 Poster: A snowHead
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
brian, You are the ski club  |
He's not! He's just a very naughty boy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| FenlandSkier wrote: |
I do like the way the Sun is being used in a debate about journalistic integrity and standards in the media  |
With respect, this is moron talk. Nobody mentioned journalistic integrity and media standards. It was simply used as an example of how it is possible to lock photos down. If you right-click on the photos at The Sun, then it is very difficult to cut-and-paste them because they are copyright-protected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
| If you right-click on the photos at The Sun, then it is very difficult to cut-and-paste them because they are copyright-protected. |
No it isn't, it's very simple. If you use FFX, you merely click through the pop-up dialogue, and select "Save Image As..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
^^^ yeah, but it's dead easy if you have some basic knowledge of HTML to bypass this by going into the source code - there's no way apart from clearly watermarking images (as some magazines do) to make it impossible for people to nick images and pass them off as their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
roga, you could hide them in flash, but even that's not going to guard against the simple screen grab.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
With respect, this is moron talk.
|
Whereas this is oxymoron talk: I see no respect in that comment.
I think everyone should please try to remain focussed on issues under discussion and resist the temptation to insult or attack individuals in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitegold, but. 'with respect' brian just showed how easy it was, to cut and paste from the Sun's site which kind of disproves your point doesn't it? I won't resort to labelling anything 'moron' talk as that would be unkind. 
Bottom line, 'locking anything down' on the web is very difficult and time consuming if not impossible. Which is all the more reason why 'respectable' publishers such as the SCGB, and in particular those who operate for a commercial PROFIT, should not stoop to unattributed copying or to give it it's more contentious name 'theft'.
Glad to see the SCGB have responded to the (no doubt very many) emails and postings on their site, and have at least removed the article. Now hopefully they can offer a full formal apology to davidof who has acted with dignity and forbearance while getting his point across clearly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Interestingly the article hasn't been pulled, but is back up - attributed and with one of the image copyrights restored - here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting thread . . . and quite obviously a "serious" and willful example of property theft and copyright infringement. David deserves a VERY public mea culpa apology in the least from the SCGB along with a commitment not to repeat the same act to anyone.
The snow report copyright (if the data is gleaned from public record) would only apply to the manner of presentation. If someone took the data and reformatted it in a differing manner there would be no breach.
Tim, I've read some venal argument from you before but there's no excuse for the behavior of the club in this. Anyone in a position to post into the club's editorial content has to have a knowledge and respect for both law and basic web morality. The person(s) who did this have demonstrated they have neither and should no longer be employed. If they're not employed, they should never have been given access to the website and should certainly not be considered to have the ethical values that reflect well on the clubs membership and should be removed immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
PhillipStanton, Well I guess it's up to davidof as to whether he considers the credit, copyright and link back to him to be sufficient restitution.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall of the SCGB editorial office right now 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
So, who's going to the AGM tonight, and will raise this one???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit where it's due - I think the revamped article looks good and leaves no doubt as to the origin or location of the piece and pistehors. Certainly a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
admin, you should know by now when anyone uses the phrase "With respect..." Respect is the very last thing on their mind
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
The article's appearance on the website is better, but is it really acceptable just to reproduce an article wholesale with an attribution? I'd say no - it still means you can read the whole article without visiting pistehors and I expect that the income of pistehors depends to some extent on number of hits to that site.
Additionally, the attribution could be interpreted suggestion that SCGB have pistehors' consent to reproduce the article. Is this really the case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
- perhaps Davidof will enlighten us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
........ not being pedantic .......but I note for the record, that the 'Copyright' attribution has only been restored to one of Piste Hors photographs on the Ski Club site.
..At best, a tardy response from the Ski Club, but I hope David may be able to report differently....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| skanky wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If you right-click on the photos at The Sun, then it is very difficult to cut-and-paste them because they are copyright-protected. |
No it isn't, it's very simple. If you use FFX, you merely click through the pop-up dialogue, and select "Save Image As..." |
Enlighten me on FFX.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
Whitegold, Firefox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
BernardC, I think the original article only had the copyright logo on one of the pictures, but I may be wrong.
To repeat some DG info from the SCGB forum, Davidof has not been contacted at all by SCGB and has not given his permission for the article to be reproduced in full. But this is third hand news and should come from Davidof himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian, If you click on davidof 's first link on this thread there is no notice - then it appeared - and when I look at the original site again I can't see it - so it seems to have disappeared again !
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
brian, Please read the whole thread
| rjwagstaff wrote: |
| AxsMan, Lampbus, The 2nd image didn't originally have the copyright watermark. I guess that davidof has added that in the last day or so. Not that it makes much difference as it's still an indefensible act by SCGB in my view. |
This morning it did not have a copyright mark until I force refreshed with cntl/F5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I just got an email back from the ski club, thanking me for bringing it to their attention, and saying their policy is always to credit with obvious links. She then goes on to say she has reminded her team about this policy.
Regards,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
rjwagstaff, that's me told 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kitenski, Yes me too. I'm afraid I felt the need to reply reminding them that this was rather more than a case of 'forgetting' and that if it is true that they STILL haven't asked for or received permission from Davidof to use the article and pictures then they are still in breach of his copyright. I wouldn't have thought that they would need me to tell them this. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Fab - a whole thread on copyright. I'm not 'surfing' - I'm doing 'continuing professinal development' and keeping up-to-date on current copyright issues. Is Davidof a member of any of the relevant authors' societies and association's who might show SCGB some sharp pointy teeth on his behalf? (Though is he already has a legal bod who deals with this sort of thing they may be more effective.) Copyright may be complex, but in this case it's the simplest thing in the world. SCGB have stolen intellectual property, breached numerous rights - Copyright, Moral Rights, Typographic rights, and deserve to have a large heavy book thrown at them.
Now I'll have to check the rest of the Forumns to see if there's any more copyright news...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Maybe you should be renamed to "Copyright 101"?
|
Oh I don't think so, copyright rants are just a tiny part of my suspiciously split personality (and usually a rather boring one for everyone else, to be honest!) Let's just stick to my non-subject-specific name for now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Y I man
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Nobody has mentioned the 10% rule that I encounter when printing parts of International Standards at the library. Is this a formal rule and does the percentage vary ?
(although in this thread's case, 100% is unlikely to be permitted)
But it could apply to the occasional posting of snow depth data from SCGB on this forum. (Sorry to bring this up again)
The revised SCGB page is up, but only one photo has the watermark restored/added.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lampbus, 10% is certainly a figure I remember from my student days, but when I've tried to find it more recently, it doesn't seem to be a formal guideline. I imagine it must be a rule of thumb for what consistutes "fair use" ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BernardC, I almost went to check the webcams......
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
10% is a myth I'm afraid. UK legislation uses nice wooly concepts like 'significant' amounts. 'Fair use' can be used as a defence against prosecution in the UK, (i.e. if someone takes you to court, you have to prove that what you did was 'Fair Use') but it's not defined anywhere in percentage terms and is not enshrined as a right like 'Fair dealing' is in the USA.
The 10% limit for standards will be set by the ISO for their materials. Other rightsholders will often have their own policies coming at it from both sides (as owners and users of copyright materials).
(Can't believe I hit post no. 200 by talking about copyright  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lampbus, I believe that the 10%, 1 chapter or 1 paper rule is through the Copyright Licensing Agency and does not apply in the case of snow data etc. Neither is it about "fair use".
Some information can be found here:
http://www.cla.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
advised.....
