Use of images from RMweb

[buffalo]

I'm slightly confused by this apparent issue...

...I'm mystified by the assertion that asking for permission is necessary - it may be polite (and you'd have my full backing there) but for educational purposes it's not necessary (as I was taught to understand it).

Simon,

You've more or less answered your own question. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act makes specific provision for "fair dealing"¹ in the cases of education, research, criticism, review and news reporting. Beyond these quite tightly defined cases, publishing or circulating copies of copyright material is invariably a breach of the author's, creator's, or original publisher's copyright unless they have granted specific permission for your re-use.

 

Nick

 

¹ for links to the Act and definitions of fair dealing, see my and others earlier posts

[S.A.C Martin]

Simon,

You've more or less answered your own question. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act makes specific provision for "fair dealing"¹ in the cases of education, research, criticism, review and news reporting. Beyond these quite tightly defined cases, publishing or circulating copies of copyright material is invariably a breach of the author's, creator's, or original publisher's copyright unless they have granted specific permission for your re-use.

 

Nick

 

¹ for links to the Act and definitions of fair dealing, see my and others earlier posts

 

Thanks Nick - I thought I was perhaps mis-remembering what I had been taught. I'll go back and re-read your posts now.

[Andy Y]

but for educational purposes it's not necessary (as I was taught to understand it).

 

TBH I'm not sure what caveats, restrictions or relaxations relate to educational use but that's largely irrelevant in our context as taking the images belonging to others and publishing or re-publishing them without consent is clearly in breach of copyright law. Whether it's a book, magazine or website it's all publishing. I'm sure if an article written as part of a thesis were to be published (as opposed to internally circulated) it would have to abide by the same legislation.

 

On a wider note I never stated that hotlinking images from elsewhere (without consent) was copyright theft, I just said it shouldn't be done (for reasons of courtesy and use of others' hosting resources) - that's a site rule.

[beast66606]

Hi beast,

 

I assure you I did read every word you wrote. But I can only reply to the parts I understand. I don't understand the point you are making or the words "anything a well-known magazine (within the forum)". Your phrase seems to have some words missing. And which forum? Which magazine? How can a magazine be "within" a forum?

 

If I've offended you in some way I'm sorry, but I don't understand in what way I've done that or what you are asking me.

 

I can make your words make sense if I change "anything" to "do anything in support of", but I'm not sure if that was your intent, or if the "anything" is the thing being promoted or advertised.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

I thought it was obvious but ...

 

If the magazine Fido (to continue with the made up name and contrived story) had an area in the forum which was discussing the current issue and the magazine contained some photographs of 60s on Liverpool coal workings, I would NOT want my photos using by someone saying "Buy this issue, it contains photos of Liverpool coal and here's an example of one such working" - and then use my photo (even if it was correctly attributed) to illustrate it, I would not be happy, my photo is promoting a magazine I do not support, within the context of the forum.

 

This also answers S.A.C Martins question

 

If of course someone is deliberately using images and passing them off as their own, then there is a problem, but if images and text is fully and properly accredited under copyright, what is the problem?

 

The problem is using my (in this case) images to promote something which I do not support.

 

For (another ) example :-

 

If I were to start a posting about dodgy books with hidden meanings which should be banned and use "The B...... R...... Stories" logo in this posting, I'm sure there would be an outcry from the author, so what's the difference ? - I'm not passing the logo off as mine, I can fully accredit it - but the context is not what the owner wants (Notice that I've not even mentioned the full title here as search engines will index things and make connections which aren't always desirable)

 

I'm not making this point again, for information any of my images retain my copyright, there is no implied permission to use them anywhere on this site without asking me first.

[martin_wynne]

On a wider note I never stated that hotlinking images from elsewhere (without consent) was copyright theft, I just said it shouldn't be done (for reasons of courtesy and use of others' hosting resources) - that's a site rule.

 

Hi Andy,

 

Could you clarify the rules about hot-linking within RMweb. If I post this without asking you first, have I broken the rules:

 

------------------------

 

Andy Y posted this great photo of the Dartmoor scene at Pendon (at http://www.rmweb.co....hs/#entry760103 ). Can anyone confirm that such a heavy locomotive would have been permitted over a timber viaduct?

 

 

----------------------

 

It's fairly clear that copyright doesn't come into it -- it is hot-linked from the existing uploaded file. But what about RMweb's own rules?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Miss Prism]

Martin has beaten me to the same question, but we also need to clarify any hotlinking etiquette in connection with the RMweb archive forum.

[Andy Y]

Personally (meaning for my posted content) I'd have no problem in such a posting within RMweb, however if someone re-used it (within RMweb) and said "I wouldn't go to Pendon as they don't have diesels, just look at this rubbish" I'd probably take exception to it. I'm just trying to provide a framework which gives sensible levels of protection to contributors and their material.

 

Personally (meaning for my posted content) I wouldn't have a problem with anyone posting that outside RMweb providing a) permission was requested and b.) it was a site or user I have time for.

[buffalo]

TBH I'm not sure what caveats, restrictions or relaxations relate to educational use but that's largely irrelevant in our context...

Quite so, there is no way that RMweb can be considered under these very specific provisions in the Act. Meil's point about the criticism and review provisions may have merit in some specific cases, though I very much doubt that it would provide blanket cover for all posts.

 

On a wider note I never stated that hotlinking images from elsewhere (without consent) was copyright theft, I just said it shouldn't be done (for reasons of courtesy and use of others' hosting resources) - that's a site rule.

Whilst others have pointed out that hotlinking has been tested under other jurisdictions and I think there is a reasonably probability that a similar outcome might result from a test case in the UK¹, this seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable and safe restriction to impose on the site. After all, as 'publishers', you and Warners could be liable if a UK court found otherwise.

 

Nick

 

¹ based on arguments using the provisions for 'temporary copies' transmitted over a network (e.g. section 28A) and the fact that the assembly of the page takes place on the user's machine, not on the publishers' server.

[martin_wynne]

If the magazine Fido (to continue with the made up name and contrived story) had an area in the forum which was discussing the current issue and the magazine contained some photographs of 60s on Liverpool coal workings, I would NOT want my photos using by someone saying "Buy this issue, it contains photos of Liverpool coal and here's an example of one such working" - and then use my photo (even if it was correctly attributed) to illustrate it, I would not be happy, my photo is promoting a magazine I do not support, within the context of the forum.

 

Hi beast,

 

That does seem to be an incredibly contrived situation. But if it did happen and you were not happy about it, the Mods would surely respond to your request for it to be edited out. And if not, as a final resort you could delete the original image from the forum, thus breaking the hot-link. You could then re-post your image if you wished, under a new attachment ID.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[S.A.C Martin]

If I were to start a posting about dodgy books with hidden meanings which should be banned and use "The B...... R...... Stories" logo in this posting, I'm sure there would be an outcry from the author, so what's the difference ? - I'm not passing the logo off as mine, I can fully accredit it - but the context is not what the owner wants (Notice that I've not even mentioned the full title here as search engines will index things and make connections which aren't always desirable)

 

I'm not making this point again, for information any of my images retain my copyright, there is no implied permission to use them anywhere on this site without asking me first.

 

Hidden meanings? I sincerely hope not!

 

But whilst I appreciate what you are saying, the context is more or less irrelevant. If someone posts a review of my book online and uses the logo, it's covered under...

 

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act makes specific provision for "fair dealing"¹ in the cases of education, research, criticism, review and news reporting.

 

...as Nick (Buffalo) stated above in this thread.

 

Whether or not it's a good review or a bad one is immaterial. This is how all review sites, TV/Film review programs and newspapers work in this country.

 

Andy - many university publications aren't always internal. It's for precisely that reason and to prevent plagiarism that the accreditation system is in place (or so I believed? I may be wrong).

 

I wonder if what is being argued here is not so much copyright itself and infringement but the principle of a magazine using the work shown by contributors (freely) on the website they now own, in order to sell the magazine.

 

It has been said by Andy on many a time that "all images on RMweb remain the copyright of the individual"; then the magazine must ask for the copyright owner's permission to use them. If they haven't, then it's copyright infringement and I quite agree with you Beast.

 

If it's a product which has been produced for review - such as my book - with logo/book cover attached to an article (with or without my "permission") that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Edited August 16, 2012 by S.A.C Martin

[Captain Kernow]

I'm still confused, sorry. Not that this should be so surprising, but there you go.

 

If I was to post the following, would it be legal/permissable? -

 

 

 

'I've been researching the 0-10-0T rack locomotives of the Greater Dartmoor Junction Railway, and have found some really good images on Ebeneezer Higginbottam's site here - www.Ebeneezersphotos_Dartmoor_rack_locos.co.uk'

 

 

 

Surely the above is simply drawing the attention of other interested parties to the existence of some interesting images on the internet?

 

Surely the above is little different from saying 'there are some really good images of Dartmoor rack locos in 'An Illustrated History of the Greater Dartmoor Junction Railway' published by Wild Duck Publications'.......??

[martin_wynne]

Personally (meaning for my posted content) I'd have no problem in such a posting within RMweb, however if someone re-used it (within RMweb) and said "I wouldn't go to Pendon as they don't have diesels, just look at this rubbish" I'd probably take exception to it.

 

Thanks, Andy, but that would surely apply with equal force whether the image was hot-linked or a simple page link was posted?

 

It would surely kill topics dead if before referring to someone else's content it is necessary to contact them, quote the context in which you would be using it, and wait for a reply?

 

In the above situation, surely the normal response would be to post a strong rebuttal, rather than say a rule has been broken by using the image without permission?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Andy Y]

I wonder if what is being argued here is not so much copyright itself and infringement but the principle of a magazine using the work shown by contributors (freely) on the website they now own, in order to sell the magazine.

 

That's not what Beast is referring to and I don't think anyone has raised that either within this topic but now it's been raised I have to give the assurance that any part of Warners won't just be helping themselves to contributors' content in any form. The same rules apply where contributors would be approached if they were interested in publishing any content in BRM or on MRL for example, it is all above board. Yes, 'we' do approach folk about possible articles from talent spotted here but so do other publishers.

[buffalo]

...If I was to post the following, would it be legal/permissable? ...

Yes, that would be fine. What is in question here is the various ways by which you might include one or more of Ebeneezer Higginbottam's photos so that it was directly visible in your post without seeking his permission.

 

Nick

[Andy Y]

I'm still confused, sorry. Not that this should be so surprising, but there you go.

 

If I was to post the following, would it be legal/permissable? -

 

 

 

'I've been researching the 0-10-0T rack locomotives of the Greater Dartmoor Junction Railway, and have found some really good images on Ebeneezer Higginbottam's site here - www.Ebeneezersphotos_Dartmoor_rack_locos.co.uk'

 

 

 

Surely the above is simply drawing the attention of other interested parties to the existence of some interesting images on the internet?

 

Surely the above is little different from saying 'there are some really good images of Dartmoor rack locos in 'An Illustrated History of the Greater Dartmoor Junction Railway' published by Wild Duck Publications'.......??

 

Absolutely fine, no problem with that and permission wouldn't need to be sought in such circumstances.

[S.A.C Martin]

That's not what Beast is referring to and I don't think anyone has raised that either within this topic but now it's been raised I have to give the assurance that any part of Warners won't just be helping themselves to contributors' content in any form. The same rules apply where contributors would be approached if they were interested in publishing any content in BRM or on MRL for example, it is all above board. Yes, 'we' do approach folk about possible articles from talent spotted here but so do other publishers.

 

You'll forgive me I hope Andy (and Beast, and Warners, with my apologies), but that's how I was reading it.

 

That being the case, I am now slightly stumped by what the problem is (again). Sorry. I'll let myself out.

[Captain Kernow]

Absolutely fine, no problem with that and permission wouldn't need to be sought in such circumstances.

 

Yes, that would be fine. What is in question here is the various ways by which you might include one or more of Ebeneezer Higginbottam's photos so that it was directly visible in your post without seeking his permission.

 

Thanks both, that's what I always thought was the case. It all revolves around the unauthorised reproduction of someone else's image then...

[Andy Y]

Thanks, Andy, but that would surely apply with equal force whether the image was hot-linked or a simple page link was posted?

 

It would surely kill topics dead if before referring to someone else's content it is necessary to contact them, quote the context in which you would be using it, and wait for a reply?

 

In the above situation, surely the normal response would be to post a strong rebuttal, rather than say a rule has been broken by using the image without permission?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Where's the banging the head against the wall smiley?

 

As has already been said just post a link rather than use the image if you haven't got time to do so.

 

There's nothing wrong in reserving the right to have an image removed if it's taken out of context or used inappropriately. I'd probably go and do both.

[Kenton]

Once again we have a topic on copyright issues that has sadly sunk - like they all seem to do - into a slanging match on the extremes of the subject.

 

So before the inevitable locking of topic - one last thought:

 

Sadly the subject is confusing for everyone and probably the vast majority of people on the web do not appreciate the fine nuances of it and for that matter do not really understand what is happening on their PC when they download an image or text. Even the term "hotlinking" itself is confusing and probably not understood. It is bad enough understanding a plain link to another site without hotlinking and even iframing other content. All of that added to what most people see as a public, open and free information highway.

 

Is that why nothing is ever done the way some would like it and perhaps the way it should be - most people have switched off by this stage?

[Godders]

 

'I've been researching the 0-10-0T rack locomotives of the Greater Dartmoor Junction Railway, and have found some really good images on Ebeneezer Higginbottam's site here - www.Ebeneezersphotos_Dartmoor_rack_locos.co.uk'

 

 

 

I was quite looking forward to this but the link appears to be broken - perhaps a hotlink would be better???

 

Cheers Godders

[Guest jim s-w]

The irony of this whole discussion is that Martin only ever partakes in these types of topics where he can stir and wind people up. Its a rare event indeed that he ever posts anything in the actual modelling topics where you might want to include a picture.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[martin_wynne]

The irony of this whole discussion is that Martin only ever partakes in these types of topics where he can stir and wind people up. Its a rare event indeed that he ever posts anything in the actual modelling topics where you might want to include a picture.

 

Personal abuse is no response to a discussion.

[Guest jim s-w]

Its not abuse Martin, its the impression you give. Rightly or wrongly, but only you can do something about it i'm afraid (should you choose to, you dont have to of course). As you know I am on several forums that you are and I rarely see any modelling contributions, perhaps i'm not looking in the right places?

 

I certainly cant remember you ever linking to any pictures for the purpose of discussion or assistance to the OP.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited August 16, 2012 by jim s-w

[lyneux]

Sadly the subject is confusing for everyone and probably the vast majority of people on the web do not appreciate the fine nuances of it and for that matter do not really understand what is happening on their PC when they download an image or text.

 

It's simple! For images, the following is the situation:

 

1) Inline linking of images (hot-linking)

UK LEGAL POSITION - Probably permissible but no test case to date. Test cases in Germany and USA say it's legal.

RMWEB POSITION - Only do it if permission has been granted in advance (e.g. Flickr, Smugmug etc) otherwise contact the copyright owner before doing it.

 

2) Copying images from one website to another website (e.g. flickr to rmweb)

UK LEGAL POSITION - Illegal without permission from the copyright owner.

RMWEB POSITION - Contact the copyright owner to get permission before doing it.

Edited August 16, 2012 by lyneux

[Mod5]

Knowing how against locking of threads Martin is I shall leave this one open as he seems to be intent on having his say. Tempting though it is to lock it I believe there is some arguments (no pun intended) for leaving it open as it was started by Andy to address an issue that had arisen recently on more than one occasion.

 

Now in order to get back to the topic do you think that you two (Jim and Martin) can move on from all of this arguing as it is obvious that you both see it from very different sides and are not going to agree?