GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: RandomJord on 25 May 2011, 12:10
-
Hi guys,
wonder if a few of you might be willing to help, my aunts works for an 'out and about' supplement type thing for a local newspaper.
And shes asked if i could help, theyre doing an article on camping/campers so if anyone has some awesome shots of campers and wouldnt mind them being published then post em here or mail them to me direct, pm me if you want my email.
Cheers peeps, Jordan
-
Surely she could just take all she needs from the internet?
Nothing is sacred on't web!
-
yeah but she knows sh!t about this sort of thing, an i know some guys on here have awesome shots an might like to see 'em printed up!
-
Surely she could just take all she needs from the internet?
Nothing is sacred on't web!
Massive breach of copyright.
Jord I'll send you some shots of mine you can use.
Nick
-
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2205/5751352983_6cd2bf8099_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2732/5751346429_7635e54eb2_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2693376384_d472f030dd_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/2692564077_aeb7fa6530_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/2568432096_5947df76d1_o.jpg
Nick
-
Definately use the last pic! Who had the pic the other day of two lads sat in a camper selling stuff? That would be a good en
-
That was me as well but I wasn't sure it really met the "camping" brief.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3270/5747240286_148edf355a_o.jpg
This one might be ok as well:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2509/5751354965_f9df630ce6_o.jpg
Nick
-
Yea I heard all that copyright stuff but since a Superinjunction cant tame the internet why is copyright so much more stringent?
-
Yea I heard all that copyright stuff but since a Superinjunction cant tame the internet why is copyright so much more stringent?
Because chatting gossip and theft of intelectual property are two quite different matters and enforced by the law differently.
A photo remains the property of the photographer unless they sign it over to someone else or if was taken while in the employ of a company that sates they retain copyright of your work if taken for the company. This applies even when the original photographer is not known and it becomes an Orphan Work which still can't be legally published. It's a hot topic goign through parliament at moment as they're looking at changing the laws to allow Orphaned work to be published online as they have a lot of war photography in the archives that is of historical and public interest but can't currently be published.
Nick
-
Yes but surely once its posted on the www it becomes anybodies property?
-
Yes but surely once its posted on the www it becomes anybodies property?
No - That is ridiculous
-
Yes but surely once its posted on the www it becomes anybodies property?
Of course not, copyright applies as much on the internet as it does for print media. You shouldn't use it unless you have permission of the copyright owner.
I've had my pictures used without permission before and I just sent a polite letter to the publisher with a retrospective invoice for use of my work. Received an apology and cheque within 5 days :cool:
Nick
-
Yes but surely once its posted on the www it becomes anybodies property?
No - That is ridiculous
I know! I'm incredulous!
Like to see a test case!
Like I know that some of my own photos have been taken off facebook and used on here!
Now thats breach of copyright! :evil:
-
Yes but surely once its posted on the www it becomes anybodies property?
No - That is ridiculous
I know! I'm incredulous!
Like to see a test case!
Like I know that some of my own photos have been taken off facebook and used on here!
Now thats breach of copyright! :evil:
Was there any commercial gain?
-
Ummmm no just a huge laugh! :grin:
-
Haha, so you want your laughs back?
-
How do you value a laugh?
This was a huge one!
-
How do you value a laugh?
This was a huge one!
(http://www.techchee.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/laugh-o-meter-measures-both-quanitity-and-sincerity-of-a-person-laugh-230208.jpg)
-
Like to see a test case!
No need for a test case, these things go to court on pretty much a weekly basis. It's much easier to nail people for publishing photos without permission than distributing MP3's via filesharing.
I have no issue with people using my pics around the internet on forums, blogs etc although I prefer they are linked from my Flickr so at least can be traced back as my work. It's when it's used on professional sites and in printed magazines without permision or even a credit you can nail them.
Nick
-
Not havin a pop or anything honest! :grin:
I just think its crazy that a Court can grant a Super injunction which gets torn to shreds in days and yet an image has rights to a person!
Double standards to me.
I'll shut up now! promise!
-
Well a super injunction is supposed to stop people publishing information, it worked to a degree but Twitter falls into a bit of a grey area as it's more like pub gossip than a news website. This is why, even when twitter was full of his name, the main new websites still reffered to him as "that footballer" as they were still open to being done for breaching the order. It was only after the MP said his name in the commons that mainstream media felt they could publish his name without getting slapped with a summons. This highlights the issue with our laws being out of step with the way information is published in this internet age.
Photographs are interlectual property, they actually belong to some one. Just because you exhibit them on the internet on Flickr etc doesn't mean they then belong to everybody to do with what they wish. You are simply exhibiting them online instead of in a gallery. Photos get robbed of the internet all the time but as long as you can prove you took the photo and that the copyright is yours they you can ask for the photo to be removed or for the person using it to pay a reasonable sum to continue to use it. As it's very cut and dry and easy to prove they will always back down and cough up. This though only works for proper publishers, it's a bit trickier if someone is posting your pictures on a forum in a "cool cars" thread as there is no money involved, same for blogs etc. In those circumstances I always ask that they add a link to my Flickr account and credit me under the photo. Most pukka bloggers do this anyway. That way anyone who sees the photo and likes it can contact me for further info etc.
Nick
-
I've had my pictures used without permission before and I just sent a polite letter to the publisher with a retrospective invoice for use of my work. Received an apology and cheque within 5 days :cool:
Nick
A well know (in this circle) car magazine?
-
Yeah, PVW.
nick
-
Thought I'd seen some of your stuff in there!
-
Yes but surely once its posted on the www it becomes anybodies property?
Of course not, copyright applies as much on the internet as it does for print media. You shouldn't use it unless you have permission of the copyright owner.
I've had my pictures used without permission before and I just sent a polite letter to the publisher with a retrospective invoice for use of my work. Received an apology and cheque within 5 days :cool:
Nick
another reason i check flickr to see where my photos are haha