Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately due to a couple of recent incidents I find it necessary to go through our site rules and copyright law again.

 

  • Please do not copy images from elsewhere on the internet and upload to RMweb, especially where it is evident who owns the image.
  • Please do not scan and upload images from photographs unless you have ownership of the negative and/or reproduction rights.
  • Please do not copy upload images unless you have the explicit consent of the owner of the image.

 

If you wish to utilise images which users of image hosting services, such as Flickr, please use the share codes provided for each image so correct attribution can be give via the link. This is called embedding and is permissible, dependent on the image owners permissions that have been set on Flickr.

 

If you are reproducing images which have a Creative Commons licence please ensure any requirements of such licence are met including reproduction, editing and attribution.

 

I have had to deal with two complaints over the last 24 hours, one relating to a private collection of images online and the other where a museum holds the original images and copies of prints have been scanned and uploaded. Both parties have been perfectly civil but rightly annoyed that their material has been used inappropriately. They own the rights so please don't try and wave 'fair use' or any other get-out clauses around; they don't mean anything in this context.

 

Breach of these rules can lead to restrictions on usage or removal of access to the site.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 5
  • Friendly/supportive 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

If you wish to utilise images which users of image hosting services, such as Flickr, please use the share codes provided for each image so correct attribution can be give via the link. This is called embedding and is permissible, dependent on the image owners permissions that have been set on Flickr.

 

I linked to a Flickr image a few days ago but didn't realise this was the way to do it.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy what is the status of images uploaded to RMWeb by copyright holders? I am thinking of the likes of Brian Lambert who has often uploaded images from his website which also appear in his book. In the past other respondents to the same thread have often reused these images even altered them as part of the ongoing discussion is this still OK?

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tricky Dicky said:

other respondents to the same thread have often reused these images even altered them as part of the ongoing discussion is this still OK?

 

They shouldn't use them without the consent of the originator - that's the simple answer. I am sure some would argue there's implied consent if the OP has since posted after adapted usage but the consent should be explicit. If we haven't noticed the usage and the OP raises the issue we are happy to assist them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an experience elsewhere when someone took a .pdf template image for customer instructions off my site, without notification or permission, then used a SW app to expose the underlying proprietary CAD used to make the product itself and published it.

 

Am I at fault or is that person?

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I ask about the following scenario: is it permissible to include a screen shot of the front cover of an unopened book?  They can be seen on Amazon, for example (although Amazon will presumably have permission for them to be there), and often such images appear on eBay (presumably without express permission), so is an image of a front cover public domain information?
 

Reason for asking: I recently referred to an Iain Rice Track Plan in a thread.  It just so happens that said track plan was shown as a picture on the front cover of the book it was in.  Had I included a picture of that front cover (I didn’t) would I have been in breach of copyright?  As I would have been drawing attention to the detail in the picture - ie: treating the cover like content, I thought it better not to take the risk.  It was also an American publication (Kalmbach 2009), but I don’t know if their rules are different.
 

I did include screenshots of two 1944 publications, which I quoted from textually, in both cases attributing the quotes to the relevant sources) - I don’t know if the same 70 year rule which I believe we have on the UK is an international standard?

 

On another occasion early last year I showed a screenshot of the front cover of a different American book, but I wasn’t specifically referring to the picture itself as part of my story - just referring to the book as an inspirational source.

 

Just wanted to check I’ve not crossed the line - all the publications I’ve referred to here are American Kalmbach and I understand they take copyright very seriously as a commercial enterprise.  Thanks, Keith.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Had I included a picture of that front cover (I didn’t) would I have been in breach of copyright?  

 

Technically yes. There is an element of intent to any breach, were it to publicise the book then there would be unlikely to be any complaint. If the breach was more likely to mean that a viewer wouldn't need to buy the book then there could be a complaint. The intelligent way to ensure there wouldn't be a complaint is to provide a link to the publisher or seller's website and sat that the plan appears on the cover.

 

I doubt Wild Swan would be having a row with me if was one of their books whilst Kalmbach have a reputation for pursuing copyright breaches.

 

The 1944 publications? It depends if anyone has continuous or inherited rights over the material and have republished those elements.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Technically yes. There is an element of intent to any breach, were it to publicise the book then there would be unlikely to be any complaint. If the breach was more likely to mean that a viewer wouldn't need to buy the book then there could be a complaint. The intelligent way to ensure there wouldn't be a complaint is to provide a link to the publisher or seller's website and sat that the plan appears on the cover.

 

I doubt Wild Swan would be having a row with me if was one of their books whilst Kalmbach have a reputation for pursuing copyright breaches.

 

The 1944 publications? It depends if anyone has continuous or inherited rights over the material and have republished those elements.

 

Thank you for the quick response and the reassurance: I called it right with regards to the Iain Rice book, and the book I mentioned I showed last year was definitely to promote it as an inspiration, with no direct quotes, photos or ideas copied.

With the 1944 publications, the brief text quotes I included were referenced as I would in an academic type work, and were again to honour / publicise the works, not replicate them, which sounds OK with regards to intent.  Thank you.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I normally quote the 'fair use' doctrine if I occasionally post something copyright on here, with the note saying I'll withdraw if there are objections (eg a pic from a book to illustrate a particular point in a discussion).  If you look at the petal diagram bottom RH of this page, it is pretty good at showing how to avoid falling badly foul of copyright.

 

https://edu.glogster.com/glog/copyright-fair-use/278r77u02fg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quoting "fair use" is all well and good, but remember that is a US doctrine, in the UK it would be called Fair Dealing, and it only exists if you have been to court and proved that you are indeed using the work in a fair and reasonable way, which is defined differently to US law.

 

The key point is, that there is no default "fair use", many people have fallen fowl of that in the past.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.