 Poster: A snowHead
|
| achilles wrote: |
| If that was |
It was... thank you - case closed but the first beer's on you. Now, nearly page 8 of the Swiller challenge... 
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Re. your final question, Dave, I think copyright-holders have two concerns |
Indeed, but just to muddy the waters further... there are many PR "news items" pushed into the feeds where the originator is engaged in a branding or awareness exercise and wouldn't be looking for a link back (or even a credit, so long as the article gets widely circulated).
Such items are often indistinguishable from "real" news, so it might be difficult to determine what would seem like "fair use" to the originator - until you get a complaint when you get it wrong.
Safest policy is always to credit and link though - even if that falls beyond what the owner intended, you have at least been polite and shown good faith.
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Can I have a party hat and a raspberry jelly, please? |
Only if we make it to page 20 by the Snowheads birthday...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| J2Dave wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| If that was |
It was... thank you - case closed but the first beer's on you. ........ |
Fair cop guv. Lutins, Les Deux Alpes, Sunday night?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| J2Dave wrote: |
| ...............Indeed, but just to muddy the waters further... there are many PR "news items" pushed into the feeds where the originator is engaged in a branding or awareness exercise and wouldn't be looking for a link back (or even a credit, so long as the article gets widely circulated).............. |
There also seems to be a bunch of stuff on YouTube where the original copyright holders are plugging their stuff mimicking those who don't hold copyright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
J2Dave, to clarify I'm only a keen amateur with another hobby which provides opportunities for images which are hard to get from any other source, and where the images have a ready market in education and publishing, so the serious companies come to us to get an image to illustrate their work.
And, all of the cases I mentioned were settled out of court - we don't have the funds to pursue legal cases, even though we would win them, and of course given the overwhelming evidence the companies concerned wanted to save face and expense by settling immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
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 |
Well... A. and (b) might indeed be policy, but I haven't seen anything from admin or the mods which approaches B. Just members practicing the free speech you so admire!
I haven't seen any mod objecting to you posting links/thumbnails etc, just hotlinks - which do use up other sites bandwidth without really benefitting them.
I think this was a bit unfair to Admin and his team. Time for a correction?
Personally avoiding maturing [growing old, boring and pernickety] seem fine to me! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stoatsbrother, I was reflecting partly on an 8-page thread "Naming and shaming the Ski Club of Great Britain" (eventually locked) which ran in autumn 2006:
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=21051&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=pistehors+copyright&start=0
Quoting admin:
| Quote: |
Yes, we had exactly the same problem with SCGB once - IMO it's hardly out of character, more the 'norm' where they're concerned
I suggested that not to link back to source was highly rude and the person I spoke to, although very pleasant, expressed 'fear from above' if they were to link to us. In the end, to their credit, they 'took a chance' by linking the article back to us and two other sites - both of whom had got it from us too They didn't even credit us first I don't blame the individual but the apparent culture within the organisation. |
Far from correcting what I've written above (the words were carefully chosen) I'd request admin to explain his apparent conflicting stance on this.
Is snowHeads' house in order, on this specific point of photo rights and permissions? Shouldn't photographers and sources be credited against commercially-used news photos?
Alternatively, there could simply be a hyperlink to the source page to see the photo that illustrates the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is a comment made 18 months ago, rather than a policy. And James Cove genuinely does seem to be trying to change the skeeb culture.
This might be beginning to look as though you are lashing out because you have been told to alter the way you post images. That would be a shame when we can all collaborate to get Swiller doing the Kensington buff slalom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
If snowHeads are going to complain about SCGB practices, it's incumbent upon us to keep our own noses clean. I don't think admin has contributed to this thread yet, but it might be helpful if he were to acknowledge the apparent inconsistency which David Goldsmith has highlighted, and also to establish and enforce a clear policy which is consistent with what we expect from other website operators. That's surely not unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
Is snowHeads' house in order, on this specific point of photo rights and permissions? Shouldn't photographers and sources be credited against commercially-used news photos?
. |
Is your house in order? It's over two years since your own abuse of copyright was pointed out : http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=11472 and yet you carried on without any discernible hesitation.
Still, it feels churlish not to applaud your conversion, no matter how recent, to an understanding of what other peoples intellectual property means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
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? |
David you are a complete antagonist and it is fairly juvenile .... period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Quoting admin:
| Quote: |
Yes, we had exactly the same problem with SCGB once - IMO it's hardly out of character, more the 'norm' where they're concerned
I suggested that not to link back to source was highly rude and the person I spoke to, although very pleasant, expressed 'fear from above' if they were to link to us. In the end, to their credit, they 'took a chance' by linking the article back to us and two other sites - both of whom had got it from us too They didn't even credit us first I don't blame the individual but the apparent culture within the organisation. |
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
Far from correcting what I've written above (the words were carefully chosen) I'd request admin to explain his apparent conflicting stance on this.
|
What conflicting stance? snowNews stories nearly always include a source link to where they have been found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok I've worked it out...
BS has bribed DG to get this thread locked to avoid the Kensington High Street Hahnenkamn
But we won't get fooled again 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
triple post... thank you ipod... 
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Fri 25-01-08 22:38; 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:
|
|
stoatsbrother, keep going and you'll get it to 20 pages single handedly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Sadly, due to congestion charging, local bye laws, a request from Lord Coe and an anticipated nasty cold (in around 12 pages time) I am sad to announce that the streak has had to be postponed until after the 2012 Olympics - there are also Roga's image rights to consider. His management team thought screaming "bum chum" in connection with his good name would jeopardise some of his sponsorship contracts. Sorry all, you can go back to single line spacing and short words now (I appreciate some of you don't know long ones anyway).
Am I the only person that has not a clue what's going on now? The Internet is the new Wild West - it'll be decades before protocols are generally agreed to, adhered to and policed (if ever and if possible). If your intellectual property is valuable don't leave it lying around. Copyright theft must be the most popular crime around the world right 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?
|
|
Bode Swiller, Bingo !
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I see the weekend's off to a lively start.
stoatsbrother, I wasn't "told to alter the way" images were posted. It was put to me, by achilles and ise, that I was stealing bandwidth. I asked the moderators for guidance, which Elizabeth provided. I said I'd stop hot-linking images to this site, though the site's policy has still not been posted up.
I repeat the questions on page 5 of this thread, posed to Elizabeth, though it would be best if admin answered them:
| Quote: |
| Does hot-linking comprise theft of bandwidth, in the moderators' view? Does it comprise theft of copyright, in the moderators' view? |
It would obviously be best if the site's conditions of use were specific on the use of copyright text/photos on this site generally, as per j2ski. Can't anyone just answer simple straight questions officially around here?
These were the other straightforward questions I posed:
| Quote: |
snowHeads news photos: They are published, I think always, without credit to the photographer or source. They are re-hosted by snowHeads, presumably by copying them from the original hosting sites.
What is your position on this?
Are these photos copyright or public domain? If the former, are they published with permission? |
ise, as you've effectively conceded, your points (and personal prejudice towards me) are now redundant. There's no point in me reproducing what may be copyright information here - for no commercial gain - if you and others are going to accuse me of theft. Why not apply your moralising to the points above?
plectrum, that was a gratuitous comment, and we are dealing with genuine issues here, as above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Am I the only person that has not a clue what's going on now? |
Yes. And let's hope it remains that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, Chicken!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In practical terms the Internet has destroyed copyright protection for 99.99% of us. Only 0.01% have the means and the time to try and protect copyright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Really?! So our friend ousekjarr was 'one in 10,000'. Clearly worth getting to know!
riverman, ousekjarr (crazy name, crazy guy) gave no indication that it had cost him either much time or money to protect his copyright. What makes you think that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, As you say ousekarr is crazy (who ever he is) so I would accept does not fit into my 0.01%. So I would have to change my figures to 99.98% 0.01% and 0.01% crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
All way too serious.
I suspect Bode and Riverman are right about the internet. Anyway hopefully the new skeeb policy of linking will continue and burgeon.
David , the issue in your use of images, as far as many were concerned this time, was the load it put on the image host's bandwidth. However it did seem a bit rich that you have talked about copyright so often in the past, that you have also been one of the most prolific posters of images.
Anyway - admin's house, his party, not a democracy, his rules, and it isn't any of our places to dictate to him how detailed the T&Cs should be. Indeed - this is one area (along with the Ski Club rep off-piste policy ) where some ambiguity may be a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
stoatsbrother, The best policy is to have no policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, this is what you should do:-
1. Get permission to use the picture.
2. Upload the picture to your own webspace.
3. Hotlink to it there and use your own bandwidth to display it here.
4. Don't forget to credit the copyright holder.
You can build up your own library of images over time, secure in the knowledge that you have permission to publish and you are not being a bandwidth thief.
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Sat 26-01-08 0:31; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
riverman, quite right - I think we should be forced to sign up to the site T&Cs, but they should be hidden from us at all costs so we cannot argue about them. Arbitrary decisions should be implemented by the mods with no explanation at all. If we don't like it- go elsewhere. Life is not fair. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Do we need pictures?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
BTW, David, the above should be applied retrospectively to all your hotlinking. So get cracking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Bode Swiller In real life - you wouldn't happen to be paid by the word would you ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
stoatsbrother, we're all always signing up to Ts&Cs... download a piece of software, there's a scroll box with loads of words and a tick box below. Do you EVER read the words. No (I thought so) you just tick the box because you want to get on with it and because you assume the words are reasonable but unenforceable anyway. And that's how it is. Signing up to Ts&Cs (or frankly even having them in most cases) is pointless. Like you say, don't like it, move on.
[ ] Please check this box to confirm you have read Mr Swiller's ramblings and that you agree with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Bode Swiller In real life - you wouldn't happen to be paid by the word would you ? |
No, by the kilo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Bode Swiller, I try not to read t&Cs, least of all on EULAs - the spybot one is the only one I have ever found at all interesting - anyway I know someone will have a lawyer who can make them work anyway they want if it really becomes an issue.
[x] - I have read Mr Swiller's ramblings and indemnify him against all loss of earnings due to consequent insanity and income loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
In truth, Swiller pays handsomely for each word he publishes (his journalistic career commenced on the Exchange & Mart).
The world's leading vanity publishers have beaten a path to his door.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have just finished reading my Windows T&Cs. Took a long time. Should I upgrade? Wonder if things have moved on since Windows 3.2?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, HOW DARE YOU... it was Autotrader
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Forget the beginnings, Swiller. Do they really matter?
What really matters is your recent appointment as literary editor of Loot. There's hope for that rag yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
ise, as you've effectively conceded, your points (and personal prejudice towards me) are now redundant. There's no point in me reproducing what may be copyright information here - for no commercial gain - if you and others are going to accuse me of theft. Why not apply your moralising to the points above?
plectrum, that was a gratuitous comment, and we are dealing with genuine issues here, as above. |
So we take that it that you do concede that a fair summary of your own conduct has been :
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
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. |
And that you've been doing it for over two years knowing full well the concerns about it?
Again, it's fantastic that you've had this road to Damascus experience, but maybe a period of reflection would be better before putting your white (hobby horse) charger of justice into full reverse and galloping off on your latest crusade? Maybe some sort of pilgrimage to a ski station to help get things in perspective for you?
PS, nice ironic touch accusing other people of gratuitous comment and moralising, and it's great to see you continuing this tradition of name calling even without the customary use of a someone else's photographs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I was going to accuse you of cold feet - but then I thought you may have been worried about something else being cold 
