Journal Of A Schizophrenic, with a
twist.
http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/klss0004.html
4. Kidsland
steals copyrighted material.
_klss0004 | updated 8 July 2021, by
Rene Helmerichs
QR:
http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/klss0004.html
The Translator (T-7.II.4.) gave Rene
permission to print this, WITHOUT ruining the
school's reputation, because this is part of a defence which explicitly exposes
a much greater action of criminal activity occurring at the school. Something Rene is asking the court's help to
correct!
翻譯員允許是瑞內在不損害學校聲譽的情況下打印此文件，因為這是辯護的一部分，明確揭露了在學校發生的更嚴重的犯罪活動。瑞內請求法庭幫助糾正的事情！
Introducing
12 attention-getting statements |介紹12條引人注目的聲明
所有12條誹謗言論的引言都相同
On 26 Nov 2018, three senior managers
of
107中國年11月26日，芝麻街凱仕蘭三名高級管理，江佩樺（Clare）、徐乙彤（Denise）和黃姿瑜（Stacy），在台南區民事法院案卷中撒了個小謊「臺南區民事法院107年勞訴字第60號」
The little lie grew and grew. And it had been growing since 28 Dec 2017,
when the managers asked their Schizophrenic teacher, Rene, not to tell their
clients about his criminal history or mental health struggles. The managers insisted "this is
這個小謊言越來越大。自106年12月28日以來，這種情況一直在增長，當時管理人員要求他們的精神分裂症老師瑞內不要告訴他們的客戶他的犯罪歷史或心理健康問題。經理們堅稱「這是台灣，沒有人關心你在加拿大的歷史」和「我們不想嚇到任何人」。
Nine doctors declared Rene a
delusional, severely ill, man who suffers from a range of serious mental
disorders including Bipolar Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Personality
Disorder, Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective Disorder, and more. Most importantly, Delusional Disorder and
paranoia.
九位醫生宣布瑞內（Rene）為妄想症重病患者，患有一系列嚴重的精神障礙，包括雙相情感障礙、強迫性人格障礙、精神分裂症、分裂情感障礙等。最重要的是，妄想症和偏執狂。
In reality, Rene's only real problem
is the different spiritual voices he hears.
He decides what to do based on what he hears (he usually does the
opposite, namely, what the voices are afraid he's going to do). That way, Rene is forcing people's own
spirits to join together in a common project to achieve real worldwide peace,
without harming anyone.
瑞內唯一真正的問題是他聽到不同的精神聲音。他根據他聽到的來決定做什麼（他通常做相反的事情，聲音害怕他會做什麼）。這樣，瑞內正在迫使人們自己的精神聯合起來，共同實現世界和平，而不傷害任何人。
Rene told the managers about his past
on 20 May 2017, before the managers hired Rene.
Rene specifically told the managers that doctors accused Rene of crimes
which he didn't commit. Rene told the
managers that, when Rene demanded a criminal trial, the doctors declared Rene
legally insane. The doctors kept Rene
locked in solitary confinement and forcibly medicated Rene until Rene admitted
to criminal guilt.
106年5月20日，在經理聘請瑞內之前，瑞內向經理講述了他的過去。瑞內特別告訴經理，醫生指控瑞內犯了他沒有犯下的罪行。瑞內告訴管理人員，當瑞內要求刑事審判時，醫生宣布瑞內在法律上精神失常。醫生將瑞內關在單獨監禁中，並強行給瑞內服藥，直到瑞內承認犯罪。
Managers insisted Rene should deceive
managers, teachers, and over 2500 clients of the
經理堅持瑞內應該在106年12月28日欺騙芝麻街13家芝麻街凱仕蘭補習班的經理、老師和2500多名客戶。查找 http://p7.rene.guru
中列出的位置。但欺騙任何人並不能幫助我們實現真正的全球和平，是嗎？
Rene certainly never agreed to deceive
anyone, since peace depends on honesty, and honesty requires consistency of
laws. When the cram school managers told
Rene that they want Rene to deceive clients who trusted Rene, Rene simply
became more public. After all, telling
Rene what you don't want Rene to do is only going to make him ask you "Why
not?"
瑞內當然從不同意欺騙任何人，因為和平取決於誠實，而誠實需要法律的一致性。當補習班經理告訴瑞內他們希望瑞內欺騙信任瑞內的客戶時，瑞內變得更加公開。畢竟，告訴瑞內你不希望瑞內做什麼，只會讓他問你「為什麼不呢？」
The above statement is one of twelve
which Kidsland Sesame Street English school managers allege is ruining the
school's reputation. But the managers
are deceiving prosecutors about the fact that they knowingly evaded
上述聲明是芝麻街凱仕蘭英語學校經理聲稱破壞學校聲譽的十二項聲明之一。但這些管理人員正在欺騙檢察官，因為他們故意逃避台灣的國家安全檢查，聘請一名外國罪犯，精神病學家稱他太瘋狂而不能當老師。
Specifically, reference this excerpt
of a conversation between Rene (瑞內) and General Manager Clare
(江佩樺), and head of the Teaching
Department, manager Denise (徐乙彤). A PDF copy of the entire transcript is linked
below the excerpt. The PDF includes a
link to the original voice recording!
This conversation took place on 20 May 2017, beginning at 10:41 am. The indicated times are from the start of the
audio-recording. The conversation
occurred 6 days before Rene and the school signed a two-year teaching contract:
1:07:16 Rene to Clare: And here's why I don't
have a choice: in your contract, you're asking for a criminal record check.
1:07:23 Clare: Yeah
1:07:26
Denise: Ohhhh.
1:07:28 Rene to Clare: I will fail that. However--
1:07:32
(Denise speaking Chinese to Clare): Sway, ta shi--
1:07:33 Denise to Rene: You have a record?
1:07:34 Rene to Denise: Yes.
具體可以參考這段瑞內（Rene）與總經理江佩樺（Clare）、教學部部長徐乙彤經理（Denise）的對話。整個記錄的PDF副本鏈接在摘錄下方。PDF包含原始錄音的鏈接！該對話於2017共同年5月20日上午10:41開始。指示的時間是從錄音的開始。談話發生在Rene和學校簽訂為期兩年的教學合同前6天：
1:07:16瑞內對江佩樺：這就是我別無選擇的原因：在你的合同中，你要求進行犯罪記錄檢查。
1:07:23 江佩樺：是的
1:07:26徐乙彤：哦。
1:07:28徐乙彤對江佩樺：我會失敗的。然而 -
1:07:32（徐乙彤對江佩樺說中文）：Sway，ta shi--
1:07:33徐乙彤對瑞內：你有記錄嗎？
1:07:34瑞內對徐乙彤：是的。
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145zs_1nVsac1hocmP6HoPt9g0KCRM2u5/view?usp=sharing
The teacher only wants his credibility
restored! He had asked the school to
help restore his credibility, and they agreed.
Now they're trying to renege the original agreement. The criminal court file in the Tainan
District Court is 「南院武刑歲108易1170字第1090042211號」.
老師只想恢復他的信譽！他曾要求學校幫助恢復他的信譽，他們同意了。現在他們正試圖違背最初的協議。台南地方法院刑事案卷為「南院武刑歲108易1170字第1090042211號」。
Even more incredible, the judge allows
a psychiatrist to say "Sorry, I can't perform the court-requested mental
assessment because Rene refuses to believe that thinking originates in his
body. You'll just have to accept the
fact he's Schizophrenic, and just never receive an official assessment from
me". Reference:
更不可思議的是，刑事法庭的法官目前允許精神病醫生說：「對不起，我不能執行法庭要求的心理評估，因為瑞內拒絕相信思想起源於他的身體。你只需要接受他患有精神分裂症的事實，而且從未收到我的正式評估。」參考：
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UB3LevcG-g1wDSdIBKPeRjZO4BZCtmlh/view?usp=sharing
Without surprise, the Tainan District
Criminal court did not investigate this submission establishing the above
statement as true and publicly relevant, and therefore not malicious character
destruction. If anything, this page,
together with the rest, establishes that
不出所料，台南區刑事法院沒有調查此陳述，證明上述陳述是真實的和公開相關的，因此沒有惡意破壞人格。如果有的話，這個頁面和其他頁面一起確定台灣的法律體係是腐敗的。
Referenced Exhibits are available
online in the following folder:
參考可在以下文件夾中在線獲得：
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wlDbKCO0t8x-H5dvgLlrFPvrBBdl8bjJ?usp=sharing
The following was the submission to
the Tainan District Criminal Court on 29 April 2020. Reference pages 20 to 24 in the linked PDF:
以下是109中國年4月29日提交給台南地區刑事法院的文件。鏈接PDF中的參考頁20至24：
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cWDfuQ1ZgoUFFSIzZh9KJSaBny6YHW70/view?usp=sharing
第四個陳述，中文聲明並非來自瑞內，所以否認其證據能力，請調查英語陳述的真實性：
The fourth statement, the Chinese language did not come from
Rene, so deny its evidence capacity, and please investigate the truth of the
English statement:
4、「凱仕蘭竊取受版權保護的材料。凱仕蘭盜用版權。」
4. "Kidsland steals copyrighted
material."
真正令人驚奇的不是補習班違反了數百人的版權協議（我只是數百人中的一個），而是台灣檢方拒絕調查，而且未經調查，檢方指控我指控是假的！檢察官確實剝奪了我發起正式調查的權利，而台南地區刑事法院當然沒有調查這一說法的真實性，因為有人指控我故意破壞一所欺詐學校的聲譽。所以這裡有證據表明學校正在從其他作者那裡獲取圖像和文字，將內容重新包裝為他們自己的內容，並將其出售給芝麻街凱仕蘭出版的一本書中的公眾，但沒有提及這些圖像或內容不屬於凱仕蘭。
The really amazing thing about this isn't the fact that the cram
school violates the copyright agreements of hundreds of people (I am only one
of hundreds), but that
真實 | Truth
每年凱仕蘭芝麻街都會在台南市的暑假和寒假期間，為客戶提供英語學習營。老師根據凱仕蘭經理決定的主題制作學習營手冊。凱仕蘭員工為印刷書籍貢獻所有內容。然後，凱仕蘭將內容出版制作成一本書，並將這本書作為昂貴的學習營費用的一部分提供給客戶。在整個學習營中，老師和學生都將這本書用於所有課堂活動。凱仕蘭通過結合出售凱仕蘭夏季和冬季營書籍而直接獲利。
Each year
學校每年出版兩本書。來自他們 2017 年夏令營計劃的這本書的 PDF 副本是鏈接：
The school publishes two books
per year. A PDF copy of the book from
their Summer Camp 2017 program is link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13BMh-0YRTzHFRpW2rKINgU4qym40F9Sg/view?usp=sharing
根據瑞內與凱仕蘭的教學合同第5條，凱仕蘭要求對學習營手冊的每一部分擁有永久版權。老師只是按照凱仕蘭的要求來彙編內容。凱仕蘭宣稱，凱仕蘭對該書保留完整的知識產權和實物產權。瑞內證D013號包含原始教學合同的副本，第6頁包含第5條：
According to Article 5 of Rene's teaching contract with
Kidsland, Kidsland claims sole and perpetual copyright of every part of the
camp manuals. The teachers are merely
following the request of Kidsland to compile the information. Kidsland asserts that Kidsland retains full
intellectual and physical property rights over the camp book. Exhibit D0013 contains a copy of the original
teaching contract, page 6 contains Article 5:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TV2nT3z1OGgn4WuF4yPdT_AS7BLdNEYN/view?usp=sharing
為證明凱仕蘭盜竊版權材料，瑞內僅從凱仕蘭 106年夏令營書的98頁中的任意一頁向法院提供證據：參考瑞內證D014號，凱仕蘭臺灣 106年夏令營書第11頁：
To demonstrate Kidsland's theft of copyright material, Rene
provides the court with evidence from just one random page of Kidsland's
98-page 2017 summer camp book: reference Exhibit D014, page 11 of Kidsland's
2017 summer camp book:
凱仕蘭的106年夏令營第11頁包含4張圖片。這些圖片是：
Kidsland's summer camp 2017 book contains 4 images on page
11. These images are:
1、瑞內證D014-1號，文件：Taj_Mahal_in_March_2004.jpg，作者Dhirad，挪威奧斯陸：
1) Exhibit D014-1, file: Taj Mahal in March 2004.jpg, author
Dhirad,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Taj_Mahal_in_March_2004.jpg
2、瑞內證D014-2號，檔案：Kheops-Pyramid.jpg，作者Nina‧Aldin‧Thune：
2) Exhibit D014-2, file: Kheops-Pyramid.jpg, author Nina Aldin
Thune:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kheops-Pyramid.jpg
3、瑞內證D014-3號，檔案：GreatWall6.jpg，作者Craig‧Nagy‧/‧Flickr：
3) Exhibit D014-3, file: GreatWall6.jpg, author Craig
Nagy/Flickr:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GreatWall6.jpg
4、瑞內證D014-4號，檔案：Colosseum_in_Rome,_Italy_-_April_2007.jpg，作者David‧Iliff：
4) Exhibit D014-4, file: Colosseum in
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colosseum_in_Rome,_Italy_-_April_2007.jpg
四個圖像的四個不同作者是圖像的所有者。他們從未放棄所有權。這在D014-1、14-2、14-3和14-4中的左列“權限（重新使用此文件）”標題下顯示。
The four different authors of the four images are the owners of
the images. They never gave away their
right of ownership. This is shown in
D014-1, 14-2, 14-3, and 14-4 under the heading in the left column
"Permission (Reusing this file)".
D014-1、D014-2、D014-3、D014-4是我於2020年4月29日向台南地區刑事法院提交的原始DVD中的四個PDF文件。這些文件被複製到我的在線文件夾中鏈接在第一部分。這裡又是那個鏈接：
D014-1, D014-2, D014-3, and D014-4 are four PDF files on the
original DVD which I submitted to the Tainan District Criminal Court on 29
April 2020. The files are copied into
the online folder which I linked in the first section. Here's that link again:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wlDbKCO0t8x-H5dvgLlrFPvrBBdl8bjJ?usp=sharing
以下兩張圖片是 PDF 文件中第 1 頁和第 2 頁的副本，其中包含有關第一張圖片的詳細信息。您將能夠在第二頁的左欄中看到“權限（重用此文件）”作為標題：
The following two pictures are copies of pages 1 and 2 from the
PDF file containing details about the first picture. You'll be able to see "Permission
(Reusing this file)" as a heading in the left column on the second page:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bU8yyQXZ-6K9pCPyrcfJJ-HL1qItzNJD/view?usp=sharing
我僅以第一張圖片為例，數百張圖片，直接段落，學校從網上截取的，沒有提到原作者的名字，當然也沒有給原作者任何認可。您是否在第二頁的左欄中看到「Permission‧(Re‧using‧this‧file)」【“權限（重用此文件）”】作為標題？
I'm using only the first picture as an example of the hundreds
of pictures, and direct paragraphs, which the school takes from the internet
without mentioning the name of the original authors, and certainly without
giving the original authors any recognition.
Do you see "Permission (Reusing this file)" as a heading in
the left column on the second page?
基本上，它說“截至2005共同年4月9日，此圖像已根據GFDL獲得許可”：
Basically, it says "As of 9 April 2005, this image is
licensed under GFDL":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bU8yyQXZ-6K9pCPyrcfJJ-HL1qItzNJD/view?usp=sharing
「GFDL」版權許可證作為《GNU‧Free‧Documentation‧Licence》（“GNU自由文檔許可證”）引入。但是，重要的是要了解「Free」並不意味著“免費”：
The "GFDL" copyright license is introduced as a
"GNU Free Documentation License".
However, it's important to understand that "free" doesn't mean
"free-free":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
如果“免費”意味著“作者將他們的作品提供給您，以便您可以告訴其他人這是您的作品，並要求其他人將您識別為作者”，那麼就不會有11頁的許可協議，其中包含特定條款解釋您必須遵守的義務才能被允許使用作者的作品！
If "free" meant "authors are giving you their work so that you can tell other people that it's your work and require other people to recognize you as the author" then there wouldn't be an 11-page licensing agreement with specific terms that explain obligations which you must follow in order to be allowed to use the author's work!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ASB95gX1ne1gHG3y7HdD0fY-u0pJqCJG/view?usp=sharing
第「8.‧Termination」（“終止”）點明確指出學校無權傳播或傳播圖片，除非學校遵守所有要求，即圖片可自由複制，不受附加版權限制，並且圖片的原始創作者為工作被認可：
除非本許可證明確規定，否則您不得傳播或修改涵蓋的作品。以其他方式傳播或修改它的任何嘗試均無效，並將自動終止您在本許可下的權利（包括根據第11條第三段授予的任何專利許可）。
Point "8. Termination" clearly states that the school
has no authority to propagate or transmit the picture unless the school abides
by all requirements, namely, that the picture remains free to copy, free of
imposed additional copyrights, and the original creator of the work is recognized:
You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as
expressly provided under this License.
Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will
automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent
licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).
第12點「No‧Surrender‧of‧Others'‧Freedom」（“不放棄他人的自由”）的目的。明確禁止凱仕蘭等個人和企業將他人的作品重新包裝，然後作為學校自己的作品出售，並附加學校強加的版權，以防止他人抄襲學校的作品！這是第12點，有一個清晰的例子：
如果強加給您的條件（無論是通過法院命令、協議或其他方式）與本許可的條件相矛盾，則它們不能免除您遵守本許可的條件。如果您無法傳輸涵蓋的作品以同時滿足您在本許可下的義務和任何其他相關義務，那麼您可能根本不會傳輸它。例如，如果您同意條款要求您向接收程序的人收取版稅以進一步傳輸，則您可以同時滿足這些條款和本許可的唯一方法是完全避免傳輸程序。
The purpose of point 12 "No Surrender of Others'
Freedom." is explicitly to stop individuals and businesses like Kidsland (凱仕蘭) from
repackaging someone else's work, and then selling it as the school's own
creation with an additional copyright imposed by the school to stop others from
copying the school's work! Here is point
12, with an clear-cut example:
If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order,
agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do
not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a
covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to
collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the
Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would
be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.
一份完整的原始GNU許可證副本連同教學合同中顯示凱仕蘭重新包裝和挪用版權作品的證據一起提交給台南地方法院。109中國年4月29日全部在DVD上。學校明顯違反了許可證，從而直接盜竊了版權材料。
A copy of the original and complete GNU license was submitted to
the Tainan District Court, together with the evidence from the teaching
contract which reveals that Kidsland (凱仕蘭) repackages and appropriates copyrighted works. It was all on the DVD from 29 April
2020. The school is in clear violation
of the licence, and thereby directly committed theft of copyright
material.
在學校夏令營書第11頁的示例中，有四張圖片。總的來說，四張圖片中還提到了四個單獨的版權許可。這四個版權許可以PDF文件形式包含在DVD中，並位於DVD文件的在線文件夾中。
In the example from page 11 of the school's Summer Camp book,
there are four pictures. In total, there
were also four separate copyright licences mentioned in the four pictures. The four Copyright Licenses are included on
the DVD, as PDF files, and in the online folder of the DVD files.
這四個圖像的四個所有者允許凱仕蘭根據四個不同的協議共同使用這些圖像：GNU自由文本授權、知識共享署名-分享相同（BY-SA）3.0（未移植）、知識共享署名-分享相同（BY-SA）2.0和知識共享署名-分享相同（BY-SA）2.5。
The four owners of the four images allow Kidsland to use the
images, collectively, according to four different agreements: GNU Free
Documentation License, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (Unported),
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0, and Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 2.5.
瑞內證D014-5號包含知識共享署名相同方式共享2.5許可證的副本，而瑞內證D014-6號包含GNU自由文檔許可證的副本。這兩個文件都是專門為保護藝術家創作的所有權而存在的。想想：如果藝術家允許凱仕蘭（或任何人）簡單地接受藝術家的作品而至少不感謝藝術家，那麼將不存在許可協議。
Exhibit D014-5 contains a copy of the Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 licence, and Exhibit D014-6 contains a copy of the
GNU Free Documentation License. Both
documents exist specifically to protect the ownership rights of the artist's
creation. Think: if the artists allowed
Kidsland (or anyone) to simply take the artist's work without at least thanking
the artist, then no licensing agreement would exist.
四個圖像中所有不同類型協議的版權條款至少具有兩個共同點：首先，所有作者都要求凱仕蘭通過在圖片旁邊（或附近）顯示作者的姓名來賦予作者署名（信譽），其次，在任何情況下，凱仕蘭均不得要求擁有該圖像的所有權。許可協議明確規定，凱仕蘭不能以任何方式暗示凱仕蘭擁有圖像的任何部分。
The copyright clauses of all different types of agreements from
the four images share at least two things in common: First, all authors require
Kidsland to give attribution (credit) to the author by displaying the author's
name next to (or near) the picture, and, secondly, under no circumstances is
Kidsland permitted to claim ownership of the image. The licensing agreements specifically provide
that Kidsland cannot in any way imply that Kidsland owns any part of the image.
在這種情況下，凱仕蘭會直接“竊取”版權材料，因為凱仕蘭拒絕給予其原創者作品功勞。凱仕蘭重新包裝了圖像以用於商業用途，同時誤導客戶以為凱仕蘭依法被允許以自己的身份出版圖像。
In this case, Kidsland directly "steals" the copyright
material because Kidsland refuses to give the original authors credit for their
work. Kidsland repackages the images for
commercial use while misleading clients to believe that Kidsland is lawfully
allowed to publish the images as its own.
在此示例中，瑞內僅參考四張圖片。2017年凱仕蘭夏令營一書共收錄近100頁，此外還為客戶提供了18頁的補充內容。
Rene refers only to four pictures in this example. The Kidsland summer camp 2017 book contains
almost 100 pages, with an additional 18 pages supplied to clients in further
supplements.
除了本書中的超過100幅圖像外，凱仕蘭還從互聯網上複製受版權保護的文本。這只是一本書。凱仕蘭每年出版兩本書。凱仕蘭很可能已經犯下了1000多次刑事侵犯版權的案件，因為該公司已經這樣做了大約十年。
In addition to over 100 images in the book, Kidsland also copies
copyrighted text from the internet. And
this is only in one book. Kidsland
publishes two books per year. Kidsland
has, quite possibly, committed over 1000 instances of criminal copyright
infringement since the company has been doing this for about ten years.
而與公共利益 |
Public interest
台灣《著作權法》第4條第2款確實規定，例如，如果美國尊重（確實如此）台灣國民的版權所有權，那麼台灣必須尊重美國公民的版權所有權：
台灣《著作權法》第4條
外國人之著作合於下列情形之一者，得依本法享有著作權。但條約或協定
另有約定，經立法院議決通過者，從其約定︰
二、依條約、協定或其本國法令、慣例，中華民國人之著作得在該國享有著作權者。
Works of foreign nationals that comply with one of the following
conditions may enjoy copyright under this Act; provided, where the terms of a
treaty or an agreement that has been ratified by resolution of the Legislative
Yuan provide otherwise, such terms shall govern:
2.Where by treaty or agreement, or under the domestic acts,
regulations, or standard practice of the home country of the foreign national,
works of persons of the Republic of China enjoy copyright in such country.
版權法的目的是保護原作者免受其他企圖從其作品中牟利的個人侵害，而無需承認該作品的創作者(即防止他人作品被盜)。版權法的目的是在其他個人（或公司）使用某位藝術家的作品時，保護其免受其他個人的侵害。除非該藝術家未經許可協議就放棄該藝術家的作品，否則該藝術家要求公司至少指定該藝術家的姓名。這是一種感謝藝術家的時間的方式。打個比方：在房屋前的自行車支架上的自行車沒上鎖，不意味著任何人都可以使用該自行車。同樣的，互聯網（或電影）上的文字和圖像可以被所有人看到，但是人們無權複製這些作品。
The intention of the copyright law is to protect an original
artist from other individuals who attempt to profit from the artist's work
without giving at least credit to the artist.
The intention of the copyright law is to protect an original artist from
other individuals when other individuals (or companies) use the artist's work. Unless the artist gives away the artist's
work without a licensing agreement, the artist requires the company to specify,
at least, the name of the artist. This
is a way of thanking the artist for the artist's time. As an analogy: Just because a bicycle is
unlocked on a bicycle stand in front of a house, does not imply that anyone can
use the bicycle. In the same way,
writings and images on the internet (or movies) can be seen by all, but people
do not have the authority to reproduce the works.
凱仕蘭直接違反美國法典17號第107條“專有權的限制：合理使用”，因為凱仕蘭從先前受版權保護（或未出版）的作品中獲利，但作者未授權“免費無限制使用”。限制是，凱仕蘭必須引用該原創者的名字，以給予認可，否則，就沒有使用許可。
Kidsland directly violates U.S. Code 17, Section 107,
"Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use" because Kidsland profits
from the previously copyrighted (or unpublished) works but the authors did not
authorized "free unrestricted use".
The restriction is Kidsland must cite the artist, to give
acknowledgement, without which there is no licence to use to work.
除非特別授予“無需給予確認即可免費使用”的商業許可，否則所有互聯網作者都保留所有權，而上述作者均沒有這樣做。如果凱仕蘭非法佔有該作品（文字，圖像或視頻），則作者也有權獲得凱仕蘭從轉售其作品中獲得的部分利潤。
All internet authors retain ownership unless specifically
granting a "free use without needing to give acknowledgement"
commercial license, which none of the mentioned authors do. The authors are also entitled to a portion of
the profits which Kidsland gains from resale of the author's work if Kidsland
unlawfully assumes possession of the work (text, image, or video).
瑞內提供了一些有關106年夏令營侵犯版權的示例。凱仕蘭違反了版權法，因為凱仕蘭聲明凱仕蘭有權在不遵循許可協議的情況下繼續發布藝術家的作品（瑞內證D013號，教學合同第5條），未按照瑞內證D014-6號和瑞內證D014-7號的許可協議在藝術家的作品旁註明藝術家的姓名。
Rene provides several examples of copyright infringement taken
from the summer 2017 camp book. Kidsland
violated the copyright laws because Kidsland stated that Kidsland has the right
to continue to publish the Artist's work (Exhibit D013, teaching contract
Article 5) without following the licensing agreements, without stating the name
of the artist beside the artist's work, as stipulated in the licensing
agreements of D014-6 and D014-7.
其他參考 |
Additional references
瑞內試圖提請台灣檢察官注意凱仕蘭的版權侵權行為，但檢察官拒絕協助瑞內以確保凱仕蘭尊重版權原則。如果目前的法院希望跟進為什麼檢察官不對凱仕蘭不尊重基本版權法進行起訴，林泓帆律師可以向法院提供刑事案件檔案編號。
Rene attempted to bring Kidsland's copyright infringements to
the attention of
Next
page: 下一頁：
5. "Gives bonuses to stop
employees from talking about special (bad) things Kidsland does."
5、「賄賂員工不要將芝麻街凱仕蘭醜事外洩。」
http://reneguru.blogspot.com/2021/07/klss0005.html
List of Kidsland details including address
and Chinese names of managers:
芝麻街凱仕蘭詳細信息列表，包括經理的地址和中文姓名：
Back to the list of KLSS pages:
回到KLSS頁面列表：
====
#rene.guru
End
of page. Comment on the Main Page:
Journal Of A Schizophrenic, with a twist.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.