ajdown Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 If you wish to post here then please humour Andy, it is his site after all, and stop muttering about his rules. I have already stated that, bedgrudgingly, I follow that particular rule, so I can continue to be a member of this community. I'm not the world's greatest modeller by any stretch of the imagination but I find this site very useful, and I'd hope that some people would find something of value in some of my posts too. I'm not sure why you single me out specifically as 'muttering about his rules' when it seems that the position is so well fixed there was no need for discussion, and that the post should merely have been made, locked, stickied, and left at that. Perhaps I'm the only one brave enough to speak my mind? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajdown Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Ho hum. If the exhibition was the one at Ally Pally a couple of years ago, the no photography signs didn't apply to that model railway exhibition. They applied to a previous non toy train related show, where a condition of entry was, you guessed it, 'No Photography'. If no pics is a condition of entry, then they can enforce it, and technically you could be sued for publishing. I won't bother with how etc etc but that's a fact. I wasn't aware of the exact circumstances, and I couldn't actually remember the show, but I know there were a lot of people thinking it was the show organisers that had put the signs up. I can't see "no photography" being accepted as a condition of entry at any general model show. I know there's often lots of discussion around big shows like Warley and people blocking gangways setting up tripods, backpacks full of camera equipment etc - but perhaps that's more the fault of the show organisers laying out the hall badly and having things crammed in with inadequate walkways rather than people exercising a very basic right to enjoy one hobby (model railway) with another hobby (photography). Incidently, my camera is just a small handheld "point and click" so its use wouldn't inconvenience anyone because it doesn't take up any more "floor space" than me; I would agree that tripods etc are generally inappropriate for most shows (especially the busy ones during busy periods) and if I wanted to do any low angle shots etc that might require me to bend down and take up more space I'd wait until there wasn't such a crowd, or come back later. There may be a case for "no flash" if it's going to disturb operators in the middle of a delicate shunting move, but it doesn't take Einstein to figure out when you might actually be taking a picture at a bad moment - and a lot of layout operators, when they see a camera, will ask if there's anything particular you'd like done or positioned somewhere for a shot. I've seen a few layouts in my time that are full of "do not" signs - don't touch, don't lean on the barriers, no photography, don't disturb the operators, etc etc and you really have to wonder what sort of public face that puts to the average punter of modelling. Sure, you don't want people wrecking something you've spent thousands of pounds building, but surely if a layout is designed "for exhibition use", then you have to factor in your construction these risks (especially from young children) and try to keep anything too fragile back from the viewing side? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajdown Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Neither can I, that doesn't change the legal position one iota though. If they say no snaps as a condition of entry, by purchasing the ticket you agree to the terms and conditions therin. Perhaps, but I would certainly make a point of not going back another year, and making sure that others were aware of it too. The damage they'd cause to their own reputation far outweighs any 'protection' they feel they are giving the exhibitors. I note you've still not commented if you'd be prepared to pay for any legal action taken against the board owner, (and it doesn't have to be millions) resulting from your actions if you posted a copyrighted item. Probably because I consider it completely irrelevant? Usually the first step on the part of the copyright owner is to request a takedown of any material that they consider theirs, then if the board owners refuse then legal action may commence. To simply chuck a lawsuit at someone for posting a picture in a thread is not just overreacting, but pointless as well. As I've already reiterated, the key here as far as I'm concerned is simply down to profitability and damage to income. If someone linked one of my flickr photos into a post, I couldn't care less, I'd be delighted they actually found it worth using to illustrate their point. If they then send it to a magazine, claiming it's theirs and get paid for it, then of course it's an issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Accepted - but that doesn't mean the law is necessarily right does it? Given there's been another page of back and forth posts, surely we could just shut it down now? The law is the law, and unless you're an MP with a few others in your pockets, you can't change it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajdown Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 2, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 2, 2009 I'm absolutely amazed at some of what has been said on this thread - but then perhaps I'm being old fashioned. Although I have broken my own rule very occasionally I normally try to ask if it is o.k. to do so before taking a photo of any layout at a show. And I have never been told that I cannot take a pic, with quite a few folk expressing appreciation that somebody has actually had the common courtesy to ask first and the helping with 'posing' locos etc. On a few occasions the layout owner has said 'only if it's for your personal use' and I think that is an totally fair rule and it wouldn't even occur to me to then post those pics on a website - end of that story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonhall Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I have already stated that, bedgrudgingly, I follow that particular rule, so I can continue to be a member of this community. I'm not the world's greatest modeller by any stretch of the imagination but I find this site very useful, and I'd hope that some people would find something of value in some of my posts too. I'm not sure why you single me out specifically as 'muttering about his rules' when it seems that the position is so well fixed there was no need for discussion, and that the post should merely have been made, locked, stickied, and left at that. Perhaps I'm the only one brave enough to speak my mind? perhaps because you are clearly only abiding by the rules rather than respecting them? Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajdown Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 perhaps because you are clearly only abiding by the rules rather than respecting them? May I ask if you own the copyright to the picture that constitutes your avatar? Or are you totally sure you have the rights to use it? If not... then aren't you just as guilty of "not respecting copyright"? I just happened to pick you as you replied. The same question could probably be asked of the majority of posters that have avatar pictures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zabdiel Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Zab you may consider it to be, but you'd have to prove that in a court of law. True - and I have no intention of doing that. However if model railways are covered, then since it says that things are only excluded when they are permanently in a public place then a model railway at an exhibition would be protected. So I think there is a (very remote) possibility that someone could sue me for taking a photo of their layout at an exhibition without their permission. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zabdiel Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 If someone linked one of my flickr photos into a post, I couldn't care less, I'd be delighted they actually found it worth using to illustrate their point. If they then send it to a magazine, claiming it's theirs and get paid for it, then of course it's an issue. Do you license you Flickr photos under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial license then? It's a good way of giving people permission to do that whilst preventing them from legally selling it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mod2 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Perhaps I'm the only one brave enough to speak my mind? Hardly that, AJ. It's more that the subject has been discussed to death many times on the old forum, and unless any startling new insights arise, forum policy won't be significantly changing. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Accepted - but that doesn't mean the law is necessarily right does it? Nope - but the law is the law, and you break it at your peril - Just don't put others at risk whilst you do so! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajdown Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Do you license you Flickr photos under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial license then? It's a good way of giving people permission to do that whilst preventing them from legally selling it. So far, I haven't put up any pictures that anyone else might particularly find useful so the chances of someone 'selling' any are next to nil anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajdown Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Hardly that, AJ. It's more that the subject has been discussed to death many times on the old forum, and unless any startling new insights arise, forum policy won't be significantly changing. Cheers. In that case, why was the thread left open for discussion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zabdiel Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 So far, I haven't put up any pictures that anyone else might particularly find useful so the chances of someone 'selling' any are next to nil anyway. You never know what people might find useful - I've had people use my images in a uni report and a land rover fan blog. Both images were just things I took on holiday. I don't know if anyone else has used my images, but in general any pictures I upload to Flickr which aren't pictures of people get licensed under a Creative Commons license. Then people can use them without having to check with me (though it's always nice to find out that my pictures have been useful). i can't see anyone trying to sell any of my pictures though! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zabdiel Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 In that case, why was the thread left open for discussion? Perhaps so that people could discuss things link when copyrights expire? I'm glad it was left open as there's been some interesting things posted. I'd never have found out about the map links posted on the previous page otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Images Firstly, please ensure that the image is taken by you and in itself is not of copyrighted material. If the image was not taken by you or you do not own rights to reproduce that image you must ensure that you have the consent of the image owner to reproduce the image on the forum. Seperate to the ongoing discussion could you please clarify this issue for me because I've just been looking at setting up a Blog for my 2010 Challenge entry and the rules seem to differ slightly. In setting up a new blog it states a few terms and rules, and yes I'm sad enough to read terms and conditions before I tick the box, one of which is You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you. Now as part of my research I've bought some photo's from Transport Treasury, I have contacted them and they have generously given permission for me to post the images on this forum. My understanding is they still own the copyright, I just have permission to use them. My understanding then is that according to the Blog terms I'm still not allowed to use them, yet the copyright rules posted in this thread says that I can with the owners consent. Advice and clarification would be gratefully received. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 2, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 2, 2009 My understanding then is that according to the Blog terms I'm still not allowed to use them, yet the copyright rules posted in this thread says that I can with the owners consent. Hi Adrian, The blog rules as posted are the default rules supplied with the IPB software. Andy hasn't yet got round to amending them. There are options in the Admin controls to give blog owners complete control over their blog area as a "mini web site" of their own, hence the need for strict terms of use. Andy hasn't implemented those options, so it's arguable that no additional rules are needed here before starting a blog, beyond the overall RMweb posting rules. No doubt Andy will remove them in due course -- there's a lot of work in getting board software customized to your own requirements. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 No, but they can still enforce it. I don't happen to agree with the smoking ban or certain other laws which I think are misguided (we can all draw up our own private lists) but that won't save me from a fine or even imprisonment if I break them . Since Andy is potentially liable as a result of any breach of copyright by a poster he has every right to protect himself. You may be prepared to be martyred for the cause by breaking a law which you don't agree with - however you don't have any right to "volunteer" others for acts of civil disobedience regardless of their wishes... I don't agree with the extension of literary copyright to 70 years after death (imposed in the late 80s by the EU who decided that as everyone was at 50 years bar the Germans , the Germans were the only ones in step). Even 50 years may be a little long. But I do strongly agree with the existance and principle of copyright I think Brian Haresnape is still alive, Modern Railways is still publishing , and there may well be occasion for Ian Allen to reprint sections of that article in their own publications at a future date. So this is not "orphan" material (which in itself does not justify an attitude of "finders' keepers" - someone's right to the financial and other friuts of their writing do not disappear just because you don't know if they are still around or where they are) Since the Beeching Report is Crown Copyright different rules may well apply to quoting it. And presumably BR and railway company official photos are subject to slightly different rules to private photographers' work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mod2 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 In that case, why was the thread left open for discussion? Because to lock it would be unfair to the many other members who have shown they can be trusted to use it sensibly, exchanging views with mutual respect. I find this site very useful, and I'd hope that some people would find something of value in some of my posts too. Frankly, I think at the moment the impression you're giving is of being argumentative, confrontational and disruptive - and not for the first time. We'll be discussing this as a team later but for now, you've taken up quite enough of my (freely given) time. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 Probably because I consider it completely irrelevant? I'm sorry but it is relevant to me and for the standing of the forum. I can't believe you've been that argumentative against law and common sense and that I have spent time having to read the antics. Fart in a spacesuit springs to mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 A possible grey area that I'd like to ask about: book and magazine covers. It seems to me that on first glance this is an obvious copyright problem, but then I was thinking that if you gave a good review the publisher might actually appreciate the picture as it would assist buyers in picking it out. But then I was thinking that if you gave the publication a kicking then they won't be quite so happy. And then I thought that it's still copying the cover which is copyrighted so best not do it, but then I thought well how do Amazon or Waterstones or WHSmith do front cover pics, but perhaps they have standard contracts in place with publishers, and then I thought 'or do they...'. So round about that point I thought 'Heck, let's just ask'. So, while scanning a picture from inside a book is an obvious no-no, what's the situation with regards to putting a picture of the front cover in a post? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 7, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 7, 2009 A possible grey area that I'd like to ask about: book and magazine covers. Hi Dave, This is allowed under "Fair Dealing for Criticism or Review" -- see: http://www.ipo.gov.u...tion-review.htm If you are reviewing a new book or magazine, you may also show a small section of the content for the same purpose. To rely on this exception, you must give a full acknowledgement -- what publication, who published it, their full contact details, where the item can be purchased, etc. Also, a scan alone is not sufficient. You must add some words of your own of comment or review. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Excellent, thanks for another query solved Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pint of Adnams Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 What is the panel's view with respect to those whose avatars use registered trade marks or cartoon characters and suchlike? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.