• The post you are reporting:
   
  Not pettiness, just copyright law - the reproducer needs written permission from the copyright owner/licensee to print/copy/electronically reproduce the item in question. When asked verbally a certain councillor intimated that she didn't see that there would be any problem getting permission if the requester wrote in and asked. The requester published without writing in to ask (so no written permission was given) and, when it was noticed, was then asked to remove the technical breach of copyright and advised that if written permission was sought, it would likely be granted in writing and thus copyright formalities would all be properly observed and everything would be hunky dory.
  
  I'm sure that Lorraine would have been extremely upset if the Town Clerk had not advised her of the technical breach and she'd been prosecuted for breach of copyright by the copyright owner as a result. It seems to me a great shame that Lorraine says that she refuses to write and request written permission from the licensee, which would most likely be granted, and chooses instead to assign a different, and in my view incorrect, reason on the website in such a prominent spot.
  
  A good website which had been promoting Dover in a good way now has a statement on its front page which is misleading in its content, damaging to Dover and undermining of the very purpose for which Lorraine says she set the site up.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason