Images and the internet - Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act

[Xerces Fobe2]

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.

Thanks for the clarification Andy

 

Nigel

[Kenton]

 

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!

 

No I don't think so - your photo is copyright but the logo is trademark (I believe) The photo is of a loco or scene which happens to contain the logo and unless you have manipulated the logo or are misrepresenting it then it becomes just like a word in a given piece of text. The composite text may carry a copyright but the word "the" contained in it is not.

 

I think there is a degree of common sense that has to be applied.

 

My own view is that the internet is a very special medium and the legal understanding of it is on catch-up. If someone publishes an image in a book that publication is dependent on the sale of the book (the publisher puts a lot of effort into that and should be/is rewarded by sales) publishing on the internet specifically allows downloading (copy) globally by anyone who has access to the site. They may not even wish to view and copy the image but they get given it regardless by opening a page in their browser. It doesn't matter which page that image is on as the image has already been made freely available. So to okeep an image "safe" never upload it to the internet.

 

But that same view is tempered by the fact I believe the "owner" has a right to a share in any profits made in the use of an image. The problem that has been identified in this legislation is that many (possibly the majority) images do not inherently come with the owner's identity.

[beast66606]

ermmm

 

its the net - its free....

 

sorry but that is the way it will be..... bit of bad luck to them "creative"types but hey ho its time they got a job

 

I've got a job but I still "publish" my photos on the net, it doesn't give anyone the right to publish them elsewhere without my permission, generally if asked I would (and often do) say "No problem" however there are some sites that I don't support and would not grant that permission to - as the copyright owner I have that choice. 

 

"The way it will be" needs to change and people (not just kids) need to show due respect to material which they know is not theirs - I could adopt the same thought process to cars, would that be acceptable ?

[Xerces Fobe2]

I've got a job but I still "publish" my photos on the net, it doesn't give anyone the right to publish them elsewhere without my permission, generally if asked I would (and often do) say "No problem" however there are some sites that I don't support and would not grant that permission to - as the copyright owner I have that choice. 

 

"The way it will be" needs to change and people (not just kids) need to show due respect to material which they know is not theirs - I could adopt the same thought process to cars, would that be acceptable ?

Maybe alll computer manufacturers ISP's and etc should be forced to stop image copying on there products/ services and anti Social Photograhy orders (ASPO')introduced with detention orders for these who fail to comply.

 

Be careful of what you wish for as it might as the solution maybe far worse than the perceived problem!

 

XF

[Kenton]

 

"The way it will be" needs to change and people (not just kids) need to show due respect to material which they know is not theirs - I could adopt the same thought process to cars, would that be acceptable ?

No, but such property is clearly no globally made available - perhaps if I put my car into every home in the uk with a notice on it saying "drive me" it would be no problem.

 

The problem is that an image is in some ways forced on us simply by its publication on the internet and to a great extent the public cannot see the difference between say me putting an image up for free use (good luck to anyone) or the photograph put up by a professional photographer who then wishes to control, in some way, the distribution.

 

Now even I accept that if you splash "copyright - contact beast66606@email.uk - not for public distribution" across every photo then I will know it is owned by someone who really wishes to control it and if I wanted to add it to my site an email request would be sent. But let's face it the vast majority of images are not so tightly controlled and are in the main placed on the web in that free spirity and with little thought or care about their distribution.

 

It is a problem for both the users of the internet and the professional photographers that I cannot see a sensible solution to. While there are many images placed on the internet by owners without thought of copyright the issue of protecting copyright will inevitably become more difficult. With so many sites now using robotic image collection and distribution this is only going to become even worse.

[billbedford]

But that same view is tempered by the fact I believe the "owner" has a right to a share in any profits made in the use of an image. The problem that has been identified in this legislation is that many (possibly the majority) images do not inherently come with the owner's identity.

 

The converse of this is that an image that is made available on the web has no monetary value because anyone can download it. The real problem is for businesses that trade in images, either digital or physical, as once an image is up loaded and is easy to find it's value drops.

 

The Reg has a good summary, but note some of the comments.

[martin_wynne]

It seems simple enough to me.

 

Here is a picture of mine:

 

 

Is anyone in any doubt who it belongs to? No.

 

If they want to use it they can either

 

1. ask me nicely, or

 

2. hot-link to it. (Which is not a copyright infringement. No copy is made, I still have control of the displayed image and can prevent it being shown via my server controls.)

 

But if I publish it to the entire world without that label (i.e. a readily visible label, not in Exif metadata), I can hardly complain if someone copies it.

 

Martin.

[Ian J.]

The problem, as I see it, comes down to whether we are prepared to support professionally produced, digitally delivered intellectual property - be it images, text, movies, music, whatever. There will always be a need for quality produced material and images are no exception. But to get that quality takes skill and time, which of course costs money. That means at least semi-professionals if not professionals being able to make a living from that work.

 

If we go down the route of 'everything uploaded to the internet is free' then no-one will be able to make a living producing anything that is intellectual property that is ever put on the internet (whether legitimately or otherwise). That can only lead to a place where the only things uploaded are by amateurs who don't care about income from that work, which in a tiny proportion of cases will be to professional standard, but the majority will be less than good.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean professionals won't have work. It just means that they will only be able to do offline commissions for companies and people with tonnes of money to spare and where those organisations and individuals won't care that the work they've paid for might end up available for free on the internet.

 

So, do we want to be able to see good pictures, watch good movies and TV, read good books, listen to good music, play good computer games and use good software? Much of what is produced in these mediums today isn't particularly good already, and that's as a direct result of easy availability of copies on the internet that have prevented income reaching the pockets of the IP workers (though it doesn't help that the big corporations involved don't like sharing much of their profits with the creative workers who produce what they sell).

 

While this might seem a bit OT, the whole issue of copyright in the age of the internet is what this bill is (whether rightly or wrongly) trying to address.

[Pacific231G]

ermmm

 

its the net - its free....

 

sorry but that is the way it will be..... bit of bad luck to them "creative"types but hey ho its time they got a job

Get real Mickey. According to the government the creative industries are worth £36 billion a year to the UK economy- almost as much as Financial Services- contribute about 10% of our total exports and employ over a million and a half people.  Britain is the world's second largest exporter of television programmes after the US (Downton Abbey has so far been sold to over 100 countries) and the world's largest exporter of television programme formats. London and North West England are the largest creative industry hubs in Europe.

 

What do you do for a living and how keen would you be on not getting paid for it?

[beast66606]

It seems simple enough to me.

 

Here is a picture of mine:

 

 

Is anyone in any doubt who it belongs to? No.

 

If they want to use it they can either

 

1. ask me nicely, or

 

2. hot-link to it. (Which is not a copyright infringement. No copy is made, I still have control of the displayed image and can prevent it being shown via my server controls.)

 

But if I publish it to the entire world without that label (i.e. a readily visible label, not in Exif metadata), I can hardly complain if someone copies it.

 

Martin.

3 - steal it

 

[beast66606]

Maybe alll computer manufacturers ISP's and etc should be forced to stop image copying on there products/ services and anti Social Photograhy orders (ASPO')introduced with detention orders for these who fail to comply.

 

Be careful of what you wish for as it might as the solution maybe far worse than the perceived problem!

 

XF

 

I didn't wish for anything - I pointed out that adopting the attitude "its free because it's on the Internet" is the thought process that needs changing - if I had a magic wand I'd solve it.

[martin_wynne]

3 - steal it

 

daspic.jpg

 

Hi Beast,

 

Indeed that is possible, but it is hardly a common occurrence or what this topic is about. Under the new Act, If you obtain a licence of some sort to use an orphan work, you can't then claim your own copyright on it. It still belongs to the original owner, should he be found or choose to identify himself.

 

Also, the word "steal" doesn't feel right. If someone steals my car, I no longer have a car. If someone infringes my copyright, I still have the original and can still benefit from it.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[fender]

3 - steal it

 

daspic.jpg

 

on the surface it looks like the picture has been copyrighted by you, but if MW decided to go after you I'm pretty sure it would be possible to determine that the bottom right corner had been manipulated. so anyone trying to 'steal' photos and copyright them in this way would be on thin ice.

[Xerces Fobe2]

It seems simple enough to me.

 

Here is a picture of mine:

 

 

Is anyone in any doubt who it belongs to? No.

 

If they want to use it they can either

 

1. ask me nicely, or

 

2. hot-link to it. (Which is not a copyright infringement. No copy is made, I still have control of the displayed image and can prevent it being shown via my server controls.)

 

But if I publish it to the entire world without that label (i.e. a readily visible label, not in Exif metadata), I can hardly complain if someone copies it.

 

Stole it, improved it !!! who owns the copyright now?

 

XF

[martin_wynne]

Hi XF,

 

That's called a "derived work". You have infringed my copyright, but the changes belong to you. Read the law until your head hurts.

 

I think we have gone off topic. It's not about fraudulently claiming copyright on someone else's work. That must be comparatively rare and well covered by existing law.

 

This is about re-use of works posted on the internet without a clear and obvious indication of who owns them. Beast's example doesn't do that -- I just Googled DAS and found 3 million possible results. Even "DAS model railway" produced 2 million results. However "Martin Wynne model railway" hits me immediately -- how "diligent" is that?  I think where members use anonymous nicknames on sites such as RMweb, all bets are off as far as re-use of their images is concerned.

 

There has been some reference to "stripping" of Exif metadata on such sites, which is misleading. Not all image formats support metadata, or where they do there is no agreed data format -- in PNG images for example. And definitely not in the internal bitmap formats such as Windows DIB which are used for resizing, resampling, photoshopping, etc. So unless the image displayed is exactly the same file which you uploaded, without any resizing or other web optimisation, the most you can say is that such sites have "failed to restore" your Exif data in the output. And it's likely that none of them give any such commitment.

 

If anyone is making serious use of their images I would strongly recommend having their own paid-for web site with full server control panel. Upload your images only there, and hot-link them into forums and other sites. That way you retain full control, you can ensure that your Exif data is included and correct, and you can see from your server logs who is accessing them.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Xerces Fobe2]

Hi XF,

 

That's called a "derived work". You have infringed my copyright, but the changes belong to you. Read the law until your head hurts.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

I was just having a little bit of fun and I love pink engines with read smoke!

 

XF

[Miss Prism]

Regarding nicknames on RMweb, I do not see a problem with copyright being held and attributed pseudonymously. Please note this is not the same as Martin's inference of anonymity. Admittedly, the use of pseudonyms does make the policing of RMweb's (inevitably complex) hotlinking policy more difficult, though.

 

I do agree with Martin that we have gone somewhat offtopic into secondary matters, and still I feel the elementary first step that should be taken is for a copyright notice to be displayed on RMweb's entry pages.

[billbedford]

Regarding nicknames on RMweb, I do not see a problem with copyright being held and attributed pseudonymously. 

 

Of course it's a problem. If someone infringes my copyright I need to be able to find their postal address to send the court summons to.

 

 

OTOH the choice of nicknames does give some indication of the species of fantasist  the owner belongs to.

[Andy Y]

OTOH the choice of nicknames does give some indication of the species of fantasist  the owner belongs to.

 

 

Nice way to talk about your customers.

[EddieB]

Regarding nicknames on RMweb, I do not see a problem with copyright being held and attributed pseudonymously. Please note this is not the same as Martin's inference of anonymity. Admittedly, the use of pseudonyms does make the policing of RMweb's (inevitably complex) hotlinking policy more difficult, though.

 

I do agree with Martin that we have gone somewhat offtopic into secondary matters, and still I feel the elementary first step that should be taken is for a copyright notice to be displayed on RMweb's entry pages.

 

That appears well dodgy coming from someone who's avatar is more Lady Bracknell, than Miss Prism! 

 

However, your point is valid - an original by "Banksy" is valuable whether under a pseudonym or his real name and royalties are still paid for articles written under a pen name (as did Charles Dickens).  So a copyright holder publishing anonymously or under a pseudonym does not alter the fact of copyright.  Equally the attempt to "steal" a copyrighted image under a pseudonym is still an offence and I would expect the website owner to be required to disclose the real name and address in the case of any infringements that were pressed in law.

[billbedford]

However, your point is valid - an original by "Banksy" is valuable whether under a pseudonym or his real name and royalties are still paid for articles written under a pen name (as did Charles Dickens).  So a copyright holder publishing anonymously or under a pseudonym does not alter the fact of copyright.  Equally the attempt to "steal" a copyrighted image under a pseudonym is still an offence and I would expect the website owner to be required to disclose the real name and address in the case of any infringements that were pressed in law.

 

Artists have agents and novelists publishers, but internet identities are not always traceable back to to a real person. Certainly RMWeb doesn't ask for a real address.

[Xerces Fobe2]

In reality how can you effectively police copyright given the number of items on the internet which is growing  daily, with people hiding there true identity and the manpower to do this?

 

Surely in reality a the copyright issues associated with works of art, films, books, music etc.will far out way someone who is upset that their amazing photo a train worth minimal real value has been posted/posted or printed by someone without their permission. If that person then spends every day checking how many photos have been copied the cost of doing that in terms of labour, time or effort will far out way any compensation they might occasionally be lucky enough to receive.

 

Fight battles that you have a chance of wining or retreat  i.e. don't post your photos on the internet in the first place.

 

Nigel.

[Gwiwer]

 

internet identities are not always traceable back to to a real person. Certainly RMWeb doesn't ask for a real address.

 

Refer to my updated signature

[billbedford]

In reality how can you effectively police copyright given the number of items on the internet which is growing  daily, with people hiding there true identity and the manpower to do this?

 

You misunderstand. There is no policing. Copyright is civil law, which means that it is up to the copyright owner to sue an infringer for damages. In the UK the damages are set down as the actual loss the owner suffered.

 

Surely in reality a the copyright issues associated with works of art, films, books, music etc.will far out way someone who is upset that their amazing photo a train worth minimal real value has been posted/posted or printed by someone without their permission. If that person then spends every day checking how many photos have been copied the cost of doing that in terms of labour, time or effort will far out way any compensation they might occasionally be lucky enough to receive.

 

Certainly, it seem for a very long time, copyright law has evolved to benefit organisations with deep pocket.

[raymw]

I've been thinking of how I could possibly make money from 'stealing' any images of models that I have seen here. The resolution is not good enough for  paper printed books, I don't think there would be much of  market for an e-book where low res. images may be acceptable. Now, I could go through one or many of the 'how to' threads, and perhaps produce a book on making, say, signals. It would be easier to start from scratch, or work with one of the contributors compared to untangling the html coding, headers, off topic replies, etc.

 

I don't see the legislation change wrt copyright as a problem for this forum, since the images posted have negligible monetary value.

 

However, it may impact on the use of photography at exhibitions, just because it has highlighted copyright issues in general. If the exhibition is not in public, then the site owner can decide whether or not photo's can be taken. There has always been the possibility that a split second of 'work' with a camera can produce more income than the hours of work and the thousand's spent on producing the item being photographed. Nothing has changed there.

 

Now, when it comes to images of full size loco's, then it may be that someone may want to publish a print, say, but again the web resolution and colour space would most likely make it unusable. In any case, for most preserved loco's, photo's are generally repeatable, more or less.

 

It is, for most of us, a storm in a teacup - nothing has changed. For others, you still have to be diligent in checking who has stolen your images, and you will still need to prove it was yours to start with.

 

The advantage is that if someone likes an image,  the result of their diligent search  may enable them to purchase a high res. original from you, which you can license as you wish. Copyright signature or not, your best defence on here is low res. jpegs, or not posting, which is as it always has been.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray