Xerces Fobe2 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Like of it not technology has wiped at copyright protection of all on-line content. Still It is nice to see the quaint spirit of King Canute is alive and well in the UK. XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Nigel, One day you'll be grateful for Copyright Protection. Many, many people rely on it to protect their intellectual property like musicians, actors, artists, photographers, writers, journalists, composers, dancers, arrangers, games designers, graphic artists, website designers, etc., etc. It's their source of income to pay the rent or mortgage, to provide for their families and keep them off that other old quaint device - the breadline. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 From http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/30/orphan-works-copyright A government appointed body, it seems. Paul So I guess the question is now, how much do you trust the government and their agents. I know where I stand on that matter! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Nigel, One day you'll be grateful for Copyright Protection. Many, many people rely on it to protect their intellectual property like musicians, actors, artists, photographers, writers, journalists, composers, dancers, arrangers, games designers, graphic artists, website designers, etc., etc. It's their source of income to pay the rent or mortgage, to provide for their families and keep them off that other old quaint device - the breadline. Best, Pete. Pete I see your point however the precedent is there - iTunes Match is a very good example where pirated music is allowed! http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/itunes-match-legitimising-your-illegal-music-collection/10555 The rumors are that Apple dis a deal with the music companies that get a chunk of the annual, however not bad value if you have 25000 pirated tracks that are replaced which are replaced with higher quality versions. This puts copyright photo issue in to the shadows somewhat. Anyway I pop out tonight and take a superb to quality photo of Tornado storming through Maidenhead - How do you value and effectively protect it? Nigel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 How do you value and effectively protect it? You can only put a value on it when someone offers to buy the right to use it or ultimately the copyright. You protect it by not publishing it or offering it for use. ----- EXIF data is pretty useless as it can be edited and very easily removed from a photo. Pixel watermarking is quite a good tool (it is used to hide virus payloads in images very effectively) Though this technique is really only best applied to big image files TIFF/BMP etc as it too can be filtered out of jpeg and other compressed formats. Finfing originators of images is actually very difficult. Where there is a web history a Google type search may be fruitful. But there is a bigger problem with images that have been published in old media then copied to the internet. (Like the many photos for sale on ebay and at shows that then get scanned to illustrate an online article) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 You can only put a value on it when someone offers to buy the right to use it or ultimately the copyright. You protect it by not publishing it or offering it for use. Nice one Kenton - The problem is that often the photographer thinks his photo is worth a lot of money and not what someone is prepared to pay for it . As soon as I see a photo or any other content is on my computer screen it potentially be mine too with watermarks etc present not much of a challenge either.- if I was so minded! How many people have scanned content from a magazine or book to help modelling project as this is still a copyright infringement? The interesting option is a damaged or poorly taken photo that someone repairs using Photoshop which is also a copyright infringement. XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Nigel, if someone is really out to get it they will probably succeed. It is the nature of the business that the good guys usually have to work reactively in an instance like that. It does no harm to put your name, date, time and location of your photo when you put it on somewhere like here. It helps to have the circled "c" and "p" and year of first publication - i have a new keyboard arrived today so have not worked it out yet - bluffing that you are backed with an array of lawyers often does the trick! If you ever do manage to license something put the onus on the licensee to protect your copyright during the term of your agreement (or get an agent). Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I guess this 'diligent search' is going to be the key. I did a quick experiment with the google image search and it failed to find the original from my site despite the copy having the same filename and the page it came from definately being indexed in google searches! Not especially impressed with that, so I hope their 'diligent searches' do amount to more than bunging a copy in Google... From the casual users point of view this seems to change nothing though - the rule is still that you can't use images without the owners permission - if you can't find an owner you go through an agency, and you can bet that they *will* charge you, whereas 'hobby' users will generally 'licence' images for free for not commercial use if asked nicely.... From 'hobby' users point of view the agency is likely to charge to license the image, so this is a long way from getting an 'everything on the internet is free' scenario which was concerning people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I guess this 'diligent search' is going to be the key. I did a quick experiment with the google image search and it failed to find the original from my site despite the copy having the same filename and the page it came from definately being indexed in google searches! Not especially impressed with that, so I hope their 'diligent searches' do amount to more than bunging a copy in Google... From the casual users point of view this seems to change nothing though - the rule is still that you can't use images without the owners permission - if you can't find an owner you go through an agency, and you can bet that they *will* charge you, whereas 'hobby' users will generally 'licence' images for free for not commercial use if asked nicely.... From 'hobby' users point of view the agency is likely to charge to license the image, so this is a long way from getting an 'everything on the internet is free' scenario which was concerning people. Martyn Am I correct in assuming that you are like me and do not have copies any other persons photo on your PC that you have not had permission for? I must admit my database of approval e-mails is nightmare to manage Nigel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 How many people have scanned content from a magazine or book to help modelling project as this is still a copyright infringement? The interesting option is a damaged or poorly taken photo that someone repairs using Photoshop which is also a copyright infringement.But is it? In reality, and I'll admit it openly, I have done just that, scanned an image from a book or copied an existing image from the net. Just for my personal research and not for publication (and never for profit). Although in the pure sense of copyright it is an infringement, in the spirit - it is not. It is just between me and my computer, no one else gets to see it and so no one else knows. To me it is just the same as me placing a mental image in my brain no one else gets to see it. A different angle is a web site that I run (with a couple of others) it contains many images most of which can be described as orphaned. Nearly all the images are "old" and have been submitted by visitors to the site. In each case we ask for ownership by the contributor or permission to publish in the same way as on RMWeb. But following an aggressive attack by the copyright "hounds" those images had to be removed. Doing due diligence is very time consuming and therefore costly for any site especially when under attack by the lesser beings. It only takes one contributor to claim a photo as permitted when it is not, to then fall foul of genuine grievance by the actual copyright holder. It is very difficult to obtain categorical proof of lack of ownership. End result is that all images are removed as handling the hassle is far more than the value in maintaining the site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Nigel - I don't see where you're going with this - the issue isn't about folk saving the occasional image onto their hard drive for their own personal research - that kind of thing is the reason why folk like me put images up on the web in the first place - even if for some reason you did want to enforce a ban on that then it's impossible to enforce it as browsers and search engines can both be saving copies of whatever is easily accessible... As long as the image was not overtly pay-per-use I wouldn't regard that as 'using an image' in the context of this discussion, even though it may be regarded so by technicality of law. The issue to me is about folk using those images publically - that might be in a commercial setting (on a company website, in a book, commercial magazine, brochure, or even a DVD cover...) - or it might be non-commercial - posting that on a personal website, a forum, or appearing in a society mag maybe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 But is it? In reality, and I'll admit it openly, I have done just that, scanned an image from a book or copied an existing image from the net. Just for my personal research and not for publication (and never for profit). Although in the pure sense of copyright it is an infringement, in the spirit - it is not. It is just between me and my computer, no one else gets to see it and so no one else knows. To me it is just the same as me placing a mental image in my brain no one else gets to see it. A different angle is a web site that I run (with a couple of others) it contains many images most of which can be described as orphaned. Nearly all the images are "old" and have been submitted by visitors to the site. In each case we ask for ownership by the contributor or permission to publish in the same way as on RMWeb. But following an aggressive attack by the copyright "hounds" those images had to be removed. Doing due diligence is very time consuming and therefore costly for any site especially when under attack by the lesser beings. It only takes one contributor to claim a photo as permitted when it is not, to then fall foul of genuine grievance by the actual copyright holder. It is very difficult to obtain categorical proof of lack of ownership. End result is that all images are removed as handling the hassle is far more than the value in maintaining the site. I agree this can never be a black or white issue unless every PC is scanned and checked at regular intervals and I am certain that there some that would be in favour of this, as ridiculous as it seems. Plagiarism is has always been with us in forms of media and the main is policed in even handed way. Imagine if a word or name was copyrighted so that you could not use it or publish it at all!. I am on the (" removed for copyright infringement") Forum. Andy York started (" removed for copyright infringement") a few years ago. In 2012 (" removed for copyright infringement") was acquired by Warners Group. - This is the route that we could be heading down if the some of the more vociferous advocates of copyright have their way! Nigel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted May 2, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 2, 2013 I agree this can never be a black or white issue unless every PC is scanned and checked at regular intervals and I am certain that there some that would be in favour of this, as ridiculous as it seems. Plagiarism is has always been with us in forms of media and the main is policed in even handed way. Imagine if a word or name was copyrighted so that you could not use it or publish it at all!. I am on the (" removed for copyright infringement") Forum. Andy York started (" removed for copyright infringement") a few years ago. In 2012 (" removed for copyright infringement") was acquired by Warners Group. - This is the route that we could be heading down if the some of the more vociferous advocates of copyright have their way! Nigel I'm afraid I've copyrighted the word copyright and all it's forms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 You can't copyright a word (or brand name) but you can trademark it. Only original material (or ownership of title) comes under copyright. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I'm afraid I've copyrighted the word copyright and all it's forms. There is someone banging on the front door! XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 You can't copyright a word (or brand name) but you can trademark it. Only original material (or ownership of title) comes under copyright. Remember Prince and his issues when he became "The artist formally known as Prince" So is Andy Y now a trademark? Nigel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Remember Prince and his issues when he became "The artist formally known as Prince" Yup; 'cos it wasn't a word - it was a symbol (of what I couldn't say ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Here is another amazing one Cadbury! There is a tool company whose products appear at Model Railway Shows and in a number of other Stores whose product colour schemes are very similar to an older well established rival, so I wonder if one of these companies will try this? XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 2, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 2, 2013 I seem to recall reading somewhere that Micro-soft tried to copyright/ trademark the word windows Good job Im only looknig out of the uPVC framed glass section of wall that allows air and light into the room then Trade marks can only apply to a specific category of products. If Microsoft own the trade mark Windows for software it means no one else can produce software called Windows. It doesn't stop anyone from marketing a fizzy drink called Windows, or calling the glass thing a window. Microsoft could perhaps trade mark Windows for fizzy drinks too. But in that case they must actually produce such a fizzy drink. If not, the trade mark lapses. You can't just trade mark everything in sight to prevent others using it. Likewise the Cadbury trade mark purple colour applies only to chocolate. You can go ahead and sell pickled onions with that colour on the label. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Here is another amazing one Cadbury! I think this is where the whole world has redefined itself as silly. I'm sure if someone could they would copyright the word "the", trademark the colour black or white and put a patent on the air we breathe! But that is a different matter from that covered by this (OP) article. Which is, as I read it, to do with images (specifically) that appear on the internet without clear copyright identity/ownership. The grey area being those that may first have appeared with that information and subsequently are copied with that information deleted or dimply missing. (orphans) I still cannot quite see how this helps anyone. If I am sent an image by someone claiming it to be theirs or genuinely orphaned how am I to determine quickly and at no/negligible cost that it is genuine and "licensed"? It is not going to prevent it happening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted May 4, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 4, 2013 Here is an article at The Register that attempts to summarize what this 'Instagram' Bill is about. I've read it through and can't pretend to know that the author has covered the details correctly, but I do have to pick up on his somewhat poor grammar in places that sometimes takes a bit of thought to work out what he actually meant: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/03/instagram_act_explained/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 96701 Posted May 4, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 4, 2013 I think the point is that the new act implies that somebody could use an image without the permission of the person who created the image in the first place provided they used "due diligence" to try to find the originator. A lot of sites strip metadata from the file, thereby making it difficult to find the originator. This smacks of big business engineering a situation to suit their own ends. I might appear to be paranoid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 I think the point is that the new act implies that somebody could use an image without the permission of the person who created the image in the first place provided they used "due diligence" to try to find the originator. A lot of sites strip metadata from the file, thereby making it difficult to find the originator. This smacks of big business engineering a situation to suit their own ends. I might appear to be paranoid.The problem is defining "due diligence" and them proving it has been done. If the photo was taken John Smith and just titled Clsss 47 that could take a lot of time! Stripping metadata can be done by easily by anyone and if the photo is also modified this would make it very difficult to prove. So if I find a photo of mine on a site which have been subject to this type of manipulation am I really going to go through a legal process which could cost serious money when I most likely would get very little even if I won the case?. Nigel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 If a I take a photo of a logo of say a FGW train and then post it on the web without permission is that not a copyright infringement too? If we were to pursue this line of thought we would be heading to possibility no photos on the Internet! You cannot push back the hands of time and in the end it is only a photo if you have a problem please don't publish it or put it on a site where people have to pay to see the photo - good luck with that one! XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 If a I take a photo of a logo of say a FGW train and then post it on the web without permission is that not a copyright infringement too? It isn't; you've taken a picture in a public place; if however you took a photo to reproduce the logo (say as a transfer) then yes there are copyright and trademark issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.