 Poster: A snowHead
|
| hyweljenkins wrote: |
| magriggs, rubbish. Any company that illegally uses copyrighted material has no interest in doing business correctly. |
Run a lot of businesses do you? Check the copyright on every image you use/think about using? Not even allowing for the possibility of an honest mistake or oversight must make you a very unpleasant business to deal with I'm sure. What do you do when your customers type in the wrong credit card number, or forget their PIN? Is this your response: "Rubbish, any customer who gets their PIN number wrong is clearly a thief".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Get real guys... there are NO mistakes like this. People doing this kind of business know really good, that photos, even if found on internet, are not free. They didn't accidentally downloaded one and thought it's for free. Most of advertising agencies are in business long enough, that they know what is right and what is wrong, yet they still go and try.
As far as "polite email asking for credit" goes, this doesn't even make me laugh... It rather makes me cry thinking how low you rate yourself. There are no benefit at all about link to someone's web. There's no links or photo credit in any of advertisements. Normal people don't look for photo credits, so there's absolutely no use of byline. And even if they would remove that photo, things were done. Photo got used before you even found it, so they already made profit with this. For news photo for example, noone cares if they will remove that photo week/month/year after news was published. They can remove that photo and whole news, and there would be no effect. They got what they wanted already, so getting money is only option. Removing photo doesn't help anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
magriggs, tool. Copyright is clearly defined, and the law has been established for many years. I don't run many business, but I am a photographer, I've had my images used without permission, I've pursued the breach, and I've won. Your credit card example is absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| primoz wrote: |
Get real guys... there are NO mistakes like this.
|
Utter, utter, rubbish.
to be exceptionally polite about it.
| Quote: |
People doing this kind of business know really good, that photos, even if found on internet, are not free. They didn't accidentally downloaded one and thought it's for free.
|
I don't know what type of qualification you are adding by "People doing this kind of business", but whatever it is, it wasn't in what hyweljenkins said.
There is no doubt at all that huge number of people do wrongly believe that if it is on the internet, then it is free for use.
And there are also many small businesses who probably don't have any staff who know better. And some larger businesses where an "netrprising" member of staff may do this without the knowledge of the people who shoudl be vetting it.
| Quote: |
Most of advertising agencies are in business long enough, that they know what is right and what is wrong, yet they still go and try.
As far as "polite email asking for credit" goes, this doesn't even make me laugh... It rather makes me cry thinking how low you rate yourself.
|
It takes a really unpleasant mindset to think that could possiby be any sort of sign of "how low you rate yourself".
| Quote: |
There are no benefit at all about link to someone's web.
|
One day, you should learn a little about business, particularly business over the web.
| Quote: |
There's no links or photo credit in any of advertisements. Normal people don't look for photo credits, so there's absolutely no use of byline. And even if they would remove that photo, things were done. Photo got used before you even found it, so they already made profit with this. For news photo for example, noone cares if they will remove that photo week/month/year after news was published. They can remove that photo and whole news, and there would be no effect. They got what they wanted already, so getting money is only option. Removing photo doesn't help anymore. |
All true, but depending on the circumstances, it may well be the only available option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| hyweljenkins wrote: |
| magriggs, tool. Copyright is clearly defined, and the law has been established for many years. I don't run many business, but I am a photographer, I've had my images used without permission, I've pursued the breach, and I've won. Your credit card example is absurd. |
And none of what you have said here backs up your initial statement at all.
And the credit card example is indeed absurd. Just as absurd as the statement it was pointing up.
Mistakes happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
any outcome on this one yet, interesting thread. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex_heney, businesses know that it's illegal to lift copyrighted material from the internet Simple as. They also know that ignorance is no defence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| primoz wrote: |
Get real guys... there are NO mistakes like this.
|
Utter, utter, rubbish.
to be exceptionally polite about it.
|
In this case I think primoz may be right. It seems they knew exactly what they doing.
Copied from their website
We have used during the course of development and maintenance of this site, the following commercially licensed work from the creative commons and are thus exempt from our copyright statement or ownership. We thank the works authors for placing their work in the creative commons:
Obviously they misused Creative Commons, but it demonstrates they really did understand about 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.
|
| hyweljenkins wrote: |
| alex_heney, businesses know that it's illegal to lift copyrighted material from the internet Simple as. They also know that ignorance is no defence. |
You are wrong on both counts. "simple as".
Some businesses know that most material on the internet is copyright (including almost all large businesses). But by no means all businesses do.
And some also (wrongly) believe that "ignorance is no defence". In law, it is actually a defence, provided you can show that you had a "reasonable belief" that the work was in the Public Domain.
Incidentally "ignorance is no defence" firstly only applies to criminal law, not civil, and secondly, only usually applies to ignorance of the law, not to ignorance of the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wayne wrote: |
| alex_heney wrote: |
| primoz wrote: |
Get real guys... there are NO mistakes like this.
|
Utter, utter, rubbish.
to be exceptionally polite about it.
|
In this case I think primoz may be right. It seems they knew exactly what they doing.
Copied from their website
|
Very probably, but that doesn't make the very general statements he and hyweljenkins are making correct.
| Quote: |
We have used during the course of development and maintenance of this site, the following commercially licensed work from the creative commons and are thus exempt from our copyright statement or ownership. We thank the works authors for placing their work in the creative commons:
Obviously they misused Creative Commons, but it demonstrates they really did understand about copyright |
Actually, if they knew enough to make those statements, then they almost certainly knew enough to be aware they were making false statements there.
There is no doubt at all that there are many businesses who do fit the statements being made. My argument is that you can't reasonably say that all businesses who misuse copyright images are as bad.
There are businesses who simply don't know, and there are businesses who make mistakes. They are both claiming that this is not true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
hiya...very interested in writing about this.
(check me out on the Register)
you can mail me on jane@ozimek.co.uk
jane
xx
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Hmm. I am familiar with UK copyright law, but was unaware of
| Quote: |
| Coton had not registered the copyright of her picture in the US, which is a usual requirement for proceeding in respect of copyright in the US |
So it looks as though creative people have a lot less protection there than here. Lara's legal team did well. Hope she eventually gets paid.
jane_fae, welcome to snowheads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Although on Flickr, which is a US site, copyright information is clearly shown against each photograph. Mine are set to all rights reserved but it doesn't stop them being knicked. In my opinion Flickr does little to discourage this and you could argue that they encourage it through API's etc they make available. I'm going to cease my account and move elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Welcome to Snowheads jane_fae, Liking your work on El Reg BTW, particularly your stuff on the police and photography.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
