Use of images from RMweb

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Martin

 

I understand you are getting irritated but how many different people have to say that attribution does not make it OK? It pretty clear to me that your basic understanding of 'to take something' is very clearly wrong. What you see as OK - to take something with a credit, others clearly see as theft.

 

Like I said before, if I had used an illegal version of Templot but attributed its creation to you would that make it OK? Its a simple yes or no question.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[beast66606]

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.

 

If I steal your car but put a sticker saying this is really Martin's car on it, does that make it OK ?

[beast66606]

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?

 

As someone who posts here I can say two things

 

I post my photos where *I* want to, it's my choice if I want to support a posting, disprove a posting or create a discussion, it is NOT down to others to decide that my photos are useful for their purposes without asking me first, for example I would not be happy if my photos were used in any context connected with of one of the well known mags.

 

It's not you that needs convincing, as the owner of the copyright of those photos YOU need to convince ME that it's ok for people to use them within the site as they (and not necessarily me) see fit.

[martin_wynne]

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

 

No, but it significantly affects any damages a court may award, and whether they think their time is being wasted.

 

Returning to your example, what is wrong with a simple link to my seminal article on stationmasters' hats?

 

Nothing at all, and I put some blue ink in my example to indicate that very thing was there anyway. But it does interrupt a narrative to require the reader to click off somewhere else before what follows it makes sense.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Kenton]

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?

 

While I agree with your post this is really the problem in a nutshell.

 

In the days when everything was published in a book or newspaper you could always write (remember that outdated media) to the editor/publisher or even author at the address usually given in the front of the book. Unfortunately today gaining access to the author is nont always possible where content is collected on the web and linked/relinked and re-relinked to often loosing all indication of the originator. I have had mixed responses in my attempts at contacting the original owners. I must say the outcome is often very positive where a contact is available (email or plain address) but when presented with just a name then there is nowhere to go to make that simple request - especially when the originator may have died and the copyright has passed to some unidentified person/body.

[Guest jim s-w]

Ill take that a refusal to answer my question then Martin?

 

Hi Kenton

 

The difficulty in getting permission is a different track to the apparent difficulty in even bothering to try and get permission in the first place.

 

The apparent lack of being able to follow an image back to its proper owner on the web is a direct result of people who think its OK to help themselves!

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited August 15, 2012 by jim s-w

[Talltim]

 

 

If I steal your car but put a sticker saying this is really Martin's car on it, does that make it OK ?

Not taking sides either way, but that analogy doesnt really work. It's more like making a copy of Martin's car and puttIng a sticker in it saying its Martin's

[martin_wynne]

Like I said before, if I had used an illegal version of Templot but attributed its creation to you would that make it OK? Its a simple yes or no question.

 

Hi Jim,

 

Templot is a registered trade mark. If anyone applies that name to their own software they can expect to hear from me.

 

But this topic is about copyright, not trade marking.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Talltim]

Andy is obviously OK with hot linking attributed images from Flickr, providing the uploader has allowed the option in the sharing feature. What's the view on asking permission in this case, is it still required or is it deemed to be implicit in the allowing of the option?

Edited August 15, 2012 by Talltim

[Guest jim s-w]

I didnt say use templots name, I said use an illegal copy of the software that it properly attributed to you. You do understand the question dont you? Its a one word answer. Its simple enough.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Guest jim s-w]

Not taking sides either way, but that analogy doesnt really work. It's more like making a copy of Martin's car and puttIng a sticker in it saying its Martin's

 

Or making a copy of Martins software which is the question he is so desperate to avoid answering!

[martin_wynne]

Ill take that a refusal to answer my question then Martin?

 

Why so aggressive? I may not have answered a question but I haven't refused to do so. Which question do you mean?

 

Martin.

[Trevellan]

Copyright is actually a relatively straightforward issue, but the internet has blurred moral and ethical boundaries. A former senior civil servant - someone educated to degree level - blithely informed me a few years back that anything published on the internet was "public domain" and could therefore be used how they wished. It is the sharing of digital images which seems to have sparked similar views among others.

 

I know that my placing copyright information on images I post on RMweb irritates some members, but it leaves no excuses for unauthorised use. The rule I work to is that copyright should be assumed to exist in all images, even where there is no copyright information.

[Guest jim s-w]

Why so aggressive Martin? Because you know exactly what question I mean, you even quoted it yourself in post 59!

 

You seem happier to come across as an utter fool rather than answer it.

Edited August 15, 2012 by jim s-w

[martin_wynne]

I didnt say use Templot's name, I said use an illegal copy of the software that it properly attributed to you. You do understand the question don't you?

 

No I don't. A copy of the Templot program is identical to all other copies. It is not possible to identify one particular copy as illegal. All copies can properly be attributed to me.

 

I will answer any question about Templot which I can understand.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[buffalo]

No, but it significantly affects any damages a court may award, and whether they think their time is being wasted...

That's a red herring. For there to be any consideration of damages, the case would have already been proven. As to wasting time, I'm sure some members of the legal profession might be highly offended by the implication that they are interested only in protecting financial interests and not in upholding the law

 

...But it does interrupt a narrative to require the reader to click off somewhere else before what follows it makes sense.

Tough, it's just one of the limitations of the web for those who prefer to act legally, ethically and morally. We use citations rather than copyright infringing inclusion of lengthy quotes when publishing on paper, so why not apply the same standards on the web?

 

Nick

[martin_wynne]

Why so aggressive Martin? Because you know exactly what question I mean, you even quoted it yourself in post 59!

 

You seem happier to come across as an utter fool rather than answer it.

 

Thank you for editing that.

[Guest jim s-w]

One last attempt to get Martin to understand a simple question.

 

Hypothetically, when templot was a paid for program. If I was given an illegal copy of it (that had been hacked to work without your knowledge) but that copy was given with the understanding that it was a direct copy of your software only you hadn't been paid for it. Would you be happy for me to use it provided I knew that you were the person who wrote it?

 

Does anyone else NOT understand this question?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited August 15, 2012 by jim s-w

[Talltim]

Trouble is, the very technology of the web makes it impossible to view an image without making a copy of it on your computer. If you get over that fact then hot linking is actually not more of a copyright issue than viewing it on the original site. No more or less copies are being made and they are being served from the same server so I can't see how it is a copyright breach. (nowadays many web pages are made up of components from multiple locations) At no point is the image 'copied' to RMWeb, what you see on your screen comes directly to your computer for the server hosting the image.

However doing so without some sort of permission is both rude and steals bandwidth, there lies the real issue.

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Tim

 

So far everyone (except dear Martin who doesn't understand what anyone is talking about, bless him!) seems to be in agreement with the last line of your post.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited August 15, 2012 by jim s-w

[buffalo]

Tim,

 

Read the Act, it specifically excludes 'copies' that exist solely for transmission over a network, though I don't think it gets to grips with cached copies on a receiving machine. That's not the issue, though, it is a copyright infringement by virtue of the act of storing and publishing a copy of the material on another site.

 

Nick

[Revolution Mike]

Sorry Tim, but that is not the point. As Beast and Jim have said, I can choose how I put my images on the net (recognising the inherent issues that raises) and specify how I would like them to be used. If I don't put anything then my full control is still automatically the default position as my rights under copyright protection are clear.

 

Martin seems to be saying that if I put something up then he can assume it is fair game without getting my permission. That is the exact opposite of the legal position. Martin seems to arguing a convenience point which isn't terribly convincing I'm afraid.

 

I really don't understand why Martin is labouring the point - the law is for this point on copyright unusually clear!

 

Cheers, Mike

[Miss Prism]

Andy is obviously OK with hot linking attributed images from Flickr, providing the uploader has allowed the option in the sharing feature. What's the view on asking permission in this case, is it still required or is it deemed to be implicit in the allowing of the option?

 

Where the uploader has allowed the sharing option, it seems logical that permission is implicit.

[martin_wynne]

Hypothetically, when Templot was a paid for program. If I was given an illegal copy of it (that had been hacked to work without your knowledge) but that copy was given with the understanding that it was a direct copy of your software only you hadn't been paid for it. Would you be happy for me to use it provided I knew that you were the person who wrote it?

 

If that's a simple question I'm glad you don't post any complicated ones.

 

If a copy of the older versions of Templot had been hacked to work without a paid-for lock-release code provided by me, clearly I would not be the person who wrote it. So, no, I would not be happy for you to use it believing it to be written by me.

 

I would also be seeking redress for the financial loss incurred from the person who did the hacking.

 

However, Templot is now free for the whole world to use, so the question is not only hypothetical, it is completely out of date.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Andy Y]

I would also be seeking redress for the financial loss incurred from the person who did the hacking.

 

Therefore the parallel with image theft is, if not proven, comparable. Hopefully we can move on from contention over what may be viewed as permissible when it isn't.