Use of images from RMweb

[halfwit]

Well maybe because you uploaded it to a public web site instead of your own web site? I agree that it should be fully credited to you, but I'm not convinced it is necessary to ask you first if you have uploaded it to a public web site. Doing so could be construed as making it publicly available.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

As far as I'm aware Martin, although I upload onto this public website I still own the copyright for anything of substance that I post. Or does copyright mean nothing these days?

[buffalo]

...I have noticed that Google, on here at least, are one of the most prominent members / users ?, judging by this forum's 'Users online'...... I'd be most interested to know, if Google have anything useful to contribute here, or are they merely trawling ?...

How about the built-in Google site search without which we'd be stuck with the almost useless search mechanism provided with the IP software? How about the ability to find stuff on RMweb using Googles normal search engine interface? Whilst I'm aware of why they do it and what their business really is, it's hard to deny that they provide a useful service.

 

Their image search mechanism does perhaps sail a little close to the wind by reproducing thumbnail images without permission, but many would probably agree that it too provides a useful service to those trying to locate images of a subject.

 

Nick

[Oldddudders]

Paul - of course you are right about copyright, and right to be hurt, but in the C21 Internet theft is a way of life for a significant minority. Anything posted on the 'Net is vulnerable, and there's probably no going back. You need to protect yourself from such theft if it bothers you, that's all. Andy has laid down a good code for members, but there are sharks in these waters.

[martin_wynne]

As far as I'm aware Martin, although I upload onto this public website I still own the copyright for anything of substance that I post.

 

Of course you do. But it's possible to own the copyright on something and still post it under a Creative Commons licence, and many folks do exactly that. It could reasonably be argued that was your intent if you post it on a public web site.

 

See: http://creativecommons.org/choose/

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Andy Y]

Thanks for bringing this up Andy and clarifying the rules, but would the offenders read this?

 

That's the problem Paul; most won't. There's always people who don't think, don't care and don't want to listen but at least it makes the position clear if it has to be addressed.

 

but I'm not convinced it is necessary to ask you first if you have uploaded it to a public web site. Doing so could be construed as making it publicly available.

 

It doesn't matter whether it's an individual's site, communal or corporate the same laws over copyright exist. There are some who don't publish material on the web full stop because of theft, plagiarism or ignorance over property.

 

It's only the same as saying that I can walk out of Smith's with a mag and not pay just because I can get through the front door.

[beast66606]

I post plenty of photos and I don't mind them being shared with due credit but I don't explicitly give that permission and I don't expect it to be taken for granted (and I'm not including todays hiccup which I accept was a genuine mistake).

 

I've had my own photos sent to me in reply to a query, thats taking the pibiscuit

 

I park in a public car park, it doesn't mean my car is available for anyone to use, they can look at it if they wish, but taking it and using it would be a different matter.

[buffalo]

Of course you do. But it's possible to own the copyright on something and still post it under a Creative Commons licence, and many folks do exactly that. It could reasonably be argued that was your intent if you post it on a public web site...

That makes no sense at all. How can it be "reasonably argued" in the absence of any statement about copyright or licensing that the author intended to publish under an arbitrarily chosen license rather than any other or none at all. Publication of anything, text, images, software, music on any publicly accessible web site is an act of publication. That in itself is sufficient to create a copyright in the published work (which may be shared with the owner/publisher of a website/book) in addition to any copyright in the component works (e.g. images) contained in it. If I choose to publish an image here it is no different to publishing that image in a book or other medium. Without an explicit statement to such effect, no additional rights are granted to anyone. Such a statement might be general, as in published conditions of posting on the site, or specific to the individual post.

 

That copyright theft is rife on the internet or that many of us may choose not to pursue offenders is neither here nor there. Even though many of us may be resigned to it, that does not change the fact that it is morally, ethically and legally wrong.

 

Nick

[Kenton]

Hi Andy,

 

There is a setting in your cPanel to prevent this. See Security > Hot-link Protection.

 

End users can get round this by changing the referrer settings in their browser, but most users don't and the person posting the image can't do anything to enable that.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

That setting would be a bad move. Many images owned by users are stored on other servers and hosted by them (ALL of my images for example) and some others chose to use other commercial hosting sites like Paul's excellent wagon photo library. In the former case hotlinking is essential and is not a copyright problem in the latter case seeking permission would be essential though not unknown to be given.

[martin_wynne]

That copyright theft is rife on the internet or that many of us may choose not to pursue offenders is neither here nor there. Even though many of us may be resigned to it, that does not change the fact that it is morally, ethically and legally wrong.

 

Hi Nick,

 

But it can't logically be described as theft if full attribution is given.

 

If I write "buffalo on RMweb has a great method for making stationmaster's hats. This is how he does it in his own words:... " and then copy and paste your text and pictures, it can't possibly be described as theft or plagiarism because the stuff is still demonstrably yours -- I may have infringed your copyright but I haven't stolen anything from you.

 

If that text came to me in a private correspondence it would be unforgivable. Or written in a paid-for book or magazine. Or were posted on your own private noticeboard.

 

But if you have already posted them free of charge on a public noticeboard visible to the entire world, where the ethos is the sharing of information, it doesn't strike me as the greatest sin to post them again somewhere else. Provided full attribution to you is made.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

That setting would be a bad move. Many images owned by users are stored on other servers and hosted by them

 

Kenton you have it back to front. Hot-link protection on the RMweb server would prevent images hosted on RMweb from being displayed on other web sites. Please read the quote from Andy to which I was replying.

 

Martin.

[buffalo]

Hi Martin,

 

When I said "theft", I was referring to unattributed copying rather than the example you give. Nevertheless, your example is getting into the shady area of fair use¹ which includes issues like whether the quoted material is justifiable in the context where it is used and that no more is quoted than necessary. My understanding, for what it's worth, is that the length of any quoted piece should be limited and that quoting something in its entirety is rarely, if ever, justifiable or defensible. Fair use is reasonably straightforward when dealing with text, but images certainly complicate the issue.

 

Nick

 

¹ for a UK explanation of fair use see this page and for a US equivalent, see this page.

[Kenton]

Kenton you have it back to front. Hot-link protection on the RMweb server would prevent images hosted on RMweb from being displayed on other web sites. Please read the quote from Andy to which I was replying.

 

Sorry Martin - if I found it confusing then many others may have done. Surely this may also be detrimental. Say for those who upload an image to the gallery and then hotlink to that image from elsewhere? Though I can see here that Andy may wish to deny this facility as it uses his bandwidth (though probably a tiny drop in the ocean compared to other traffic if not abused).

[Miss Prism]

Say for those who upload an image to the gallery and then hotlink to that image from elsewhere?

 

That's ok, as it is covered by Andy's "Hotlinking your own images from elsewhere (as long as any external site's rules permit this) is fine."

[Miss Prism]

Try this for the hotlinking rule:

 

"Except where an image has been uploaded to a site with provision for the onward use of that image without further requirement, a hotlinked image is not allowed unless the owner's consent has been obtained."

[martin_wynne]

When I said "theft", I was referring to unattributed copying rather than the example you give.

 

Hi Nick,

 

But nowhere have I ever defended unattributed copying of someone else's work, so there was no need to bring that into the discussion.

 

The rules for "fair dealing" are primarily concerned with situations where there is a commercial interest or potential financial damage to the copyright owner. On a site such as RMweb where the entire ethos is the free sharing of information, it doesn't seem unreasonable to argue that they can be very widely interpreted.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Andy Y]

Quite so, Martin,

 

Although, over the past months, several of my images / pics, posted on RMweb, only, have been hot-linked on to Google ?, with a link to this forum ?

Can any one searching there, and downloading, say, EMU pics, access said image, without contacting RMweb, and asking for their permission ?

 

I have noticed that Google, on here at least, are one of the most prominent members / users ?, judging by this forum's 'Users online'...... I'd be most interested to know, if Google have anything useful to contribute here, or are they merely trawling ?

 

As you say, once anything is posted onto the wwweb, it is immediately 'common' knowledge, but, it would be good to get a little feedback from the outsiders,... occasionally.

 

Cheers, Frank.

 

Google's bots are purely automated spiders so they're likely to be submitting a layout topic anytiome soon. A high volume of dynamic content ensures they spend a lot of time indexing content and it's very frequent I'll find stuff on Google, particularly images, from here when I'm looking in the wider www. That's good from the perspective of people finding the right content on here but it theoretically means someone can copy/paste from Google's image preview without visiting the site. It doesn't, however, absolve the person copying it from any responsibilities to adhere to copyright. I could Google for picture's of P Middy's backside* and copy something from Reuters for example but it doesn't mean I can re-publish it.

 

*Not that I've ever looked at it.

[Guest jim s-w]

But if you have already posted them free of charge on a public noticeboard visible to the entire world, where the ethos is the sharing of information, it doesn't strike me as the greatest sin to post them again somewhere else. Provided full attribution to you is made.

 

 

It should Martin - full attribution or not you are still taking something without permission. If in the days of paid for Templot, if I uploaded it to a hosting service with "Martin Wynne has written this great software" you would have 100% considered it theft. Does the fact that you consider your contributions to the world of model railways have (had) a cash value make them any more special than someone who contributes their efforts for nothing?

 

What if buffalo wrote his article on hats and a mag asked him for it only for you to then go plastering it across the internet before it was published, and it then gets pulled because its done to death?

 

I dont know why you are so adverse to simply asking permission, what is you objection to doing so other than you dont think you should be bothered?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited August 15, 2012 by jim s-w

[Revolution Mike]

But nowhere have I ever defended unattributed copying of someone else's work, so there was no need to bring that into the discussion.

 

The rules for "fair dealing" are primarily concerned with situations where there is a commercial interest or potential financial damage to the copyright owner. On a site such as RMweb where the entire ethos is the free sharing of information, it doesn't seem unreasonable to argue that they can be very widely interpreted.

 

The fact you provide attribution doesn't stop it being copyright infringement.

 

Your point about commercial interest or potential financial damage is incorrect (there doesn't need to be either of these for copyright to be infringed) and more importantly something that the infringer could not possibly know. For example I could have reached a commercial deal to publish my photos with XY publisher but agreed that I could also post some on RMweb - the copyright infringer has no means of knowing.

 

It really is rather simple - if I put my photos on a site and set out re-use conditions eg CC licence or similiar then you may use them as set out. If I don't say anything then you can not just assume that you can take them.

[96701]

As somebody who is neither an ace modeller nor an ace photographer, I'd be very concerned if I posted a photo along with some text that explained where I'd thought I'd gone wrong (be it a good photograph of bad modelling, a bad photograph of good modelling or a bad photograph of bad modelling), and somebody copied the photo without the text and posted something derogatory, I'd be upset.

 

If, however I'd taken a decent photo of decent modelling and somebody else passed it off as their own work, I'd be livid.

 

This shouldn't be a discussion about the finer points of the law, but about theft, misrepresentation, and generally boorish behaviour. I wouldn't expect people on this forum to behave in that manner, but if they did, I'd be more mollified if Andy could help in some way to make me feel better about it.

[martin_wynne]

I dont know why you are so adverse to simply asking permission, what is you objection to doing so

 

Hi Jim,

 

I don't have any objection to doing so, but if you make it a necessary requirement it destroys the immediacy of the internet as a medium. A topic could go 3 times round the Wrekin while waiting for a reply to a PM or email, by which time the information may have lost all relevance.

 

Note also that I said "I'm not convinced" and "it could reasonably be argued". I haven't stated any absolutes, I'm still open to persuasion. But I do believe that on a site such is this where its entire reason for being is the free sharing of information, it is not a simple black and white situation. If someone is really concerned to retain all possible rights to their content, you do have to ask -- in that case why post it here?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Guest jim s-w]

If its urgent then post a link? I still fail to see what point you are trying to make other than in certain situations you think its OK to take whatever you fancy.

 

Would you do so with something I posted despite the line in my signature?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[buffalo]

Hi Martin,

But nowhere have I ever defended unattributed copying of someone else's work, so there was no need to bring that into the discussion.

Nowhere did I suggest you had, but isn't it what a fair part of this topic is about?

 

The rules for "fair dealing" are primarily concerned with situations where there is a commercial interest or potential financial damage to the copyright owner. On a site such as RMweb where the entire ethos is the free sharing of information, it doesn't seem unreasonable to argue that they can be very widely interpreted.

Jim and red death have saved me typing the lengthy answer. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 makes no mention of commercial interest or financial damage as a determinant of whether an infringement has occurred, nor does the UKCS explanation of fair use in the link I provided (see also their fact sheet on using the work of others)

Returning to your example, what is wrong with a simple link to my seminal article on stationmasters' hats? This would, I think, be both acceptible to most authors and legal.

 

Nick

Edited August 15, 2012 by buffalo

[Guest Tom F]

If an image has been enabled for sharing you should be able to do the following for example

 

Go to http://www.flickr.co...ages/7289537650

 

Click on Share

Click on More ways to share

Click on Grab the html/BBcode (if that's not present for an image the uploader has disabled the facility)

Click the BBcode radio button

Click on the dropdown list or the sizes available

Copy the code in the box.

Paste that code into the forum post here.

 

That gives....

 

 

Cheers Andy

[martin_wynne]

If its urgent then post a link? I still fail to see what point you are trying to make other than in certain situations you think its OK to take whatever you fancy.

 

I cannot "take" something from you if I freely acknowledge that it belongs to you.

 

In everything I have written I have said provided full attribution is given. Getting a little bit irritated at the suggestions that I have said anything other than that.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Andy Y]

Getting a little bit irritated at the suggestions that I have said anything other than that.

 

I don't believe you've said anything other than that Martin. However it doesn't mean that the content can be taken and used. Copyright law covers that but I'm trying to cover what is ethical and practical too and there shouldn't be any need to use anything other than a link to source unless express consent is sought.

 

There's been several examples over a couple of weeks of people not just taking images but liberties too (as referred to by halfwit and worsdell forever) and I'm just trying to stick up for the right way of doing things.*

 

* Despite (or maybe because of) being falsely accused recently of appropriating someone's 'idea' that I'd never even read of and use of different materials even though I'd used the technique 20+years ago in a different scale.