 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
His felder doesn't look schön to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
boredsurfin, the target (as set by me) is actually 20 pages (pls keep up). Unless Winterhighland and associates get punchy, or SCGB come in with a feeble excuse for their actions, I see no prospect of making it. Shame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
laundryman, but is his gordon brown?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
DB, Glad to see he's wearing a helmet, but it's badly positioned
Photo: skihelmets.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
David Goldsmith, a beautiful bit of crediting if I may say.
Remind me, is this the pic of you being lobbed out of the SCGB forum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| David Goldsmith, a beautiful bit of crediting if I may say..... |
Most excellent - I am quite sure DG approached the site owners to make sure they did not mind their bandwidth being used here. He does like to be meticulous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
David Goldsmith, a beautiful bit of crediting if I may say.
Remind me, is this the pic of you being lobbed out of the SCGB forum? |
Yes can't you see the lurve in his eyes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
DB, what worries me is all the search terms you had to use to find that one. Which member of the cabinet is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's Bliar, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
No, it's from a 'private portfolio' of members of the Vienna Naturist Snowsports Club. An honour to have their president amongst us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DB, thanks for clarifying that. Were they just making a rapid getaway from the sauna, then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| DB, what worries me is all the search terms you had to use to find that one. |
I cant say but can confirm it was difficult to find pics without a helmet showing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
Winterhighland, once again (donning SCGB member's hat, and having served on its Council) I think you're expressing a fair point of view. The etiquette/culture of the internet is to link to source.
Incidentally, I had a look at Winterhighland in a bit more detail over the weekend and noticed that your site operates with no contractual conditions between site owner and contributors. This means, in essence, that all material hosted by you is recognised as author-copyright or photographer-copyright (by default). Is that correct? |
The report server pages state that by uploading images to the server you agree to Winterhighland using them elsewhere on the site - normally this would be using a selection of photos in the 'Pix from the Slopes' section of the site as a taster for what is available in the user maintained section.
A more detailed outline of the position taken is here: http://www.winterhighland.info/lost/#Q4
Basically, unlike some user content sites we make no attempt to claim all the contributors rights to the images uploaded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
We're saved. There's a good 450 pages to go now we're onto Ts & Cs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
^^ As someone who has uploaded photos and reports to Winterhighland recently I am fully aware of these terms and accept them happily. The same would apply to any photos I have uploaded to Snowheads, I'd be happy for this site to make use of them to illustrate articles/news items etc. To be honest if the SCGB wanted to use an image that was mine I'd be happy for them to use it if I had uploaded it in a similar way to their site (not that they have such a facility... at least I don't know of it if there is one). In fact I noticed James Cove on the SCGB board asking for information about Scotland and I mentioned I had recent photos and he could give me a shout if he was interested - I heard nothing from him (although I may have made the offer after the offending news item was posted).
However, if the SCGB had come on here, or Winterhighland and helped themselves to my photos without any permission I would have been annoyed given their previous history of doing such things, the fact is it's downright rude and IMHO arrogant and it is, whatever Smallzookeper (and others) may say, illegal to use other people's photos without permission. I don't have the money or resources to enforce the latter so to all intents and purposes they could get away with it but that doesn't change the basic facts.
The fact they have now added "c/o Jamie Johnston" and "c/o Alan Mackay" shows that they have realised they're rumbled (yet again) but I get the impression that's not actually what is being requested, a credit and link back to the two sites these images were culled from is the issue. Their failure to link back shows bad faith IMHO and is also quite odd if you leave aside all these other issues because I believe you can't get better information about Scotland and Scottish skiing than that found on these two sites so links would actually be a good service to their readers.
That being the case I can't fathom why they choose to omit these links and are continuing to drag their feet unless I start coming up with explanations involving the SCGB having a very poor attitude toward other groups of snowsports enthusiasts and that they think of themselves as being superior in some way, and therefore having the right to such a cavalier attitude towards all others. Remember this is not the first time and it looks as if this won't be the last time - I joined the SCGB for the discounts which are not bad but I can live without them, this year my membership was renewed automatically but I have a good mind to show my dissatisfaction by cancelling my standing order forthwith! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Your call whether you leave the SCGB. I do suggest you call/contact James directly - again up to you. The SCGB has never, AFIK, linked to another skiing site - a pity IMV - so I don't think you'll get the links you wish. OTOH, who knows, direct contact might result in a welcome change.
[correction] They have linked to natives at least - so maybe they will link to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
It's funny that in the members chat forums on the current excursions to scotland, that individual postings have included links to to ski scotland and winterhighland sites.
They also have links at the bottom of the main article to nevisrange.co.uk and ski-glenshee.
Difficult to see why they would choose to ignore other links to highly informative sites as it looks like some of the quotes have come from postings on the members forum. Someone with a personal issue ?
(I'm not defending the deplorable.. just making an observation)
Perhaps an organisation like SCGB will always think they are above recognition of other noteable sources of information ? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Your call whether you leave the SCGB. |
The bottom line is I don't want to pay money to an organisation that treats websites I value far higher than theirs like this!
| Quote: |
| I do suggest you call/contact James directly - again up to you. |
Anyone got his contact details?
| Quote: |
| =The SCGB has never, AFIK, linked to another skiing site - a pity IMV - so I don't think you'll get the links you wish. OTOH, who knows, direct contact might result in a welcome change. |
Didn't they eventually link to Pistehors after they copied and pasted a whole article from there and were rumbled?
I think the fact they don't as a rule link to other snowsports sites is indicative of a bad attitude though, especially when they're happy enough ripping off these sites content!
| Quote: |
| [correction] They have linked to natives at least - so maybe they will link to you. |
It's not me I want a link to, I'm just a member of the Winterhighland forum in the same way I'm a member of this forum.
Both Alan (Winterhighland) and Jamie (Highland Instinct) have, as I understand it, asked for a link back to their sites because these are the sites that own the photos. I think they have been quite patient about this since photos have been taken in the past as I recall, one web cam image (from a cam set up and owned by Winterhighland on Cairngorm) taken from the Winterhighland site was even cropped (just like those Pistehors ones) to remove the Winterhighland logo from it.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Mon 21-01-08 19:01; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
roga, I no longer have James' contact details - but if you email the SCGB using the link they provide - and put 'Please Pass to James Cove' in the subject, I think your email will get to him - it's worked for me in the past for other staff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| We're saved. There's a good 450 pages to go now we're onto Ts & Cs. |
Get a lnk into the SCGB chat board and we could compete with DC on this one 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
Winterhighland, once again (donning SCGB member's hat, and having served on its Council) I think you're expressing a fair point of view. The etiquette/culture of the internet is to link to source.
Incidentally, I had a look at Winterhighland in a bit more detail over the weekend and noticed that your site operates with no contractual conditions between site owner and contributors. This means, in essence, that all material hosted by you is recognised as author-copyright or photographer-copyright (by default). Is that correct? |
David ... again you are getting a little too detectivel!
These photos have an intrinsic copyright to them. In essence it is necessary to check with the copyright owner prior to reproduction. In reality what often happens is free use and then a re-address when a complaint comes through from the copyright owner. Whatever happens on Winterhighland or Snowheads or whatever other site ... if there is no complaint then although in actuality there is a copyright infringement there is little that needs to change. Where as with the SKI CLUB OF GREAT BRITAIN www.skiclub.co.uk - It seems that initially they are just bending the rules but after the copyright owner has asked for specifics to be delivered if the use of the imagery in question continues and these specifics have not been forthcoming a serious breach of the copyright is now ensuing.
I love posting under the influence of booze!
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Mon 21-01-08 22:17; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| It doesn't matter. Copyright law doesn't discriminate between professionals and amateurs, in terms of intellectual property. It may discriminate between amateur and professional boot-fitters, but I'm not up to speed with boot law. |
it does matter a little bit, legally speaking, in that if you wanted to launch a prosecution (which, I want to make it clear, no one is talking about here) you have to be able to show a loss. If they were photographs taken by a pro this is much clearer as they would have a value of say 100-500 UKP per snap. Ditto articles taken from print publications.
The Ski Club has good legal advice so I guess they know all the ins-and-outs. |
Davidof - this 'loss' claim would directly result in the primary use of the photos, rendering them now second hand in essence. Although it maybe hard to claim that as an amateur Alan or Jamie's photos have a value, it is well within any copyright holder's rights to ask for the removal and cease of use of the photos with immediate effect. Also if Alan & Jamie send Ski Club of Great Britain www.skiclub.co.uk a letter stating that for continuation of use for these images a fee must be paid then it counter acts the initial issue over financial re-imbursement.
It is quite simple ... just play hard ball!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
In general it may be possible to claim that the photos are in the public domain and so fair game but in these cases the photos are actually on private websites which are also owned by the same original copyright owner. I make this point to differentiate between using a pic which has been scattered throughout the internet although even via using this picture it may still be possibel to affilioate an original copyright with the image and thus create a level of protected ownership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Ok - this is a silly mistake - and should have been sorted by now.
But...
The ski club did appear to link to winterhighland 2 days previously, 3 days previously, and6 days previously . crediting winterhighland on these occasions for photos.
Now unless those pages have been altered in the last few days, but the one on the 16th left alone, this suggests a simple error which should have been resolved faster, but given that SCGB is not a 24 hr rolling news service, and some of the key figures, eg James Cove, might actually be doing some skiing, I am not entirely surprised it hasn't.
In future I would like to see lots more relevant links from the SCGB site, including to this one. But for now what I have seen is lots of people getting on their high horse, and yet only DG, Achilles and Winterhighland saying they have done something about it and attempted to contact the club and get it sorted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stoatsbrother, Good post and even if they have been edited atleast it shows that the SCGB are taking certain measures to reward the copyright owners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Today's SCGB breaking news is:
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/news/story.asp?intStoryID=5358
The resort of Ernen in Switzerland was put up for sale in March 2007 for one Swiss franc, and this story was reported in the Swiss and UK media last October, after the resort had been sold.
The photo has no credit on the SCGB page, but is the work of Uta Harnischfeger. Don't know who owns the copyright, but the New York Times has applied copyright protection to it. I'm not clear why the photo credit isn't on the SCGB reproduction, which has been re-hosted ('properties' indicate 'skiclub.co.uk').
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I see they haven't even converted the price into sterling.....left it in US cents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
David Goldsmith, I am reassured by your diligence over copyright; I had wondered if you had researched the actual owner of the copyright of the picture you published here; your earnestness reassures me that you must have, and that consent to publish was willingly given. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
achilles, it's only a link; the image isn't on the snowHeads server. Right-clicking on the image will show where it's published. Whether that's any defence in law, I haven't a clue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| achilles wrote: |
| David Goldsmith, I am reassured by your diligence over copyright; I had wondered if you had researched the actual owner of the copyright of the picture you published here; your earnestness reassures me that you must have, and that consent to publish was willingly given. |
It's the Daily Mirror incidentally if anyone wondered, the original photographer (Ian Bradshaw) got paid an extra 100 quid for one of the eras most iconic images. Frequently, as here, used with neither crediting nor permission. Even the site whose bandwidth is being stolen have probably used it without crediting or permission and seem to have cropped it as well (no pun intended).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
achilles, I'll attempt an answer, which I obviously hope is a genuine and innocent one:
1. The activity of 'hot-linking' to images is done by me on a non-commercial basis. I've no financial interest in this site - it's purely for 'entertainment'.
2. Hot-linking is prevented by many sites hosting images. This is indicated when the image is right-clicked for the properties. So, as I understand it, the hosting site (whether the copyright holder or not) controls the hot-linking, or the other aspect which concerns you - the use of bandwidth to transmit the image to another site.
If I link to the image with a hyperlink and not the image itself, does this make a difference? Presumably if the user clicks on the URL the bandwidth is activated in the same way. Is that correct?
I think your concerns are best directed at those who hot-link with a commercial motive, but that's up to you.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Tue 22-01-08 15:17; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| ise wrote: |
| Even the site whose bandwidth is being stolen ... |
Please refer to my response to achilles. In what sense is any 'theft' involved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
laundryman, yup. But it's still published on this page - and if I didn't know David's belief in the sanctity of copyright, I would have thought without permission. I had noticed the image was hotlinked - but I had though it so obvious that David would not consider bandwidth theft that I just knew he would approached the owners of the site to which he hotlinked, and had their blessing for the link. After all, those who adopt a strong moral tone have to be beyond reproach themselves. David probably thinks carefully about John 8:7 each time he criticises the SCGB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| laundryman, yup. But it's still published on this page - and if I didn't know David's belief in the sanctity of copyright, I would have thought without permission. I had noticed the image was hotlinked - but I had though it so obvious that David would not consider bandwidth theft that I just knew he would approached the owners of the site to which he hotlinked, and had their blessing for the link. After all, those who adopt a strong moral tone have to be beyond reproach themselves. David probably thinks carefully about John 8:7 each time he criticises the SCGB. |
I think we need to know the law on what you and ise describe as "bandwidth theft". Can we start with a reference to any relevant legislation? As pointed out above, I'd have thought that the bandwidth is triggered if I just post a URL and not the visible image itself. Is that correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| If I link to the image with a hyperlink and not the image itself, does this make a difference? Presumably if the user clicks on the URL the bandwidth is activated in the same way. Is that correct? |
Yes, however the bandwidth is only used if the "reader" clicks. This would (normally) be done a maximum of once per person. If the image is embedded, then I would presume that every time someone loads the sH page, the bandwidth is used. On a busy topic, this could be a fair few times (especially if the pic is at the top of a page).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
But who is the thief? [if there is any legislation relating to this]. As I've pointed out, the host can easily control the hot-linking ... it seems ... so if they are not controlling the hot-linking are they de facto permitting use?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ise wrote: |
| Even the site whose bandwidth is being stolen ... |
Please refer to my response to achilles. In what sense is any 'theft' involved? |
They paid for the bandwidth, you didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
