 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 23/02/2011(UTC)
Posts: 118
Location: Manchester
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
|
I have always understood that the point of a copyright is to stop people making money from, for example, a photograph and protects the owners rights to prevent this happening. The same way a copyright on a label and company logo are protected and cannot be used by another businesss. (and trademarks).
I am sure that someone is allowed to use a photograph if not for personal gain without breaking any law. I also think there is a clause in the legislation that allows someone to copy up to three pages of a copyrighted document for their own use.
The patent laws, which are similar, protect an invention. It is there to prevent someone copying the invention and making money from it. It does not stop an individual copying the invention for their own use if it is not for personal gain.
I would therefore expect that the use of photographs, which have been in the public domain, to be treated in a similar manner.
If the copyrighted material is protected for 50 years and for a further period of up to 70 years after the death of the owner then no information would be allowed to be made public for 120 years.
This cannot be right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 30/04/2009(UTC)
Posts: 329
Location: High Peak
|
It would also seem that Mr. Clarke has a hidden agenda, re The Footsteps/Alan Shaw photo collection. Aided and abetted presumably by Mr.Rudd who appears to be getting increasingly curmudgeonly these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 03/09/2010(UTC)
Posts: 170
Location: buggy
Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
|
davethescope wrote:What is the original photographer's point? He has no objection, indeed is said to be pleased, that the photograph is been seen and discussed here. He is suffering no financial loss. If he thinks that the photograph is not of good enough quality for him to put his name to publicly, well he is anonymous.
I think that the legal principal of de minimus should be applied rather than starting a which-hunt.
and couldnt agree more with pensionman too
I think the fact that the post is in a large font and RED ........is yet again sumon 'flexing there own self importance' andother great example of how the forum has gone downhill in the last 12 months...
i know all about copyrights....but fail to see why RSS should have to justify himself to a 3rd party. When Said 3rd party has confirmed the photographer was ok for the image to be used....as an after event
Edited by user 25 January 2013 11:05:57(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 19/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,494
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
davethescope wrote:What is the original photographer's point? He has no objection, indeed is said to be pleased, that the photograph is been seen and discussed here. He is suffering no financial loss. If he thinks that the photograph is not of good enough quality for him to put his name to publicly, well he is anonymous.
I think that the legal principal of de minimus should be applied rather than starting a which-hunt.
Hi there Mr Scope,
Your post rather hits the nail on the head. But how strange that prospective councillor Clarke has managed to obtain the original so quickly and as you say the photographer seems pleased with the posting.
Before we continue any further, if at all, on this matter could I just ask if prospective councillor Barry Rudd has any knowledge of this photograph?
R. S-S
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 09/04/2009(UTC) Posts: 515 ![Man]( "Man") Location: "In a primitive area and on a steep hill" Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 4 post(s)
|
Digger wrote:
I have always understood that the point of a copyright is to stop people making money from, for example, a photograph and protects the owners rights to prevent this happening. The same way a copyright on a label and company logo are protected and cannot be used by another businesss. (and trademarks).
I am sure that someone is allowed to use a photograph if not for personal gain without breaking any law. I also think there is a clause in the legislation that allows someone to copy up to three pages of a copyrighted document for their own use.
The patent laws, which are similar, protect an invention. It is there to prevent someone copying the invention and making money from it. It does not stop an individual copying the invention for their own use if it is not for personal gain.
I would therefore expect that the use of photographs, which have been in the public domain, to be treated in a similar manner.
If the copyrighted material is protected for 50 years and for a further period of up to 70 years after the death of the owner then no information would be allowed to be made public for 120 years.
This cannot be right.
Just hypothetically, suppose
(1) I was in the possession of the copyright to an extensive library of photographs
(2) I spent much of my free time over the last 25 years collating, indexing & digitally scanning such photographs
(3) To supplement my income I operate a small business, providing photographs to magazine, books, newspaper, and calendar publishers etc, whilst still retaining the copyright.
(4) Someone scans one or more photographs from these publications and uploads them to a website
(5) Someone else has downloaded the photographs from the website, has printed them out, framed them and they are now on display, without attribution, in local pubs and people’s houses.
(6) Maybe this person has charged for these pictures without recompensing me for all the work I put into in maintaining the library
I might quite rightly feel aggrieved |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 19/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,494
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
North Derbyshire & North Cheshire Advertiseer
14 April 1882
serious accident
A man who appeared to be a stranger, walked in the dark over a wall in front of the Jodrell Arms on Monday evening. He injured his face very badly. The Local Board may find themselves in for damages for leaving this place unprotected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 15/06/2009(UTC) Posts: 475 ![Man]( "Man")  Location: Whaley Bridge Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
Very true , Rock Banker, but not at all relevant to this situation, since the copyright owner has endorsed the use of his photograph on here. Edited by user 25 January 2013 14:41:15(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
The optimist believes that Whaley Bridge is the best place in the world to live. The pessimist fears he might be correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 18/03/2009(UTC) Posts: 280 ![Man]( "Man") Location: Whaley Bridge Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
|
Yes the copyright owner has endorsed the use here but retrospectively, which gets RSS off the hook on this occasion, but the person who copied it from the original is not. In Nev's original post that is what the owner of the copyright wanted to find out. Who actually copied it without asking first, as they should have done. So yes Rockbanker i am with you on that one the photo's owner has a right to be aggrieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/04/2011(UTC) Posts: 140 ![Man]( "Man") Location: Whaley Bridge Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
|
Hello all.
Chose my words very carefully on that post and I still got into trouble. I can assure people that my font size had no coloration, implied or otherwise, with my ego or status. People with particular visual impairments sometimes make things either to read to cross check. I have reverted to standard for this post.
A couple of minor matters first, I should take exception to being referred to as senior as I'm not quite middle aged yet.. and I am not a prospective councillor, Martin Thomas is our chosen candidate for the forthcoming County Council elections.
The topic does seem to have caused some debate. I think RockBanker summed up what my retort would have bsen better than I would have managed. Buggyite also made tge point about a PM facility which I fully endorse, , although now we're seeing more 'modern' history photos perhaps this general issue should be debated, as a seperate topic. For this particular issue, I feel that any info should be passed privately but it needed to be raised publicly as the photographer felt aggrieved.
RSS it was not odd that I had the photos in my hands as I phoned the person that showed them to me quite some time ago and they invited m round to look at them again. They are not happy that the picture has been copied but now that it has reached the public domain tbey thought it might seem churlish to have it removed. I am sorry if you felt I had anything other than honourable intentions, but don't really see what you think I have to gain by this. I would still appreciate any information youhave on how the photo was originally appropriated. I assure you that I mean no scar on you or your reputation.
|
“It all sounds like the sort of scheme Elmer Fudd might dream up while drunk.”
Nev Clarke
clarkenev@gmail.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 19/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,494
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
tyke wrote:Yes the copyright owner has endorsed the use here but retrospectively, which gets RSS off the hook on this occasion, but the person who copied it from the original is not. In Nev's original post that is what the owner of the copyright wanted to find out. Who actually copied it without asking first, as they should have done. So yes Rockbanker i am with you on that one the photo's owner has a right to be aggrieved.
Hello Tyke,
Respectfully, I have not been ‘let off the hook’ because I was never on the hook in the first place.
Would you like to comment on my previous post 24 on this thread?
Maybe, just maybe, other contributors to this forum may also have a copy of that photo and maybe, just maybe, they have paid for it.
I haven’t by the way.
R. S-S
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 30/04/2009(UTC)
Posts: 329
Location: High Peak
|
The photo you had in your hands, did it have a copyright notice on the back? Or was it printed off a memory stick as per the dozens if not hundreds of pictures in around Whaley's pubs and homes? Come on, spill the beans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/04/2011(UTC) Posts: 140 ![Man]( "Man") Location: Whaley Bridge Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
|
It was the original, apologies if this wasn't clear.
It was handed to me by the photographer and yes it did have the copyright on the back.
The photographer states that they have never sold this image or given it away and has only let it out for public display once.
|
“It all sounds like the sort of scheme Elmer Fudd might dream up while drunk.”
Nev Clarke
clarkenev@gmail.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 16/06/2009(UTC)
Posts: 559
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
|
Good afternoon everybody.
The Labour Anti Poll Tax Rally photo really has created interest and debate which can only be good for a “Discussion Forum.”
I notice prospective councillor Barry Rudd's comments regarding “commies” have been removed but he may be correct if he is thinking there are people on the photograph who proudly have connections with the Communist Party.
Tyke, I agree with you when you say Facebook encourages users to share images. I think I am correct in saying that if you post a photograph on Facebook you are granting Facebook the right to sell that image without agreement or payment to the user who posted the photo. This is a fact Mark Zuckerberg has apparently confirmed is correct but he would prefer to keep it quiet.
Davethescope, why have you assumed the original photographer is male? Just because they have been described as a “professional photographer” they could well be female.
I also don't understand what the point of post #15 is because “the owner of this image has not asked for the image to be removed and they are indeed pleased that it's provoking a discussion and enjoyment.” Why have they asked prospective councillor NevClarke to liase with R. S-S when they are pleased with the posting of the photo? Are there other photo's in the collection they wouldn't want posting? It all seems very strange behaviour. Are they trying to discourage R. S-S and other members from posting photo's on this forum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/04/2011(UTC) Posts: 140 ![Man]( "Man") Location: Whaley Bridge Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
|
HE I refer you to post 29 |
“It all sounds like the sort of scheme Elmer Fudd might dream up while drunk.”
Nev Clarke
clarkenev@gmail.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 19/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,494
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
NevClarke wrote:It was the original, apologies if this wasn't clear. It was handed to me by the photographer and yes it did have the copyright on the back. The photographer states that they have never sold this image or given it away and has only let it out for public display once.
Well the fact that I and others including a major contributor to this forum have a copy and maybe he/I have even some more of the set how do you explain it Nev?
It’s Sherlock time for you Nev but personally I really think this is going nowhere except to disrupt me adding to the history of Whaley Bridge and surrounds. Is that the real fact of the matter?
I certainly can’t put anymore historical stuff on this thread and I hope the next will not get disrupted.
R. S-S
Horwich Ender wrote:
Are they trying to discourage R. S-S and other members from posting photo's on this forum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 05/05/2009(UTC)
Posts: 314
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
Re. posting 29. It is true some people with visual impairment have difficulty reading the postings, I am one of them sometimes I have to give up on it.
george
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 15/06/2009(UTC) Posts: 475 ![Man]( "Man") Location: Whaley Bridge Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
Horwich Ender wrote:Davethescope, why have you assumed the original photographer is male? Just because they have been described as a “professional photographer” they could well be female.> Indeed they could. But the English language has no gender neutral personal pronoun so I subscribe to Fowler's dictum that "The male embraces the female"
|
The optimist believes that Whaley Bridge is the best place in the world to live. The pessimist fears he might be correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 15/06/2009(UTC) Posts: 475 ![Man]( "Man") Location: Whaley Bridge Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
NevClarke wrote:
The photographer states that they have never sold this image or given it away and has only let it out for public display once.
In that case it shouldn't take a Sherlock Holmes to track down the culprit.
|
The optimist believes that Whaley Bridge is the best place in the world to live. The pessimist fears he might be correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: *Banned*
Groups: Guest
Joined: 22/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,461
|
Wonder who owns these? wonderwhy attached the following image(s):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: *Banned*
Groups: Guest
Joined: 22/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,461
|
Not many of these about Bingswood Printworks under construction. wonderwhy attached the following image(s):
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
