on parts of it are almost certainly held by others.

Irrelevant to whether he infringes copyright by displaying a scan
of his certificate on his web site. He doesnt, even in NZ.

The issue is not whether he can republish, but
whether he holds the copyright as he claims.

Crap. What matters is whether he infringes copyright by displaying
a scan of his certificate on his web site. He doesnt, even in NZ.

 

[Lennier]

Irrelevant to whether he infringes copyright by displaying a scan
of his certificate on his web site. He doesnt, even in NZ.

Point of fact:

I never claimed that I owned the copyright for any logos, signatures, or
any other individual copyrighted item that may form a part of my
certificate.

However, *I* own the copyright to the JPG image that I posted onto the
website - *I* made that scan. It is *my* certificate, having been
unreservedly given it by the Polytechnic at which I studied.

I do not own the copyright of the Polytechnic's logo, and as such I cannot
duplicate that logo and pass it off as my own.

However, the Polytechnic chose to include that logo within a document
which it unreservedly gave to me. Provided I reproduce that document as a
whole, and use it for the purposes for which the document was intended -
namely to prove that I have passed that course - then I am quite within my
rights to reproduce my certificate - either by scanning or by photocopying
(same thing really) and to use those reproductions accordingly.

Basically, Patrick Dunford (Fundamentalist that he is) doesn't know
nothing about what he's talking!


Lennier

 

[Rod Speed]

Point of fact:

I never claimed that I owned the copyright for any logos, signatures, or
any other individual copyrighted item that may form a part of my
certificate.

However, *I* own the copyright to the JPG image that I posted onto the
website - *I* made that scan. It is *my* certificate, having been
unreservedly given it by the Polytechnic at which I studied.

I do not own the copyright of the Polytechnic's logo, and as such I cannot
duplicate that logo and pass it off as my own.

However, the Polytechnic chose to include that logo within a document
which it unreservedly gave to me. Provided I reproduce that document as a
whole, and use it for the purposes for which the document was intended -
namely to prove that I have passed that course - then I am quite within my
rights to reproduce my certificate - either by scanning or by photocopying
(same thing really) and to use those reproductions accordingly.

Basically, Patrick Dunford (Fundamentalist that he is) doesn't know
nothing about what he's talking!

Indeed, and never has on any subject what so ever.

 

[KS]

However, *I* own the copyright to the JPG image that I posted onto the

website - *I* made that scan. It is *my* certificate, having been
unreservedly given it by the Polytechnic at which I studied.

Lennier, you are absolutely correct (except for owning the copyright to the
*logo* on the certificate, which of course still belongs to the Polytech.
That means you can't claim it as your own work, or ownership).

The logo has been released to the public domain by printing it and giving it
to you as an item that it is expected to be reproduced and displayed.
Therefore you ARE allowed to display the item publically, as you were doing.

As I mentioned, there's a lot of misconceptions about copyright and what you
are and are not allowed to do.

What you are doing is correct. No lawyer with half a brain could argue
against the public display of a certificate.

 

[KS]

Dear "Brian Withers"

We do know that "Fred Smith" claims to have registration.

Look at

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=99fad6b86cc3a7b6&rnum=1

Given the header of the e-mail carried that well known line

Received: from roger(203-79-83-241.cable.paradise.net.nz
[203.79.83.241]) by smtp-2.paradise.net.nz

the conclusion was inescapable!

The Electricity Act 1992 contains the following:

........

160.Offences relating to registration

snip

Nice Malcolm.

Perhaps that should be a new thread on its own ?

 

[K]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:55:14 +0100, "Uncle StoatWarbler"

Sorry to butt in here guys, but according to my husband ( who IS a
registered Electrical Inspector) anyone holding any form of Electrical
registration is on the Register of Electrical Workers. found here
http://www.ewr.govt.nz/pls/web/dbssiten.main just click on Electrical
workers register and then search for Roger Sheppard or whoever he
claims to be.

 

[Jim James]

Lennier, you are absolutely correct (except for owning the copyright to
the *logo* on the certificate, which of course still belongs to the Polytech.
That means you can't claim it as your own work, or ownership).

The logo has been released to the public domain by printing it and giving
it to you as an item that it is expected to be reproduced and displayed.

That is NOT what public domain means.

The mere use of a logo on ads etc does
NOT change its copyright status one iota.

You are however welcome to take photos that include a publicly
displayed logo without that being an infringement of the copyright
whose status is NOT affected by the public display of the logo etc.

Therefore you ARE allowed to display the item publically, as you were doing.

There is no 'therefore' involved.

As I mentioned, there's a lot of misconceptions about
copyright and what you are and are not allowed to do.

Yep, and you are guilty of that yourself.

What you are doing is correct. No lawyer with half a brain
could argue against the public display of a certificate.

Indeed, but it isnt for the reason you claim.

 

[Mainlander]

Point of fact:

I never claimed that I owned the copyright for any logos, signatures, or
any other individual copyrighted item that may form a part of my
certificate.

However, *I* own the copyright to the JPG image that I posted onto the
website - *I* made that scan. It is *my* certificate, having been
unreservedly given it by the Polytechnic at which I studied.

Doesn't matter whether you scanned it or not. If the copyright on the
document is owned by someone else, scanning it for reproduction still
rides over their copyrights.

Provided I reproduce that document as a
whole, and use it for the purposes for which the document was intended -
namely to prove that I have passed that course - then I am quite within my
rights to reproduce my certificate - either by scanning or by photocopying
(same thing really) and to use those reproductions accordingly.

But you went further, and asserted you owned the copyright of that image.

Basically, Patrick Dunford (Fundamentalist that he is) doesn't know
nothing about what he's talking!

You don't know "nothing" about the English Language, eh David?