 Poster: A snowHead
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| no AGM... |
You're not kidding:
| j2ski.com according to DG wrote: |
| This is not a Democracy |
|
I don't have a problem with that at all. He's being admirably frank and open about his philosophy/belief. People can take it or leave it, and I'm tempted to give it a whirl.
There are umpteen threats to democratic values on these forums anyway, not necessarily imposed by their owners by any means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Seven pages, only 13 to go .... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Good research, DB. Have you seen any signs of this "naked road" concept in Vienna or Manchester, with strippers being rolled out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| J2Dave wrote: |
| albeit only those horrid redirected lets-try-not-to-pass-on-page-rank (we like this site, but not enough to put a proper link to it) links. |
aka PageRank Misers, this is of course why they won't link out unless you create a huge stink on other forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| J2Dave wrote: |
Going back to the original subject of the thread (yes, llamas)... if "the Skeeb" are now going to start crediting Snowheads for material they find on here then that's a good thing, no? |
I don't think going around cutting and pasting material from other web sites can ever be seen as a "good thing". It is not how the web works. They should either take Snowheads RSS feed (as I have done) or just link to the article manually not give some measely c/o crap. Natives are the same. It is leeching content from other websites. The problem with the skeeb [TM] is that the site has a high page rank so the ripped content can end up ranking higher in search engines than the original. The result, less visits for content originators, less revenue to run expensive servers and bandwidth and develop new functionality and in the end a poorer internet for everyone dominated by a few "big" players and the ski industry centered, press-release news services. But that is what they want I suppose, just like the good old days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, didn't realise there was a snowHeads RSS now... of course I take the PisteHors one 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Innocent question, (honestly) what does it actually cost to run large websites?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
boredsurfin, that's a how long is a piece of string question. It depends on such things as the actual size, the bandwidth consumed, the amount of input required by a professional web design company (you can't always do everything by CMS, and security must be monitored) how much in-house staff is dedicated to it - and what offsets there are particularly in the form of advertising. To be truthful, I haven't a Scooby. But I bet it cost a lot to run the BBC's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, very interested in what you say, since you're a true content originator.
Do you think that a summarised cut and paste of a story (re-worded as a summary), with a hyperlink to the source in the first few sentences, achieves a satisfactory hit result for pistehors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
achilles, Oh, is eveyone in the same boat as me then, I dont have a clue what my site costs me either 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
| Innocent question, (honestly) what does it actually cost to run large websites? |
Depends what you are counting. I have my own Linux server which is co-located in New York. I run at near capacity during Dec-Mar period and it costs around $50/month. Okay the $$$ is not so strong so that is good. I have some software costs. I don't count development time but figure I've invested about $50K over the 2001-2008 period. There are other expenses such as traveling places to interview and take photos. I'd been doing a lot of the content creation on a pro-bono basis.
A lot of people provide news content for free which is great (like Snowheads).
I do run Google ads and some other advertising to non-logged in users which covers some costs but you are not going to get rich (although you may get poor) off a backcountry ski website.
To answer your question more fully though, that's just the tip of the ice berg. To run a middling website like the Ski Club's probably costs 250K per year what with their 4 staff. That's a conservative estimate - someone with the accounts could tell you more. That is why they don't, by and large, originate any content, because the economics are not there for them to do so.
I think the economics are only really there for sites like Snowheads which are user written on a goodwill basis.
[edited for confusing grammar]
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Thu 24-01-08 13:45; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The central issue of this thread - alleged copyright infringement - is one I've raised on a snowHeads news story thread today:
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?p=835495#835495
The administrators and mods on this site appear to have gone into winter hibernation on this interesting subject, inasmuch as it concerns snowHeads itself!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
Do you think that a summarised cut and paste of a story (re-worded as a summary), with a hyperlink to the source in the first few sentences, achieves a satisfactory hit result for pistehors? |
I must admit I don't really look at the SkiClub or Natives any more. I decided last year to stop doing so much on PisteHors and instead focus on my regular job and skiing, of course.
My main concerns with the Ski Club was for them not to cut and paste the whole article and for them to link back to the original. As far as I am aware they link to PisteHors and keep their versions to a reasonable summary or quotes. I think that works for both sides, not everyone who visits the ski club website wants to click off to some obscure backcountry blog. I don't personally have any issues with them. I'm sure this is all Winterhighland and other websites want. We're not holding ourselves out as professional photographers and journalists just as bloggers and forumistas.
I think James Cove (who seems like a very reasonable person who is sensitive to these issues) will put some better editorial control in place and I think it will benefit everyone if we can have friendly relations between the various websites serving English speaking skiers.
My apologies to SH who are fed up with these endless battles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Actually I think they're surfing ... in the locality
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
But you just said they were hibernating. I'll have a rustle around in the undergrowth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
davidof, How nicely put! Actually, for the most part, it's been an edifying and worthwhile thread, and it looks - so far as I can judge without the requisite technical know-how - as though the issue was reasonably well fielded by the Ski Club. Good result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
I think it will benefit everyone if we can have friendly relations between the various websites serving English speaking skiers.
|
davidof, you're just no fun anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| ... the issue was reasonably well fielded by the Ski Club. |
And the umpire is a perfectly amenable chap. Would you care to pass that slice of chocolate cake, Johnners?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, and to you too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
I think James Cove (who seems like a very reasonable person who is sensitive to these issues) will put some better editorial control in place ... |
Well there are two clear options: Jim'll fix it, or Jim'll fudge it.
I know James quite well personally, having spent a couple of years with him on the SCGB Environmental Working Group. He has worked 3 years on the Club's Council, is a very experienced skier and a BASI-qualified instructor. As most people will know, he has had a long career at BBC TV, in news production.
The contrast between the BBC's strict (and very strictly non-commercial) journalistic codes, against the SCGB's 'slightly more relaxed' attitudes is very much white against black. Both organisations project themselves as independent and to be trusted by their respective audiences. The SCGB has changed the colour of its spots radically since its early decades (initially the Club would not even admit people like the Lunn family - including Arnold Lunn - because their families had commercial interests in skiing). It's difficult to know how my Club defines its independence now.
It'll therefore be very interesting to see if James brings some Beeb to the Skeeb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Changing the subject a bit are you off to the Monoteuf at Puy St Vincent this weekend? There is a rumour (well according to the Tourist Office) that a Posse of Brit monoskiers will be there.
Back to the copyright issues. I do agree with SZK a little bit that in these days of fast moving Internet based user created news the copyright laws maybe can't be as strictly interpreted as previously. However it is incumbent on responsible organisations to behave with the utmost probity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely. I'll drink to that.
Re. your first para., I'm no longer monogamous, but wish every success to les monoskieurs Britanniques!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
The central issue of this thread - alleged copyright infringement - is one I've raised on a snowHeads news story thread today:
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?p=835495#835495
The administrators and mods on this site appear to have gone into winter hibernation on this interesting subject, inasmuch as it concerns snowHeads itself! |
David, come on mate you are being too pedantic and slightly off the plot.
I don't think Snowheads have received any complaint about the use of imagery in their news stories so right or wrong it really doesn't matter. You are asking questions as well that you can predict the answer. There is 0.0000001 % chance that Snowheads have sought permission from the Chinese news agency in question for the reproduction of their image. Who though actually cares, certainly not the Chinese news agency.
The topic here if you read the title is why do SCGB plagiarise and then aggravate and then aggravate further a copyright holder who has made an official request to be credited for their work. Also as a sub point, Winterhighland for instance or PisteHors etc etc are within the same community as SCGB and Snowheads and to be honest this is a bit like shitting on your neighbours doorstep.
Don't you think that if the SCGB became low and behold 'friendly' they would get alot more favours from within the community?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I'd also like to point out that this whole topic is a shame as the SCGB do offer a great package across the board from their free content to their charged services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm unsure what the LEGAL position is on these re-posted pix etc, but the ETHICAL position seems pretty clear. Post the pic (but don't steal bandwidth) and give a credit with a link back. That would be the polite way surely, and very simple to do. (or maybe not and don't call me shirley ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Shirley, that would be the equivalent of producing an unauthorised reprint of a David Bailey photo, marking the back of it 'Contact David Bailey to get a copy of the original and here are his contact details'.
No, the only legal approach (politeness has nothing to do with it) is to seek reproduction permission from the copyright holder, unless the photo is expressly authorised for reproduction.
plectrum, you cannot be serious. You're conflating two quite separate issues: the friendliness/unfriendliness of the SCGB, and the legality/ethics of using someone else's property without credit/permission.
I was in touch with someone at the heart of the snowHeads Strategy Team the other day who made the point that the internet wouldn't function without 'copy 'n paste' fun. Whether serious players would hold to that view is very debatable, I'd have thought.
Discuss!
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Fri 25-01-08 12:17; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
No, the only legal approach (politeness has nothing to do with it) is to seek reproduction permission from the copyright holder, unless the photo is expressly authorised for reproduction. |
Depends on how much is being reproduced from the original article but I would have thought there is some fair use for reproducing a thumbnail with a link to the original story a la Google News (I know that French and Belgium courts don't agree with this interpretation though).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I used to use Google thumbprints with that thought in mind, but I think it's now impossible to hot-link to Google thumbprints, so Google themselves have presumably ruled this a no-go area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
> Don't you think that if the SCGB became low and behold 'friendly' they would get alot more favours from within the community?
it is not just the SCGB, there are a few sites that have a poor attitude and want to freeload for their own commercial gain without giving anything back in terms of links in case they bleed away their precious PageRank.
Unfortunately that's a bit of the mentality of the British "beggar they neighbour" ski industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| I used to use Google thumbprints with that thought in mind, but I think it's now impossible to hot-link to Google thumbprints, so Google themselves have presumably ruled this a no-go area. |
No but you could create your own thumbprints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Shirley, that would be the equivalent of producing an unauthorised reprint of a David Bailey photo, marking the back of it 'Contact David Bailey to get a copy of the original and here are his contact details'. |
I think that's a useful example - let's say a photography tutor did such (producing the equivalent of a thumbnail) to illustrate a point; isn't that likely to fall under the doctrine of "Fair Use"?
Similarly, the "bandwidth theft" issue aside for a moment, if you (or Snowheads) include a thumbnail picture published by a news agency alongside a summary of the original news item... I would have thought that would be seen, legally and ethically, as "Fair Use" provided that the source was credited.
Importantly, it doesn't devalue the original (in fact, it probably increases the value of the original with a link back / credit) or claim ownership of it.
I'm not a lawyer but I'd have thought a legal eagle could make a solid defense of Fair Use in either case.
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| You're conflating two quite separate issues: the friendliness/unfriendliness of the SCGB, and the legality/ethics of using someone else's property without credit/permission. |
I think those two issues came together in the title of this thread didn't they? 
This thread would have died a quick death had there been a swift and "friendly" response from The Skeeb - instead it's been drawn out by bluster and some stupid attacks on other ski sites (appreciate that the most obviously false statements have since been withdrawn, but some of the remaining comments smack of "it's fine for us (SCGB) to do it, but the rest of you can feck off").
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| I used to use Google thumbprints with that thought in mind, but I think it's now impossible to hot-link to Google thumbprints, so Google themselves have presumably ruled this a no-go area. |
That's as likely to be so they can manage the loads on their image servers I would have thought, rather than being specifically a copyright-related policy (apologies to The Mighty Goog if that's wrong).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| J2Dave wrote: |
| ...... stupid attacks on other ski sites (appreciate that the most obviously false statements have since been withdrawn........... |
Hmm. A a comment on your site is a stupid attack??
In case anyone is wondering about whether a part of my comment on your site which I edited is an 'obviously false statement withdrawn' - the only thing I removed was a detailed reference which revealed more than you wished (understandably I felt).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| J2Dave wrote: |
I think that's a useful example - let's say a photography tutor did such (producing the equivalent of a thumbnail) to illustrate a point; isn't that likely to fall under the doctrine of "Fair Use"?
Similarly, the "bandwidth theft" issue aside for a moment, if you (or Snowheads) include a thumbnail picture published by a news agency alongside a summary of the original news item... I would have thought that would be seen, legally and ethically, as "Fair Use" provided that the source was credited.
Importantly, it doesn't devalue the original (in fact, it probably increases the value of the original with a link back / credit) or claim ownership of it.
I'm not a lawyer but I'd have thought a legal eagle could make a solid defense of Fair Use in either case.
|
You might like to read the article you linked to - "Fair Use" as a concept applies in the US only, and in the UK the article specifically states (correctly, in my experience) that all material is covered by copyright unless it is explicitly placed in the public domain. This thread is about the abuse by a UK company and website of images published by another UK company, which had been contributed by UK-based photographers.
The fact that theft of images from web sites happens, and for commercial gain, is indisputable, as is the fact that most people get away with it. That still doesn't make it either legal, or right. Having chased people for compensation for illegal use of my own photos, I've had more experience of this than I'd have liked, but in the end I've received hard cash as a result. However, my cases were clear-cut - the web site had a policy statement saying that all images were copyright and must not be used without permission, which was repeated on every page, while the images had both an almost invisible watermark and a highly visible copyright mark. The users of the images invariably cropped the copyright mark out, so claiming that they "didn't know it was copyright" was pointless. They apologised and paid for retrospective image use rights - so far, that's raised about £1K from 4 companies over 2 photos.
If you feel that such theft is "petty", try getting a library image from Getty Images or a similar agency, and once you've gone through the 3 pages of questions on usage, size, target audience and so on, you'll find that prices start from about £70 per image for single use, non-exclusive rights in a limited medium, to several thousand for exclusive rights in a national publication. Once you image has been stolen, its no longer possible to sell exclusive rights. And, I'm not talking here about papparazzi shots of Z-list celebrities, but landscape and hobby shots which happen to be useful to illustrate articles, or in advertising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
| If you feel that such theft is "petty" |
Just to be clear - I certainly don't.
As I understand it, "Fair Use" is not a defence against theft - it defines a legal, limited and non-damaging (to the copyright owner) usage of copyright material that is therefore not theft (cos it's "fair" as far as the relevant legal system sees it).
And of course you raise the very valid point that each country has differing laws (particularly in respect of "Fair Use" - copyright is almost universally protected), which gives the world of the Internet a whole new kettle of fish to play in (cue hot-linked image from DG).
So we have a discontinuity between the copyright owner who may or may not think a particular use of their work is "fair" and... oh, here we are.
In this case Winterhighland would have (from their comments above) thought it fair if they'd been credited and linked to in the SCGB article.
In your case, as a professional photographer (if I understand your post correctly - apologies if not) you understandably have a different perspective and it sounds as if you're very clear on your website about that perspective.
In the case of a news agency, who may publish an RSS feed with summaries of their news items and maybe links to pictures, it becomes less obvious. If a webmaster like admin sees one of these articles after it's been re-published by Google (which happens to most news agency feeds) then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the news agency intends for that material to be re-used (and credited) and would think that was "fair use"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| J2Dave wrote: |
| ...... stupid attacks on other ski sites (appreciate that the most obviously false statements have since been withdrawn........... |
Hmm. A a comment on your site is a stupid attack??
In case anyone is wondering about whether a part of my comment on your site which I edited is an 'obviously false statement withdrawn' - the only thing I removed was a detailed reference which revealed more than you wished (understandably I felt). |
Sorry, bit steamed up this morning. I had also made a comment about the only way to contact you was by email - I then accepted there was sufficient information about you here and withdrew that as well. If that was the 'obviously false statement' I apologise unreservedly.
The Copyright Act
One or two of you have felt unsure of the law in the UK. Here it is. A bit more on that. The act was written 20 years ago - and when I last studied it (for a business I was employed by) I thought it rather poorly drafted - and I guess a lot of case law has been required to clarify it. How much interpretation has been done by the courts to cover the modern web world, I don't know. My guess is that ousekjarr's examples were settled out of court - though the use of images with the copyright removed might have strengthened his case; it comes across as shoddy practice - and yes I know about the complaints of the SCGB doing it. Although 'fair use' is not part of UK law, maybe examples of its use would be persuasive to a UK court.
Slow progress towards the 20 pages, but we are getting there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re. your final question, Dave, I think copyright-holders have two concerns in this situation:
1. To have any interested reader of an item of Google News, or a story identified from GN, get back to their site to read the full story and therefore make the hit and see the ads.
2. To retain full control of the copyright of any images and text, without (as ousekjarr points out) that copyright being compromised by reproduction without credit/permission.
In the absence of any clarifying statement (it's been some days now) the snowHeads policy seems to be:
A. Publish copyright photos without credit or permission until there's a complaint, because (for example) a Chinese news agency probably won't know what's going on.
B. Slag off the Skeeb for publishing 'snowHeads news stories' (which have actually been obtained from other sources) without permission or credit.
snowHeads faces two choices as it approaches its 4th birthday in two weeks: (a) mature (b) avoid maturing
Can I have a party hat and a raspberry jelly, please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
