Use of images from RMweb

[Guest jim s-w]

So there we have it boys and girls - Martin would not be happy for me to use a pirated copy of the paid for version of Templot I had theoretically aquired without his knowledge or permission but that was attributed to him.

 

But he does believe its fine to do that to YOUR pictures and content. We got there in the end!

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited August 15, 2012 by jim s-w

[martin_wynne]

So there we have it boys and girls - Martin would not be happy for me to use a pirated copy of the paid for version of Templot I had theoretically acquired without his knowledge or permission but that was attributed to him.

 

But he does believe its fine to do that to YOUR pictures and content. We got there in the end!

 

You have completely misrepresented my reply. Your question was about software hacking. Nowhere have I suggested that anyone should copy your images, modify them to represent something else, and then repost them credited to you. Your logic is too tangled for me.

 

The premise for your convoluted question about Templot was that some sort of dishonesty or misrepresentation has taken place. That is not in any way comparable to the present discussion because I have never remotely suggested that dishonesty is permissible in relation to posted images on RMweb, and I object to the tone of your replies suggesting otherwise.

 

For clarity I will restate my present feeling. I believe it would be acceptable to re-use images posted on RMweb elsewhere on RMweb, without asking first, provided the owner is fully identified and credited and has not expressly forbidden such use. There is nothing dishonest or underhand about that, it is all perfectly transparent.

 

I accept that is not Andy's position, but nowhere in the rules does it say that we have to agree with the rules, we have only to abide by them.

 

On a web site dedicated to the free sharing of information, I don't think it would unreasonable to assume that material uploaded by members could be so used, and that by uploading it to such a site a member would be giving implicit permission for such use. Any member would be free to indicate otherwise if they wished.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited August 16, 2012 by martin_wynne

[martin_wynne]

Therefore the parallel with image theft is, if not proven, comparable.

 

Hi Andy,

 

I still do not understand how something can be called theft if the true owner is clearly identified and credited?

 

Attributed use comes under the "fair dealing" provisions.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[lyneux]

On the subject of inline linking of images, TallTim's point is the best one I've seen made, notably, there is no actual copying of the image, rather, a pointer to the image is placed on the page. The user's browser then downloads it directly to the browser cache from the originating site.

 

Note that this has been tested in the US courts and found not to infringe copyright (read the wikipedia entry to find out more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking). On this basis, Google are allowed to inline link a full size image from their thumbnail page when you click on it.

 

Inline linking of images is not a copyright infringement. Taking text from another website (e.g. product review) and reproducing on your site is a copyright infringement.

 

Of course, whether any of this is a gentlemanly thing to do (or not) is open for debate!

[martin_wynne]

Inline linking of images is not a copyright infringement.

 

That was my understanding too.

 

It may however be unauthorised use of the originating site's bandwidth. That's why the server control panel includes an option to prevent it. (For external sites. There is no way to prevent internal hot-linking within RMweb.)

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[lyneux]

Inline linking of images is not a copyright infringement.

 

I should probably clarify: this has ONLY been proven with test cases under US and German law. I'm not aware of any test cases in the UK, but this is something that might happen at some point unless the UK government decides to legislate first. Vince Cable seems to be pro-active on this issue (although he doesn't explicitly mention inline linking and framing): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14384268

[Talltim]

Tim,

 

Read the Act, it specifically excludes 'copies' that exist solely for transmission over a network, though I don't think it gets to grips with cached copies on a receiving machine. That's not the issue, though, it is a copyright infringement by virtue of the act of storing and publishing a copy of the material on another site.

 

Nick

A hotlinked image isnt stored on any other site than the one hosting the image. If I hotlinked a pic from another site on RMWeb then It is never copied to or stored on RMWeb.

It probably does count as being published on tho, in the form of the img HTML tags

Edit: pretty much repeated Lyneux (nice avatar pic BTW)

Edited August 15, 2012 by Talltim

[Guest jim s-w]

No Martin

 

My question (you didnt understand the simple versions so my question was attempting to cover all bases and not give you any 'excuses' to play dumb) Was simply this. If i used something that belonged to you without your permission but acknowledged it was yours you would not be happy. (you agreed and rightly so). The point is theres no difference. (i must point out no one else claimed they didnt understand the question)

 

(Ii must say that you crying about misrepresentation is the pot calling the kettle black.).

 

Or put it another way. If i set up my own forum, called it Trackplot and copied all of yout posts from the templot forum over (with Martin Wynne says...) at the start, you'd be fine with that?

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited August 16, 2012 by jim s-w

[martin_wynne]

If I used something that belonged to you without your permission but acknowledged it was yours you would not be happy. (you agreed and rightly so).

 

I did NOT agree to that -- please don't put words into my mouth. And if that was your question why didn't you ask it?

 

If I had contributed something belonging to me to a place dedicated to the sharing of such things I would be happy for others to make use of it provided they acknowledged it was my property.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Replying your edit:

 

Or put it another way. If i set up my own forum, called it Trackplot and copied all of your posts from the Templot forum over (with Martin Wynne says...) at the start, you'd be fine with that?

 

Yes, I'd be happy with that, provided my content was fully credited, displayed in full, and not modified in any way.

 

Anything I post anywhere on the internet may be freely used by anyone for non-commercial purposes, provided it is fully credited to me and not selectively edited to alter the meaning or emphasis.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[beast66606]

I still do not understand how something can be called theft if the true owner is clearly identified and credited?

 

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.

 

Now do you see it ?

 

If I made a post about cr@p software which is merely a trojan for viruses and used templot to illustrate it, you would not be best pleased even if I attributed it to you (not that I'm saying Templot is cr@p but you get the point)

 

 

* made up name, other made up names are available

[Gwiwer]

I am now leaving this topic unfollowed.

 

Informed and educated debate is one thing. The two protagonists seem unwilling to agree to differ or to let it drop so I am letting my interest drop instead.

[Guest jim s-w]

If that was your question why didn't you ask it?

 

I did - multiple times!

 

Afraid I cant agree that copyright theft is OK, nor can I agree to differ on that (sorry Rick).

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited August 16, 2012 by jim s-w

[Guest jim s-w]

Any image (where the image is the property of that member) uploaded to RMweb remains the property of that contributor. Do not save, distribute or publish the image anywhere else without the proper consent of the original contributor. The original material owner would be within their rights to reclaim costs for re-publishing the material from whoever has breached copyright.

 

Any image (where the image is not the property of that member) uploaded to RMweb remains the property of the original photographer and should not be uploaded to RMweb without proper consent. If it is clear that the material has been copied from other sources (whether acknowledged or not) it may be be removed. If the image is not yours you should confirm whether you have permission to reproduce the image. Some sources (e.g. Wikipedia) permit re-publication but the appropriate Creative Commons Licence should be quoted so that any onward use is duly protected.

 

If an image has previously been uploaded to RMweb and anyone other than the original contributor wishes to make use of that image within RMweb it should be linked to or its source and location acknowledged.

 

99% of people agree with this Andy. Thats the point.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited August 16, 2012 by jim s-w

[meil]

May I bring peoples attention to sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

 

May also make the point that ownership of an image and ownership of copyright in that image is not necessarily the same.

[martin_wynne]

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

 

I didn't respond to that point because it is not relevant to the discussion -- nowhere in this topic has anyone suggested, least of all me, that your images could be used for commercial purposes without your consent.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

I am now leaving this topic unfollowed.

 

That's great Rick. Thank you for correctly using the Unfollow function instead of asking for a topic to be locked. It makes a nice change.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Afraid I cant agree that copyright theft is OK, nor can I agree to differ on that

 

Hot-linking to an image is not a copyright infringement. No copy of the original has been made and the owner retains full control -- if he deletes the image or modifies it, the hot-linked display is deleted or modified also.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[meil]

Hot-linking to an image is not a copyright infringement. No copy of the original has been made and the owner retains full control -- if he deletes the image or modifies it, the hot-linked display is deleted or modified also.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

And if you are hot-linking it will almost certainly be for the purposes of critisism or review which is specificaly not an infringment of copyright.

[Godders]

Isn't it illogical, ironic perhaps,that some one can take a photograph of me or my model railway, generally without asking permission, which of course they don't need. Then having copyright and the protection of the law, argue about someone else's right to use or reuse that image as they wish. Hypocrisy springs to mind.

 

Just a thought, carry on chaps this is fascinating.

 

Cheers Godders

[Revolution Mike]

On the subject of inline linking of images, TallTim's point is the best one I've seen made, notably, there is no actual copying of the image, rather, a pointer to the image is placed on the page. The user's browser then downloads it directly to the browser cache from the originating site.

 

Note that this has been tested in the US courts and found not to infringe copyright (read the wikipedia entry to find out more: http://en.wikipedia..../Inline_linking). On this basis, Google are allowed to inline link a full size image from their thumbnail page when you click on it.

 

Inline linking of images is not a copyright infringement. Taking text from another website (e.g. product review) and reproducing on your site is a copyright infringement.

 

Does the actual copying of the image make a difference under UK copyright law? I am not sure as one of the points was about unauthorised use of a picture.

 

The other important difference is that US copyright law has fair use provisions which the UK does not (the UK's fair use and fair dealing provisions are much more narrow).

 

Meil's point about purposes of criticism or review is relevant, but again I am not sure it helps - UK copyright only allows re-publication of parts of a copyrighted work so for an image that becomes problematic!

[beast66606]

I didn't respond to that point because it is not relevant to the discussion -- nowhere in this topic has anyone suggested, least of all me, that your images could be used for commercial purposes without your consent.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

If all else fails READ WHAT I HAVE TYPED, you are so focused on stating your opinion you haven't even got the manners to read what I've written

 

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)

[Happy Hippo]

You lot sometimes need your heads knocking together!

 

R

[S.A.C Martin]

I'm slightly confused by this apparent issue.

 

Writing at university, every single student is made to understand the importance of proper attribution and the dangers of not attributing work you haven't created. In many of the journals I had to write, we gave the book's title, author name, publisher and the town it was published from, as well as a date of first publication and edition when applicable. We used the Harvard Referencing System.

 

This was also in force for images in the forms of artworks and photographs used to put forward a viewpoint when writing. Asking for permission was nigh on impossible for many of the artworks I used in my journals, as many of the artists were either dead or unavailable. Quoting text or using images for the specific purposes of education, as long as every piece was properly accredited, was within (UK) copyright law under the education clauses I was led to believe.

 

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?

 

If this is a case of "we don't want to hotlink images full stop" on RMweb then there's no problem with that either.

 

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).

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

[martin_wynne]

If all else fails READ WHAT I HAVE TYPED, you are so focused on stating your opinion you haven't even got the manners to read what I've written

 

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.