the penguin of doom Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Hi all. I've not had chance to read all of this article in depth at the mo, but will do as soon as I get 30mins to myself. I need to ask a question though which will hopefully help me stay out of bother. I'm making some overlays from plasticard for my DP2 conversion and have used the drawings produced in a book subject to copyright. I actually intend to photocopy the drawings and cut the relevant parts out and use them as a cutting guide. As a few of you will know, I like to post on this site and show what I'm up to. Question is, A). Can I post a picture containing the book open at the relevant page? B). Can I photocopy the diagram to assist me in the production of the overlays for my own personal use? C). Can I post a picture of the cut out sections of the photocopy on the site? Thanks. Sean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Yes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 a.) As long as the book is incidental to the main subject matter and not directly legible/reproducible then the answer is yes. b.) That's not within the site's remit but there's no fundamental intention of breach of copyright or republication in doing so. c.) As that would take a form which isn't reproducible and is to illustrate a work process rather than content then I would not foresee a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted January 15, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 15, 2012 a.) As long as the book is incidental to the main subject matter and not directly legible/reproducible then the answer is yes. b.) That's not within the site's remit but there's no fundamental intention of breach of copyright or republication in doing so. c.) As that would take a form which isn't reproducible and is to illustrate a work process rather than content then I would not foresee a problem. Many (most?) book publishing web sites now use an image of the book in question as part of the advertising. Would it be considered OK to use this same image to sell the item as a 2nd hand item somewhere at a later date? Assuming you'd saved it. Since its an original source, would it count as 'belonging' to the original item? An example can be found here. http://www.pecopublications.co.uk/railway-modeller-february-2012.html What about the contents listing? Kevin Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted January 15, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2012 There's a lot about UK copyright law here: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the penguin of doom Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Yes a.) As long as the book is incidental to the main subject matter and not directly legible/reproducible then the answer is yes. b.) That's not within the site's remit but there's no fundamental intention of breach of copyright or republication in doing so. c.) As that would take a form which isn't reproducible and is to illustrate a work process rather than content then I would not foresee a problem. Briliant. Thanks.for your prompt reply chaps. Cheers. Sean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimP Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 My reply was in answer to the question "What if the author was unknown" This would not usually apply to images held image libraries. The issue of unknown authors / artists / photographers is an issue known as "orphan works" the government is currently considering how it will deal with these (see e.g. http://www.ipo.gov.u...1-copyright.pdf ) and a liberalisation of the regime is quite possible in the subsequent white paper - this follows the Hargreaves review into Intellectual Property. Actually author is approximation it is really copyright holder not being known - but we will skip that complexity. I am meeting govt on the issue later this week - but to represent work not modellers!! Cheers all TimP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 I had an instance yesterday (not for the first time) where images from the site had been copied by a user on another site and uploaded to their server. There wasn't anything malicious in this as such but it was theft of images taken by and uploaded to this site by users. I have written to the site's administrator which will have hopefully got through and be understood as it is a non-English language site just asking that the uploaded images be replaced with a link to the image locations on this site. Some may say that it's quite likely that such things occur but it doesn't make it right or permissible to do so and I have to look to some duty of care from myself. Technically it is a matter for the user of this site to follow up with the user of the other site who has carried out the infringement but I try the logical, courteous and most effective channel to try and assist. I could place some script into the site which would embed a watermark for any image uploaded to RMweb but; It would be repetitively annoying for readers of this site If placed discreetly it could easily be cropped out or edited out Wouldn't physically prevent the copying Place me in a position where I'd be trying to claim copyright on behalf of the site rather than the contributor which would be incorrect. I'd be interested in hearing in others thoughts but maybe I should look to inserting a clause in the rules to notify that no material should be copied without the express consent of the individual contributor or if there is any breach of a user's copyright that the individual user may pursue a claim against anyone copying material. It wouldn't change any legalities and it wouldn't necessarily make it easier to track someone down so I'm quite happy to engage in polite take-down requests targeted at the publisher rather than the offender. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Andy - you have an email regarding this, that may be of importance regarding the subject Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 16, 2012 Andy, I would be inclined to offer people options when uploading images so uploader can decide whether the image is covered by a creative commons licence or otherwise. I don't know how possible this would be and do recognise that it might slow the upload of images but it would allow choice rather than a one size fits all approach. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 Andy - you have an email regarding this, that may be of importance regarding the subject Jack's email highlighted the recent U.S. legislation SOPA - Stop Online Piracy Act - http://en.wikipedia....line_Piracy_Act I looked into this late last year and I'm reasonably comfortable that we do not place ourselves in a position which is likely to have any negative impact upon us. In fact I support the overall intent behind it. Sites which facilitate or otherwise encourage and enable the use of copied or pirated content are likely to get targeted by large commercial enterprises particularly where it could be viewed that there would be a financial loss to the owner of the intellectual property. There's a lot of hysteria around about it and claims that it doesn't allow internet users to do just as they please in terms of copying and distribution. If you listen to some folk it's the end of the internet or for some the end of the world which is just plain silly. We take an ethical stance to copyright and maybe it has to be a little more strictly policed if things ever got silly but I think many people are getting hung up on theory and technicality rather than practicality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 Andy, I would be inclined to offer people options when uploading images so uploader can decide whether the image is covered by a creative commons licence or otherwise. I don't know how possible this would be and do recognise that it might slow the upload of images but it would allow choice rather than a one size fits all approach. That's sensible Kris, it's not currently possible with the scripts and modules available but I think it's worth me exploring with script writers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 most watermarks can be removed and so are ineffective - other than if they contain the contact info of the copyright owner (eg email) they do give the user the chance of contacting to ask for/pay for permission to use. This inability to contact the copyright owner (often misread as unwillingness) is the biggest problem. Finding out who owns an image - especially on the internet is a near impossible task as the server owner very often has no connection to the image and, as I have found, doesn't care to reveal that information. Often in the offending site there is a great reluctance to post a direct live link to an image on another site. The site may be of an unknown quality and direct linking may mislead or at least misdirect users. Simple image links without the originating server owner's permission is simple bandwidth "theft" and as we see even with the ilk of Fotopic sites this tends to get blocked after a while. I also think there is a range of views on the subject. Many (me included) probably don't give a damn if their images posted on RMWeb get "published" elsewhere. 1) I don't think my images are of any value 2) I'd be just flattered if anyone thought they would 3) some credit is nice for the ego but monetary reward is not what I care about. However, I do recognise that there are a whole range of images posted here from the simple snap to some really class work and I could see that objection to having something "published" elsewhere and used to obtain clear financial benefit for the "thief". Would it perhaps be possible (I know it is but not necessarily with this software) to add a simple tag line showing the copyright category (as in Wikepedia) eg. creative commons, etc? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 16, 2012 If it needs exploring with the script writers Andy possibly putting an option on to a users profile for a default setting for image uploads would save time then allowing you to go in and change the ones that you uploaded to the appropriate setting should this be required. The general upload process could go something along the lines. Click upload button > warning message your default image setting will make this image open to copying by all / you will retain full rights to this image and no copying or use will be allowed. To change this to xxxx for this image click here. To change your default upload setting go to your profile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Of course that is fine for uploaded image - but not all images are uploaded to the RMWeb Server and are simply linked using the [img=http...someimage.jpg] bbcode tags. Perhaps some form of declaration in the user profile ... but that presumes that the "thief" is going to be bothered to contact/PM the user. Users also need to be aware that the images can be automatically "farmed" from the site (a simple script on another site walking through RMWeb collecting all images from pages) This is done by Google (and others) for its image link database. The image itself is not copied but the url of the image is. So the thief may never have even visited RMWeb just "discovered" the image in a Google image search Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Andy - the thought behind the email re SOPA was that the server is hosted on the other side of the pond rather than the UK, thus enabling some malcontent to get it closed down more easily than they might be able to do in UK. It will be even more reason for posters to make sure that their postings are not copyright elsewhere before posting. I know that you and the Mods do a very good job of policing content, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerbread Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I don't wish to be excessively pedantic, or unhelpful, but I think both of the last two posts are potentially wrong/misleading: "It will be even more reason for posters to make sure that their postings are not copyright elsewhere before posting" 'Do you wish to add copyright' I believe that the situation is as follows: 1. Virtually all pictures posted here, and longer text postings, are substantial enough to automatically be covered by copyright. There is no need to "add copyright" (unless I misunderstand the intention of that post). 2. There is clearly no problem with posting material to which you hold the copyright. Normally you will own the copyright of photographs you have taken, but if you have taken a photograph of a subject which is itself copyrighted (e.g. a book in recent discussions) then your photograph is a derivative work, and the copyright of the original also applies. 3. Some work will be out of copyright - but this is complicated to determine, and copyright generally lasts such a long time that such cases won't be very frequent here. 4. If you don't hold the copyright to the work you are posting, then you should obtain permission. As Kris has referred to earlier in the thread, some works are published under licences like Creative Commons which permit reuse (but make sure you comply with whatever restrictions the licence imposes). Alternatively you should find the copyright holder, and obtain his permission. Again this has been mentioned earlier, in particular the problem of "orphan works" where there is no obvious holder of the copyright to contact. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 I had an instance yesterday (not for the first time) where images from the site had been copied by a user on another site and uploaded to their server. There wasn't anything malicious in this as such but it was theft of images taken by and uploaded to this site by users. I have written to the site's administrator which will have hopefully got through and be understood as it is a non-English language site just asking that the uploaded images be replaced with a link to the image locations on this site. This has been speedily and effectively resolved thanks to an on-the-ball administrator of the site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 One point that often gets overlooked in copyright discussions is that many copyright holders are more than willing to give permission for the use of their material for no charge but merely ask that their copyright is acknowledged. There often seems to be an assumption by copyright abusers that they should automatically have the right to take someone else's copyright because they are expecting to have to pay for it if they acually ask. In many ways it is the loss of 'old fashioned' 'good manners' that has obscured the simple fact that it is just polite to ask before using someone else's intellectual rights and equally so to acknowledge that fact by referring to it when reproducing the photo/facts. Sadly, the fear of legal redress, the compensation culture and the everything for free attitude has simply made things so unpleasant these days. JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/16/sopa-shelved-obama-piracy-legislation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted January 18, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 18, 2012 http://www.guardian....acy-legislation Also just noticed wikipedia is to have a blackout: see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lyneux Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 The recent "Model Railway Challenge" thread makes a mockery of the rules stated at the top of this thread. Is it one rule for pictures of trains and another for all other photography subjects? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted February 17, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 17, 2018 The recent "Model Railway Challenge" thread makes a mockery of the rules stated at the top of this thread. Why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chriswright03 Posted February 17, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 17, 2018 Not only why but if you saw a problem why not report it to the Admin? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lyneux Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 Why?Because the forum rules state: 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. There are a vast number of images posted on the thread that blatentently infringe copyright including by admins of the forum. All this seems to say is: it's ok to infringe copyright as long as you're having a laugh with your mates. Personally I'm not that bothered, if you put something on the internet: expect it to get copied. It's the double-standards that bother me. Maybe I just need to get over it? Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.