Copyright Rules

[Mod4]

What is the panel's view with respect to those whose avatars use registered trade marks or cartoon characters and suchlike?

 

It would depend on the source and permissions granted for the use of the image. My avatar for example is not a still taken from the film itself which would have been a breach of copyright but is one of the images freely distributed at the launch of the film for promotion purposes and therefore copyright free.

There is no one answer and each image used would need to be considered on its own merits. It is the responsibility of all members to ensure any image they use / post does not breach any copyright rules.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

I've only just picked up on this thread, yes it is similar to old ones but some interested points have come up.

 

Firstly OS maps, even modern maps you are allowed to reproduce 'small extracts' a small extract is not I think defined but public libraries will allow you to make 'upto A4 copies' of current maps.

 

On the permission issue I'm not sure, I sometimes take 'sneaky' non flash pics at exhibitions, as I think an exhibitor 'posing' things somehow spoils things for other viewers, I would'nt like them to think the exhibitor thought I was more important than them? -thats just my opinion tho' I would certainly ask before taking flash pics!

 

I always understood copyright was more for protecting intellectual property. Passing someone elses stuff as your own, it is probaly true it can be motivated by greed though.

 

That said its Andy's forum and Andy's rules.

[Kenton]

Once again this issue has raised its ugly head on the forum.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/5995-hunslet-j1-4-6-4t-drawing/page__pid__49303__st__0entry49303

 

and it just made me think.

 

There have been a number of requests over time for reference information to books and magazines. The usual response to this has either been the indication of the title, author and if you are lucky ISBN. This is great with a new book as it, quite rightly, encourages the sale of that book and proceeds going to the author and publisher. Excellent - more to be encouraged.

 

Where these references are to out of print, but still widely available material, then the same is not true. However it does generate a small profit for the s/h booksellers and that is also to be encouraged.

 

Occasionally these references are so far out of print they may become "rare" or virtually unobtainable. Often even the usual s/h booksellers are unable to obtain a copy and when found a significant premium over and above the cover price is added.

 

In both of these s/h cases the original copyright owners (author & publisher) do not receive any additional remuneration for their work. Indeed, it could be said that the only benefit is one of recognition. A virtual reward that only exists if the searcher ultimately purchases the item. A reward that then may have some value as the searcher may then be more inclined to purchase the latest "new" offering from that author.

 

I digress, slightly, my thoughts were continuing along the lines that these "rare" sources may actually be in the collection of various members of RMWeb. I can see no restriction in the rules on selling or offering for sale of such items. What is the value to be placed on such an item. If it is indeed "rare" then at what point does the sale of a s/h book become profiteering rather than acceptable recompense for the loss of such an item?

 

Note the use of the word "loss" is deliberate. The seller is intending to make the work available to the searcher, however, realising that he will no longer have access to the material.

 

There is an alternative. An arrangement between the searcher and the present owner of the material. Simply to lend the material to the searcher. Perhaps with a request to cover P&P costs. The present owner could take the decision beforehand to rip out specific pages not wishing to accept the loss of the entire book. Once again I can see nothing in the rules to bar this from within the forum. This is NOT infringement of copyright, is it.

 

Once again the originator of the material (author & publisher) derive no benefit from this "transaction". But at least, hopefully, no one is making a profit on the sale.

 

I would assume the searcher now makes copious personal notes, perhaps even just mental, from the lent material prior to returning it. Obviously has no intention of publishing the material certainly not for profit.

 

 

Now back to my original thought - why is it wrong (or is it not) to make a request for such reference material on RMWeb?

 

I am aware that the link above specifically requested a copy to be made.

But if it was worded as:

I know this is a long shot but has anyone got a copy of the Continental Modeller,January 1999,which has an article on pages 16/17/18 by Ian Taylor and an HO scale drawing of a Hunslet class J1 4-6-4t which ran on the Kelani Valley line,Ceylon Government Railways.If anyone does have the magazine I would really appreciate a loanof the drawing and if possible the article as well.

Thanks in advance

 

Note I have change only one word from the original. We now have what appears to be a perfectly acceptable post. A request for someone to lend a book/magazine.

 

Or am I unaware of some law that is around making it illegal to lend and borrow books? In that case should the rules be changed.

Another alternative could be:

I know this is a long shot but has anyone got a copy of the Continental Modeller,January 1999,which has an article on pages 16/17/18 by Ian Taylor and an HO scale drawing of a Hunslet class J1 4-6-4t which ran on the Kelani Valley line,Ceylon Government Railways.If anyone does have the magazine I would really appreciate an offer to sell me the drawing and if possible the article as well.

Thanks in advance

 

 

This is why I personally think the copyright law is a bad law. If I were to make a copy of a book/article and then to sell that copy at a profit then I can see that I would be depriving the original author & publisher of rightly deserved remuneration for their work. Yet I can part destroy or resale or lend the original at will.

[martin_wynne]

Once again this issue has raised its ugly head on the forum.

 

http://www.rmweb.co....__0entry49303

Hi Kenton,

 

That seems to fall under "fair dealing":

 

"So, it may be within the scope of 'fair dealing' to make single photocopies of short extracts of a copyright work for non-commercial research or private study, criticism or review, or reporting current events."

 

Quote from: http://www.ipo.gov.u...fairdealing.htm

 

The private building of a model from a drawing surely falls within "non-commercial private study". If the recipient is intending to use the drawing commercially then obviously the situation is different.

 

What's not clear from the above quote is who is allowed to make the copy under this "fair dealing" exception. Clearly you could lend someone a book, they could make a copy to keep for their own private use, and then return the book to you. Whether you can make the copy for them and send it to them is not so clear, although obviously the end result is identical. It also refers only to "single photocopies", not to computer files or other digital means of copying.

 

The important words are I think "short extract". Copying a single page from a book is not the same as copying the entire book.

 

Also, posting something on a web site such as RMweb is not "private study", it's full publishing/distribution, even if not for financial gain.

 

It would be unwise to rely on this "fair dealing" exception where anyone could easily go and buy the relevant publication for themselves, because an important consideration in "fair dealing" is that the the financial impact on the copyright owner is insignificant.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[spamcan61]

I'm pretty sure the copyright notice above the photocpier in the public library ( hopefully fairly authorative) states that producing a single copy of one article from a periodical or single chapter of a book for the purposes of reference or research is within the bounds of fair use.

[Kenton]

Martin that is an interesting point and reference.

 

But I do need to stress I was not in anyway suggesting (and I don't think the OP of the quote was suggesting) putting it on the web site for public consumption.

 

Also, posting something on a web site such as RMweb is not "private study", it's full publishing/distribution, even if not for financial gain.

[martin_wynne]

But I do need to stress I was not in anyway suggesting (and I don't think the OP of the quote was suggesting) putting it on the web site for public consumption.

Hi Kenton,

 

Yes, I know that. I made the point just to reinforce what I'm sure is Andy's main concern.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Kenton]

Yes understood and I will reinforce it too.

But the original thread was locked by Andy with a reference to this thread - which is why I opened the discussion here.

 

I know it is Andy's choice if he closes down a thread or not as are the rules to the forum. I also have to say That I know of no other conversation on the matter.

 

As I see the potential of asking membership for copies of books/magazines for loan or sale - if not individual articles. I think it would be nice to see the discussion raised and possibly resolved by more than just a lock down.

 

In the example given, and I think there have been others, the OP has not been able to change the request from direct copying to one of loan or sale.

[Andy Y]

It hasn't actually been a conversational matter, more a case of explaining to individual members why we can't be seen to condone breach of copyright and then defining the applicable rule.

 

When the rules are there I wouldn't create more work for me or the team in offering the ability to edit the request (some people have still argued the toss as to why they think they should be able to ask at that point).

 

If people think how they state their requests and how they communicate over any potential solution to that request without placing me in a potentially awkward position they're more likely to achieve their goal. If they don't, they're less likely to.

 

Can't see a real problem if someone asks to borrow something and someone agrees to lend it; the problem is when someone asks someone to copy something, scan it or 'publish' it.

 

 

[Mike Bellamy]

In this particular case, Tim had already asked me if he could borrow a copy of Jan 1999 Continental Modeller from the Library at the Mickleover Club - but this was the one issue that was missing - probably borrowed and never returned. His interest in this particular model results from a conversation at the Warley NEC show where we were both on the 7mm Narrow Gauge Assn stand. This had a display of a number of his scratch built models including this beast - based on a Bachmann Shay and photographed recently at Wigan http://www.davidhennesseystrainworld.fotopic.net/p62518515.html

 

Mike

[Kenton]

Thanks Andy.

 

It was clarification that a request for information, a post in Wanted as "please sell me", or even a request as in "can I borrow from someone" were all perfectly legitimate.

 

Where as a request such as "please send me a copy" is most definitely not - along with posting the copy on a thread.

 

I think that is as clear as it needs to be.

Of course what we do off of RMWeb is our responsibility.

[martin_wynne]

For the current Landranger maps, try Anthony Cartmell's site: http://www.fonant.com/osmap.html

 

Full-screen, draggable, no advertising. Excellent search (the search boxes are top left, easily missed at first).

Thanks Martin,

 

I hadn't come across that site before and I have to say it's an excellent tool.

 

Hi Andy,

 

Another one for you, from Bill Chadwick: http://wtp2.appspot.com/wtp2.htm

 

Full screen Landranger and aerial synchronised side-by-side. No advertising. Multimap API. Unlike Anthony Cartmell's site, this one covers the entire world. Don't click the link if you haven't got an hour to spare.

 

The same site with full search and options, but UK only: http://wtp2.appspot....eresthepath.htm

 

Note the red ?© button -- swaps instantly from the old NPE maps to the current map -- brilliant for the One Square game.

 

The maps show a marker on both map and aerial, even when they are not to the same scale. Useful zoom out/zoom in function on right-click, in addition to the mouse wheel.

 

Map only (no aerial): http://wtp2.appspot....bile/mobile.htm

 

Home page: http://wtp2.appspot.com

 

Detailed notes about the site: http://wtp2.appspot.com/help.htm

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[NGT6 1315]

Just out of curiosity and in order to possibly draw a comparison to the law over here:

 

What is the UK legal position on the right of personal portrayal - that is, on taking photos where people are a ) visible and b ) arguably identifiable? Specifically, does UK law allow for persons visible in any specific photo to request that the photo not be used for any kind of publishing? And if so, how is "publishing" defined? I would think there is a difference between showing any such photo to a friend at home or in an e-mail directed to specific persons only (i.e. in a private environment) and posting it on a forum, Flickr, or having it printed in a magazine.

 

I would be much interested in hearing a well-founded opinion on this point .

[Andy Y]

What is the UK legal position on the right of personal portrayal -

 

If the person is in a public place (or where the public are admissable) then there is no restriction on taking the image, copyright would sit with the photographer.? 

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

What is the UK legal position on the right of personal portrayal - that is, on taking photos where people are a ) visible and b ) arguably identifiable? Specifically, does UK law allow for persons visible in any specific photo to request that the photo not be used for any kind of publishing?

Hi,

 

No it doesn't, although there's a lot of froth about this at present, see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7351252.stm

 

Under UK law, there is no right to privacy in a public place and there are no restrictions* on taking photographs in a public place or on photography of individuals, even if they are clearly identifiable. Furthermore, if you took the picture it is your copyright, and you may publish it anywhere you wish. Equipment or film may not be confiscated, or images deleted, by any person or officer unless a warrant for such action has been issued.

 

However, if it's obvious that you are taking a picture of an individual rather than the general scene, it's only good manners to ask first and respect their wishes if they say no.

 

The essential test is "in a public place" -- although finding a legal definition of that is very difficult. Generally if you have to pay to get in it isn't a public place.

 

*except photographs of "Prohibited Places" under the Official Secrets Act 1911 -- some military establishments and similar. There is usually a notice outside saying so.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[steam-driven boy]

Hi,

If the person is in a public place (or where the public are admissable) then there is no restriction on taking the image, copyright would sit with the photographer.

 

 

 

The essential test is "in a public place" -- although finding a legal definition of that is very difficult. Generally if you have to pay to get in it isn't a public place.

 

 

The significant phrase commonly relating to photography in a place where the general public are admitted is 'unless prohibited as a condition of entry'.

 

There are usually such conditions of entry to concerts and suchlike, although the advent of camera-phones makes this much more problematic to enforce.

 

Apart from anti-terrorism considerations there is more legal ground now for limitation of publishing photo's of individuals taken in public places if it can shown that said photo was likely to be published in a form defamatory or damaging to that individual, but that is not an issue for we happy-snappers to concern ourselves with in general public situations.

 

Regards, Gerry.

[Leicester Thumper]

hi, im a bit confused here, cos im still trying to get used to how to navigate the site...

 

i have just uploaded some pictures and i need to put my name as the copyright holder, as they are my own photos but i do not know how to do this.

 

any help would be appreicated,

 

many thaks,

Bruce.

[Andy Y]

Hi Bruce,

 

There is a field to place the copyright info if you're uploading to the Gallery.

 

If you are just uploading to a topic you would have to add the copyright text to the image before uploading or to add this to your post beneath the attached image.

 

 

[Andy Y]

If you're uploading an individual picture to your image gallery - see http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/25-a-guide-to-viewing-and-adding-images-to-the-gallery/ there will be a field below the image to add the copyright details to.

[martin_wynne]

From Martin W

The essential test is "in a public place" -- although finding a legal definition of that is very difficult. Generally if you have to pay to get in it isn't a public place.

This statement with due respect to Martin, is wholly innacurate.

But if you have to pay or otherwise obtain permission to gain access, "no photographs" can be made a condition of entry if the owner so chooses. Or what you can do with any you do take. In a truly public place, no one can do anything to prevent you taking a photograph. So the two are not the same sense of "public place" -- I meant the latter sense.

 

Also, the "no smoking" regulations do not apply out of doors, so the relevance of those regulations to taking photographs is misleading. An outdoor location may be a public place or it may not.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Andy Y]

Which illustrates the complexity of what constitutes a 'public place', there are places where I can photograph without permission but can't have fag and vice versa.

[shortliner]

Bruce - you really need to use a program that will let you add the copyright sign on the photo before you upload it. To do it, select numlock on the small keypad, press and hold down the ALT key, and using the small keypad type 0169 and add your name and 2010 across the bottom of the photo

[Jaggzuk]

Use of map images from websites like Google Maps, Multimap etc,[

 

I am currently preparing a Blog/Topic for my 2010 entry and I would like to add some maps which I can overlay a fictitious railway line. Where do we stand on the use of say an small OS Map image taken from one of the many mapping websites such Multimap or indeed from one of the ones that have already been mention in this thread in some of the early posts. (I know that I can use OS Maps older than 50 years.)

 

I only ask this question as I have seen several layout Blogs/Threads on RMWeb that have used images taken for online mapping sites to illustrate their layout design without any moderator intervention.

 

If this question has already been answered somewhere I would be happy to be point in the right direction. I have tried to check back on RMWeb3 but it appears to no longer be working.

 

Help would be very much appreciated.

 

Paul

[bertiedog]

Maps are copyright work, but there is usually reasonable clearance for copies to be made for educational and personal uses, and as long as no commercial involvement comes in, they can be used, especially as re-drawn which is usually considered fair use of the source material within a new work. Acknowledgement of source material must be made.

 

Maps clearly published that are stated as in the public domain can be copied, as can lapsed copyright items due to age, and many old railway maps fall into this group.

 

Modern maps though, you must seek clearance from the copyright holder, and sites often have the email address and permission to publish should be sought.

 

It is not an offence to publish if sufficient effort is placed in clearly stating that the copyright holder cannot be traced, and you are willing to withdraw the publication at once when asked to do so. This is a legal minefield with some estates of well known authors, so be careful, this would only apply to work still in copyright, and maps are the least likely item to be chased upon.

 

Stephen.

[Kenton]

Google maps are copyright. They do provide a free access key to their API on application - this key is sent with an online request to their server for your site to display their maps. This site specific key enables them to track usage and the type of site. We use such a key on steamsheds.co.uk - this API also enables a complete range of functions for the site. I cannot see this being of any use on RMWeb as it involves some programming.

 

They take a dim view of people just copying their maps directly onto such sites.

However, I'm not sure how far the Google thought police would extend their reach. But I wouldn't want Andy getting an email.

 

It is easy enough to provide a direct link to the map on their site - so why not do that?