Use of images from RMweb

[beast66606]

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.

 

You took it too literally (in applying copyright to your logo), the essence is the context of the reuse might be something that the owner (me) does not want to support.

 

I'll try one more simple example, I would not want my picture of a male roe deer (here) being used, on the forum, to promote blood sports (I know that wouldn't happen but I'm trying to demonstrate the point)

[Guest jim s-w]

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?

 

Certainly. No problem at all.

 

Jim

[Miss Prism]

I saw the purpose of this thread as being a useful and timely attempt to formulate some rules regarding RMweb imagery, and I think a lot of good progress has been made. Taking up Kenton's point though, a criticism I have of RMweb is that finding such rules involves wading through long threads like this, with its inevitable diversions into arcane territory.

 

I hope this thread will not be locked until the concise version of the new rules, or at least a draft of them, has become available.

[S.A.C Martin]

You took it too literally (in applying copyright to your logo), the essence is the context of the reuse might be something that the owner (me) does not want to support.

 

I'll try one more simple example, I would not want my picture of a male roe deer (here) being used, on the forum, to promote blood sports (I know that wouldn't happen but I'm trying to demonstrate the point)

 

Fair enough Beast, point taken

[Kenton]

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

 

Thank you, but I was not really asking for any more clarification. I was just trying to point out that the vast majority of people have probably turned off on this issue from post 1 onwards ether not understanding the technical terms or from knowing to well the usual debates from previous topics belaboring the subject.

 

Fine for a policy statement on RMWeb's position - done in the first post, becoming progressively muddled later. But lets face it folk you are never going to control the internet and all its misuse from here. What happens elsewhere is beyond your control and probably beyond your influence.

 

I've often wondered how many press ctrl+s when viewing a page on the internet, just because your browser lets you - and what does it matter you have a copy in your PC cache anyway. But let's not go there.

I hope this thread will not be locked until the concise version of the new rules, or at least a draft of them, has become available.

 

Just to pick up the last point I don't see these as new rules just a restating of what has always been RMWeb policy. I don't see anything new in the OP. I cannot see anything in it that changes what I do, have been doing, but is worth the restatement following the current drift and a few mistakes. There is a big risk of becoming a bit too @*** on this subject, which passes most by.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Kenton

[martin_wynne]

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

 

Just one recent example: http://www.rmweb.co....de/#entry754412

 

Not merely a hot-link, but a clear violation of the owner's copyright. For which he thanked me.

 

If you look in topics related to track and infrastructure you will find many contributions from me. However, I know next to nothing about the trains (except that they wear out the track), so I don't post in such topics.

 

I don't understand why you now want to discuss my modelling posts instead of the actual subject? My posts in this topic are either right, wrong, or the ravings of a lunatic. What I have written or not written about modelling topics elsewhere doesn't change that in the slightest.

 

And in response to Mod5's request, that's it. Since we were already on-topic I don't see any way to "move on" to something else.

 

But I do hate Marmite.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[meil]

Just one recent example: http://www.rmweb.co....de/#entry754412

 

Not merely a hot-link, but a clear violation of the owner's copyright. For which he thanked me.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

No it isn't because it falls within the scope of section 30 of the DCA.

[billbedford]

I've already addressed this point but you have chosen to ignore it, I do NOT want my images used to promote / support / advertise / anything a well known magazine (within the forum), I care not if they are clearly identified as mine I DO NOT WANT THEM USED FOR THAT PURPOSE, as I'm the (copyrght) owner of them I can make that choice - NOT YOU (or anyone else who chooses to use my images). If you were to ask me "Could I use your images?" the answer would be yes in most cases, if you were to ask me "Could I use your images to support a thread about Fido*?" the answer would be no, as it would if you were to ask for any information to help an individual on here (who has well and truly queed his pitch) or a certain group of Strike it Lucky modellers the answer would be NO - that is MY CHOICE and MY CHOICE ALONE - it is not down to you to decide it is down to ME.

 

....and Canute still got his feet wet.

[beast66606]

....and Canute still got his feet wet.

 

Great answer Bill, must have taken hours to think that through, thanks for such a valued contribution to the thread, it's all clear now.

 

Whenever we have guidelines / legislation / whatever that some people choose to ignore we should accept that and allow them to do whatever they want, and s0d everyone else ? - ever thought of working in a certain Your a peeing court ?

[lyneux]

No it isn't because it falls within the scope of section 30 of the DCA.

 

I'm not sure that it does, as he is not criticising or reviewing the photograph, rather the subject of the photograph.

 

Surely Martin's annotated photograph is an adaptation and thus an infringement within the scope of section 21? Although he might be let off the hook by section 32 as he has provided the image for the purposes of instruction on a non-commercial basis.

Edited August 17, 2012 by lyneux

[martin_wynne]

I'm not sure that it does, as he is not criticising or reviewing the photograph, rather the subject of the photograph.

 

Surely Martin's annotated photograph is an adaptation and thus an infringement within the scope of section 21? Although he might be let off the hook by section 32 as he has provided the image for the purposes of instruction on a non-commercial basis.

 

I'm glad it's all so simple.

 

I think I was let off the hook when the owner CK clicked the Like button. Whether the law has caught up with Like buttons is less clear.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[meil]

I'm not sure that it does, as he is not criticising or reviewing the photograph, rather the subject of the photograph.

 

Surely Martin's annotated photograph is an adaptation and thus an infringement within the scope of section 21? Although he might be let off the hook by section 32 as he has provided the image for the purposes of instruction on a non-commercial basis.

 

section 21 does not cover artistic works. The section deals with adaption of performance type works.

 

by the way interesting use of Amey Roadstone's logo!

Edited August 17, 2012 by meil

[billbedford]

Whenever we have guidelines / legislation / whatever that some people choose to ignore we should accept that and allow them to do whatever they want, and s0d everyone else ?

 

That's the way the world has always worked, people have their own innate moral code which may or may not coincide with laws as they are written. It's naive to believe otherwise.

 

What is interesting about this whole debate is that people who go to great lengths to protect their physical property, locking doors, maintaining fences, not leaving things unattended in public etc., rely on a vaguely written law with few practical sanctions to protect their internet presence. The bottom line has to be that, unless people take strenuous efforts to prevent online copying, they lose control of of their image or writing as soon as it is uploaded. To be completely safe and retain full control over your work the best advice would be not to put it on the internet at all.

Edited August 17, 2012 by billbedford

[Revolution Mike]

The bottom line has to be that, unless people take strenuous efforts to prevent online copying, they lose control of of their image or writing as soon as it is uploaded. To be completely safe and retain full control over your work the best advice would be not to put it on the internet at all.

 

True, but then if that convinces people not to bother uploading material because users can't be bothered to respect the owner's wishes then we are all the poorer...

 

Is it really that difficult to show someone the courtesy of asking people if it is OK to use their material?

[beast66606]

True, but then if that convinces people not to bother uploading material because users can't be bothered to respect the owner's wishes then we are all the poorer...

 

Is it really that difficult to show someone the courtesy of asking people if it is OK to use their material?

 

Exactly.

 

Perhaps it's telling that those who seem to have the "Live with it" attitude do not post many / any photos of their own.

 

 

What do you think ?

[Kenton]

Whenever we have guidelines / legislation / whatever that some people choose to ignore we should accept that and allow them to do whatever they want, and s0d everyone else ? - ever thought of working in a certain Your a peeing court ?

 

I don't see it that way. I must have missed it in the last 6 pages (:sigh:), but I don't recall anyone on here advocating a flouting of the law (that few understand - accepted no defense) which it is clear is playing catchup with what TBH is now old media (the internet). True there seems to be much misunderstanding but I don't see anyone saying Andy's rules (which are not new - simply a restatement) should be deliberately flouted.

 

While I have sympathy (and agree) that if you choose to post an image you own on RMWeb that it should not be used on any other site without your consent either through a hotlink from that site or :no: copying and hosted from that other site. There cannot be restriction on linking to the original topic here (even if it includes the photo) as that is in the same context as you posted it. That is just the way the web works. Plain weblinks are not even accredited.

 

The other thing that is simply unavoidable is the downloading of that image to any browser selecting it for view. Something you must accept simply by choosing to publicly post the image here in the first place. If Joe Public then chooses to continue viewing the image on their PC you are never going to know or have control over (unless you drop some self destruct code inside the image).

 

So what really comes to play here is what Joe Public does with the image once he has downloaded it. Sharing viewing on his PC perhaps, forwarding a weblink to the topic/image - none of which presents any copyright issue and is well beyond any control. Even sending thee image between friends is impossible to control, even though it shouldn't be done. But that is where it gets out of the bag. With that impossible to control distribution along with the many 'bots that scurry round the web for any image and it is only one short step before an image is on another site. That is only made worse where the image gets hosted under different jurisdictions and copyright laws.

 

As I mentioned earlier (or on one of the many rounds of "copyright" topics. I was involved in one site and still am with another regularly receiving images to add to the content. In every case we seek permission, in many cases we get an email back from the sender saying they own the copyright, but even after that there is no proof and on one occasion we were threatened by someone who claimed to really own it - in the end we simply removed all content to a private area. It is a pity as in nearly every case when asked the "owner" has given permission. The problem though still exists in identifying and then contacting the owner. If someone send me your photo unless you have contact details emblazened across it how do I know? How do I even credit you let alone make it worth your while with a payment?

[Kenton]

Exactly.

 

Perhaps it's telling that those who seem to have the "Live with it" attitude do not post many / any photos of their own.

 

 

What do you think ?

 

Nice example "do not post many / any photos of their own" ? more like (as in my case) don't have many worth posting - or (also in my case) simply do not care, never considering my photographs as a source of income or contest.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Kenton

[beast66606]

You have missed the point I've made Kenton, I've only made it several times already but never mind

 

I upload photos to here and it is the use ON HERE that I expect people to respect.

 

I know that people will download my photos and use them for whatever purposes and short of pursuing the whole world I cannot stop that, and I am aware that as soon as my photos are on the web they are fair game - HOWEVER I do expect fellow forum members to respect my wishes to be ASKED before my photos are reused on HERE or if they link to them from another site.

 

Don't let my repeated statement of ON THE FORUM stop you posting about everything else though, just don't quote me as though that's what I'm saying.

 

Do you now realise that I am talking about ON THE FORUM ? I've only said it 4 times in THIS thread.

 

:banghead: :banghead:

[Andy Y]

people have their own innate moral code which may or may not coincide with laws as they are written.

 

And that's precisely what gave rise to this topic; a minority who do as they please and stuff everyone else as long as they can do what they want.

 

It's naive to believe otherwise.

 

Of course I believe that a minority take liberties but it doesn't stop me being inclined to support the majority those who support the site through interesting content. An indifference to or acceptance of poor behaviour is a one way street.

[Kenton]

Sorry beast66606 - I have not read ALL 6 pages - I did say I tire of these repeated arguments on RMWeb and find it hard to pick out some of the specifics from the one on one arguments that always arise.

 

But you will be pleased to know I now understand your point. I think

 

However I do not understand quite where it leads.

 

If I start a new post and quote your post which happens to contain one of your images. Maybe to ask a question about a detail. Do I now have to ask your permission to make that quote inside my post? Also by posting that same post asking permission (unless I use the PM system) am I also breaking that rule? It all of a sudden seems a very strange forum if we keep having to PM each other to simply ask if we can quote each other. I don't think that direct quoting is covered by copyright.

 

No problem in theory with asking permission to use your images elsewhere - which is covered - though accepted can be difficult.

 

Another example: if you had posted an image of a 16t (I have recently posted to that thread and given a direct link back to another post containing images) on this site -- if those had been your images then would I still require your permission to link back to them from a different topic? Especially as the actual context may have changed? This constant requesting to gain permission to link within the forum seems to be destructive of the way this forum and its goodwill has worked for so long. Note I can appreciate accrediting as a given if just hotlinking an image within the site but knowing who and when we have to ask permission between members suddenly seems beyond reason.

 

Edited several times to make sense of myself!

Edited August 17, 2012 by Kenton

[martin_wynne]

I upload photos to here and it is the use ON HERE that I expect people to respect.

 

Hi beast,

 

The question I would ask is WHY do you upload them to a communal web site if you are then going to complain when the community makes communal use of them?

 

Why not upload them to your OWN web site? They are then without dispute for your own sole use unless you give permission to the contrary. You could easily hot-link them to here if you wish.

 

I do believe that uploading content to a communal site is making a statement about that content's availability as a contribution to the community. Otherwise it is reasonable to ask why you would upload it there instead of to your own web site. Why expect Andy/Warners to host your images free of charge if you want to retain full control of them?

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Andy Y]

There's no need to contact another member to quote a post.

 

I did disable repetition of images within quotes a while back:

 

1) To speed up page loading

2) So that readers didn't have scroll through the same content

 

It also negates the point about quoting and imagery.

 

Linking to internal or external content doesn't need consent.

[Andy Y]

I do believe that uploading content to a communal site is making a statement about that content's availability as a contribution to the community.

 

 

It's only about making it possible to read or view material, there's no inference anywhere that the material is for copying and onward publication.

 

Why expect Andy/Warners to host your images free of charge if you want to retain full control of them?

 

Because we don't permit copying and onward publication; nor do I or we abuse material that has been lodged here and it's placing material in context for the convenience/benefit of the reader.

[Kenton]

Linking to internal or external content doesn't need consent.

 

But that is not what was very clearly and pointedly stated in beast66606's post #144 above.

 

Andy, I am also sure you are aware that the image text in the quote is still visible by simply clicking on the text (image opens in a new tab). So while it stops multiple images appearing in the same topic it still breaks beast66606's rules on making his images visible without his permission - they are still potentially out of context and quoted without his permission.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Kenton

[Revolution Mike]

The question I would ask is WHY do you upload them to a communal web site if you are then going to complain when the community makes communal use of them?

 

Why not upload them to your OWN web site? They are then without dispute for your own sole use unless you give permission to the contrary. You could easily hot-link them to here if you wish.

 

Does Beast's motivation really matter? The point is that it is his choice to make. He can quite reasonably put them up for information and leave it at that ie not wish them to be used further - the initial posting is still beneficial to the community.

 

I do believe that uploading content to a communal site is making a statement about that content's availability as a contribution to the community. Otherwise it is reasonable to ask why you would upload it there instead of to your own web site. Why expect Andy/Warners to host your images free of charge if you want to retain full control of them?

 

You might believe it makes a statement but unless there is an explicit statement granting an effective license for reuse then your belief is unfounded. On your second point, as mentioned because the community (and by inference Andy and Warners) still benefit from that content being available (even if not reusable in different contexts).