Glorious NSE Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Lots of "ifs" here, but if 30k was galleries and an average gallery had 50 images, that's 1.5m images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted March 31, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 31, 2011 Lots of "ifs" here, but if 30k was galleries and an average gallery had 50 images, that's 1.5m images. Which, off the top of my head, is probably only about 20 TB of storage capacity, if that; although there's obviously more to Fotopic infrastructure than a few HDDs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold LH&JC Posted March 31, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2011 I've finally given up on fotopic and have moved to flickr. So far I am still getting the hang of it and so far the only images on are previously unseen ones, mainly of the Great Dorset Steam Fair but there are 3 railway ones from the NYMR (4 if you count a photo of Canadian Pacific at the GDSF)! I'll add an NRM update later on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold john new Posted March 31, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2011 So regrettably the bad new IS confirmed. Will have to set up my albums again, on my own web-space this time however. Serious question - Can anyone remember what the small print of the fotopic.net terms and conditions said, if anything, about their retention rights to our hosted images if the operation went bust? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Pretty sure it was along the lines that we retain the rights to our images (I wouldn't have signed up if somebody else took title) but that they didn't guarantee to provide the service and could cease it at any time. The question maybe is who has control of the physical storage now and will they securely clear the data if some kind of rescue does not come off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold john new Posted March 31, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2011 Pretty sure it was along the lines that we retain the rights to our images (I wouldn't have signed up if somebody else took title) but that they didn't guarantee to provide the service and could cease it at any time. That was what I thought I remembered too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baldrick25 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Serious question - Can anyone remember what the small print of the fotopic.net terms and conditions said, if anything, about their retention rights to our hosted images if the operation went bust? From this webcached link, HERE "With respect to all other Content you elect to post to other publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Fotopic the royalty-free, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, in the course of providing and promoting the Service. " -------------------- and from lower down the same page:- Quote ------------------------ "About the Terms of service i wrote an email to Fotopic with the following questions: How will i translate your Terms of Service part 10-C? - Do you own the pics and works i post on your site? - Do you have the right to publish and sell my work (for your benefit or/and get paid for it?) - Do you have the right to publish and sell my work for advertisement (or/and get paid for it?) - What exactly means: "in the course of providing and promoting the Service" - This means advertisement in any form? These are the Answers from Fotopic: 1. *YOU* own your work. 2. If you enable the "Allow users to order prints of your photos" then other people will be able to buy prints of your photos, if not, then you can still order prints through my.fotopic.net, but nobody else can. 3. We make nothing for hosting your images, but a small amount on prints. 4. "in the course of providing and promoting the Service" etc basically means that you allow us use of your photos in order to provide the fotopic service for you. Sorry for all the legalese, but we have to cover ourselves. I hope this sets your mind at rest - if you have any further questions please feel free to get in touch. Jon (Fotopic)" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted March 31, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2011 Which, off the top of my head, is probably only about 20 TB of storage capacity, if that; although there's obviously more to Fotopic infrastructure than a few HDDs. The servers to handle the delivery of the images in a timely manner ... Being cynical I find it hard to believe some of the above (not the RMWeb comments), I can do a "properties" on a folder and find how many files are in it or a simple query works for every database I've known so for them to get it so wrong is, well it smells and moos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etched Pixels Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Pretty sure it was along the lines that we retain the rights to our images (I wouldn't have signed up if somebody else took title) but that they didn't guarantee to provide the service and could cease it at any time. The question maybe is who has control of the physical storage now and will they securely clear the data if some kind of rescue does not come off. That last bit should be fairly easy to answer. Any photographic image of a recognizable person is personal data under the data protection act[1] and has to be treated as such. There would also be copyright questions. Anyone who wants to sell the systems is hardly going to carefully go through the images so they'd wipe the disks (or just trash them). That assumes there are any "disks", if it was hosted in a data centre it may simply have had a share of their network attached storage, in which case presumably the hosting company will just deallocate it .. click, click, boom, 2 million images gone forever. Perhaps the first great internet crime against history. The fact it is now kaput also means people can look at buying it more easily, or bits of it, so the hosting company is more likely to get any money back/future business by holding onto stuff for a bit to see. If they are also owed money they'll probably be refusing to hand over anything until they are paid as well ! Bigger question will be who would buy it and on what terms you'd get your images back. Alan [1] and yes this means an awful lot of people who have pictures of recognizable people on fotopic etc without the permission of the subject are committing offences, and in fact as ethnicity is in the special category sensitive personal data and usually visible in photographs potentially serious ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 From this webcached link, HERE Many thanks for that. So my reading there is that unless they can argue that selling off the assets is part of "providing us a service" then they cannot use the content without the users say-so. Alan - without getting too sidetracked my impression is that the data protection act does not apply to photo's taken by private individuals? http://www.ico.gov.u...d_realities.pdf Myth – "The Data Protection Act stops parents from taking photos in schools". Reality - Photographs taken purely for personal use are exempt from the Data Protection Act. This means that parents, friends and family members can take photographs for the family album of their children and friends participating in school activities and can film events at school. The Data Protection Act does apply where photographs are taken for official use by schools and colleges, such as for identity passes, and these images are stored with personal details such as names. Where the Act does apply, it will usually be enough for the photographer to ask for permission to ensure compliance with the Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office has issued practical guidance on this subject. The "practical guidance" link takes you to the following: http://www.ico.gov.u..._v3.0_final.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted March 31, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2011 it may simply have had a share of their network attached storage, in which case presumably the hosting company will just deallocate it .. click, click, boom, 2 million images gone forever Aside from the backups ... I would want them destroying also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etched Pixels Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Many thanks for that. So my reading there is that unless they can argue that selling off the assets is part of "providing us a service" then they cannot use the content without the users say-so. Alan - without getting too sidetracked my impression is that the data protection act does not apply to photo's taken by private individuals? http://www.ico.gov.u...d_realities.pdf [/left] The "practical guidance" link takes you to the following: http://www.ico.gov.u..._v3.0_final.pdf "For personal use" Putting them on *public* galleries ceases to be personal use (that is established) and needs permission. Whether putting them on facebook groups shared between friends is or is not is an area that has lawyers reaching for their coats and remembering an urgent need to be elsewhere. As always the law is somewhat behind the real world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted March 31, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 31, 2011 That last bit should be fairly easy to answer. Any photographic image of a recognizable person is personal data under the data protection act[1] and has to be treated as such. How does this work with newspapers, for example? I'm 100% sure that there are lots and lots of photos of celebrities in the hands of newspapers, which the celebrities in question would 100% not give permission for any sort of storage or publication, but it obviously happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Got a link Alan, i'm interested in reading more...everything i've seen so far suggests it's not relevant to me (although definately a rather grey area in places) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkSG Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 How does this work with newspapers, for example? I'm 100% sure that there are lots and lots of photos of celebrities in the hands of newspapers, which the celebrities in question would 100% not give permission for any sort of storage or publication, but it obviously happens. There is an explicit exemption in the Data Protection Act for any photos published as part of "journalistic, literary or artistic material". That clearly covers newspapers, and also the sort of stuff that people would put on photo gallery websites. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkSG Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 The latest news on Fotopic, by the way, is that Snappy Designs have gone into administration. This appears to have been partly prompted by the actions of persons on another forum, which has convinced the owner of Snappy Designs that it isn't worth the effort of trying to resurrect the site himself. This is from the "former Fotopic users" Google group: I received notice about 10 minutes ago that Snappy Designs Ltd has been put into administration. Will probably take a few days to show on CoHouse database or on London Gazette. What this means is there is now virtually no chance of Fotopic being resurrected in the short term, and the long term depends entirely on whether or not anyone is willing to buy it. It may, depending on the outcome of negotiations currently being conducted, be possible to obtain a copy of the database for transfer to a new system. But I wouldn't hold my breath for that, either. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted March 31, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 31, 2011 There is an explicit exemption in the Data Protection Act for any photos published as part of "journalistic, literary or artistic material". That clearly covers newspapers, and also the sort of stuff that people would put on photo gallery websites. Thanks for clarifying that, I'm not sure my daughters' Facebook galleries are 'artistic material', but then I'd say the same about a pile of bricks. B) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted March 31, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 31, 2011 .. click, click, boom, 2 million images gone forever. Perhaps the first great internet crime against history. Nah, that was the DEToddlers Yahoo! group mass mail deletion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted March 31, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2011 Nah, that was the DEToddlers Yahoo! group mass mail deletion. at least backups of that exist... Andi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted March 31, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 31, 2011 at least backups of that exist... Andi It was that episode that led me to set up an email account specifically to archive messages from my Yahoo! groups. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etched Pixels Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 There is an explicit exemption in the Data Protection Act for any photos published as part of "journalistic, literary or artistic material". That clearly covers newspapers, and also the sort of stuff that people would put on photo gallery websites. Possibly a mod could split this thread ? The special purposes only apply if it is not practical to do otherwise - e.g. it's going to be a bit hard to take a shot of fifty blokes hanging out the windows of a passing steam special at speed and then ask them all for permission, but a shot of the operator of a model layout where permission could be asked is different. Tons of photos of events and things clearly fall into the exemptions. Also conveniently trains don't have personal data and rights 8) JISC probably have one of the clearest summaries including the research exemptions which will also apply to many modellers I imagine http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/stillimages/advice/data-protection about 2/3rd of the way down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted March 31, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 31, 2011 Possibly a mod could split this thread ? The special purposes only apply if it is not practical to do otherwise - e.g. it's going to be a bit hard to take a shot of fifty blokes hanging out the windows of a passing steam special at speed and then ask them all for permission, but a shot of the operator of a model layout where permission could be asked is different. That suggests though, that, for example, a newspaper publishing a shot of Madonna reading a copy of Railway Modeller without her written consent would be in breach of DPA, which it presumably isn't in any meaningful way - unless the newspaper can claim 'public interest' for every photo they publish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 And there goes the parachute...I suspect that's the last person with an interest/inclination to do something positive with this. I think it's maybe time to say "that's all folks" on Fotopic. In light of posts on the WNXX forum and the more militant users who seem to (needlessly) have it in for myself and Nicky, plus the obvious journalistic interest, we've decided to withdraw from further attempting any Fotopic "rescue" immediately. We really do not want ourselves and our families targetting by the same people (our days of 6am phonecalls and enthusiasts with dodgy self-researched 'legal advice' are long gone), and our own business interests and sanity comes first. If a simple/helpful opportunity presents itself then we'll consider it, in the meantime we're just concentrating on Pikfu. We'll be "over there" if anyone wants us. Joel & Nicky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 It's always the assholes that spoil it for everyone! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 It's always the assholes that spoil it for everyone! Don't forget that they pulled the plug without any prior warning and were still happy to recieve peoples subscriptions, despite their business model showing signs of failing for some time. At least the Imagestation shutdown was announced and gave users time to reload their galleries elsewhere. For that reason, I won't be using Fupik or whatever its called. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.