Jump to content


Photo

Photo theft - have your pics been 'nicked'? (merged)


  • Please log in to reply
262 replies to this topic

#1 Twin Window

Twin Window
  • Nostalgia Host

  • 6,609 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 18 May 2010 - 09:23

TNFers who post photos might want to check-out Motorsport Retro's photos on Facebook.

I've already found two of mine lifted from TNF and spotted one of Rob Ryder's. They've also used a load of my scans of stickers on their own website.

:mad:

Advertisement

#2 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,662 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 May 2010 - 10:12

Go sue them TW FB must have gazzilions of $$$ to pay for their mistakes :-)

#3 Gary Davies

Gary Davies
  • Member

  • 1,926 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 18 May 2010 - 13:15

Perhaps this should be in Blood Pressure but I was recently amused to read George Clooney's views on Facebook in an in-flight magazine. As I recall, he said "I would rather have a rectal examination on live TV by a man with cold hands than be involved with Facebook."

I think he must have overheard me talking about the ghastly thing. :cool:

#4 buckaluck

buckaluck
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 18 May 2010 - 14:20

You should consider putting in a digital watermark on all you photo's. I enjoy the photo's of cars I like and enjoy having them in my collection but would not use them in an unethical manner but we all know there are more than a few people out there with no ethics and now you know.
In situation like this you would most likely spend more money sueing them then you would get back but give it a try.

Buck

#5 Giraffe

Giraffe
  • Member

  • 7,000 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 May 2010 - 14:30

Perhaps this should be in Blood Pressure but I was recently amused to read George Clooney's views on Facebook in an in-flight magazine. As I recall, he said "I would rather have a rectal examination on live TV by a man with cold hands than be involved with Facebook."


At the last count there were 400 million people who didn't agree with George.... :drunk:

#6 Gabrci

Gabrci
  • Member

  • 438 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 18 May 2010 - 14:31

You should consider putting in a digital watermark on all you photo's.


The negative side of that is that it looks really cheap and almost pathetic really, and if someone wants to remove it, it takes 3 minutes with Photoshop anyway.

#7 alansart

alansart
  • Member

  • 4,011 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 18 May 2010 - 14:34

TNFers who post photos might want to check-out Motorsport Retro's photos on Facebook.

I've already found two of mine lifted from TNF and spotted one of Rob Ryder's. They've also used a load of my scans of stickers on their own website.

:mad:


I have wondered about that site for a while. None of my images but I recognise quite a few from here or magazines. Motorsport Retro does some interesting things on Facebook but most of the images are clearly not theirs. When you load photos on Facebook you get "I certify that I have the right to distribute these photos and that they do not violate the Terms of Use." Something which seems to have been ignored.


#8 Giraffe

Giraffe
  • Member

  • 7,000 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 May 2010 - 14:40

When you load photos on Facebook you get "I certify that I have the right to distribute these photos and that they do not violate the Terms of Use." Something which seems to have been ignored.


There are that many images on Facebook and on TNF for that matter that contravene copyright, that nothing could ever be done about it. TNF might run the (unlikely) risk of being closed down, but Facebook with 400 million members worldwide? I can't see that. It really is a 21st century issue.

#9 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,834 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 18 May 2010 - 15:17

As I do not posess a barge-pole, I am unable to touch Facebook.

Then again, even if I did have a barge-pole.....

I have long ago come to accept that this sort of thing happens. My attitude is very much one of 'well, if it keeps them happy....' It's not costing me money if someone steals one of my photos but I DO understand how you guys who make a living from your photographs must feel about it.

Is Motorsport Retro anything to do with that Scottish chap who I bought a c.d. of pictures from many years ago? I think his name was Franco Varani, or something Italian like that.

#10 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 18 May 2010 - 15:27

There was a photographer with a name like that many years ago. But he was Welsh. And died at a young age (if that's even slightly relevant)

#11 Giraffe

Giraffe
  • Member

  • 7,000 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 May 2010 - 15:52

The vast majority of professional photographers don't post anything other than samplers on the web as they know the risks involved. They often have password protected websites, or watermark their images. EVERYTHING on the web is insecure to some degree or other so if you're not prepared to risk it, just don't post it.
Pro's don't, and that's why the vast majority of photos taken at race circuits never see the light of day and remain in private collections. I'm just very grateful for the photographers who are prepared to post and share their considerable skills (Simon & others) with us for our enjoyment.

#12 retriever

retriever
  • Member

  • 394 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 May 2010 - 16:03

Perhaps this should be in Blood Pressure


That thread was launched by Mr Nye as a light-hearted aside within the Nostalgia Forum. This problem, especially those who are the custodians/owners of negative collections which help provide their incomes and which may well have cost a considerable sum to acquire, certainly does not.

Last year I started the commercial vehicle nostalgia thread with images from the Arthur Ingram negative archive which I own and use in my day to day job as a publisher and specialist transport bookseller. After a few months I decided to delete them as they were now 'down the page' and also I did not want them appearing elsewhere even though they carried copyright overlay. However, I could not delete all the images of mine within that thread as a few had been repeated by another member in a subsequent response and there they remain to this day.

Question, is there a way to remove these 'repeats' or does it have to be done as a request to TW, who incidentally is this thread's creator.

As Giraffe says, this is a 21st century problem wherein the attitude with many who transgress is 'If it is alright by me then it is alright'.







#13 alansart

alansart
  • Member

  • 4,011 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 18 May 2010 - 16:20

Question, is there a way to remove these 'repeats' or does it have to be done as a request to TW, who incidentally is this thread's creator.


Just remove the photo from whichever server you put it on. The link will then come up blank.

Edited by alansart, 18 May 2010 - 16:21.


#14 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,331 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 18 May 2010 - 18:07

We have found with our GPL photographs that if you find them on a Flickr site or some other light-fingered -----'s you contact the service provider, and shout loudly at them. They try to put you through all kinds of hurdles to prove your copyright. You shout more loudly at them since they have staff to bugger about with paperwork and bureaucracy - and we do not. We are, however, the potentially injured parties in this, and so you should more loudly. You warn them that their obstructionism is defending and prolonging the infringement of copyright, and exposing them to third-party liability in aiding and abetting the infringement. Nine times out of ten the site is taken down and the infringement is ended within 48 hours. It's a pity we have to do this. As I have said many times here, we are happy to share some of our material for enthusiast enjoyment and information, as long as copyright acknowledgment appears adjacent, and as long as nobody pinches the scans for personal gain. That is theft, pure and simple - and I will personally take great delight in Talibanic retribution for same.

We are happy to share with fellow enthusiasts - but object strenuously to being screwed in return. Unreasonable?

DCN




#15 Oscarphone

Oscarphone
  • New Member

  • 10 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 18 May 2010 - 18:11

This is real problem. As a professional designer I am well aware of copyright issues. Let me state that "artist copyright" or creator copyrights are pretty wide open. In other words, if you created it, it is yours. Go after them and quote in your letter:

"My photos (and their electronic representations) are covered by artist copyright as per United States Copyright, Article 1, Section 8; (revised January 1, 1978) or registered in the United States under apropos copyright law. The unauthorized use of the aforementioned photos (and their electronic representations) is an unlawful breach of that article."

That might smoke them out and cause them to either deal with you or stop using the photos. As for me, I'd rather have them use the photos and give me credit and link them to my web site.

That being said, if you value a photo and wish to control its use, do not put it up on the web without some watermarking or at least least a "© 2010 Joe Smith" on the photo. And be prepared to defend it when the time comes. Usually a quick e-mail or letter to cease and desist using it will be enough. Also, embedding your name, copyright, creation date, etc. into the metadata of the photo helps when push come to shove. This paper discusses metadata, Photoshop and your photos: http://www.adobe.com...ip_metadata.pdf. Than you can prove it is your photo when the time comes. I also recommend tracking your photos using Google Analytics (or similar) tied into whatever site you may have the photos parked. That would give you a small clue as to where to look for your photos if you feel that somebody has poached them.

If you fight these a**holes than the rest of us can breathe a little easier. Good luck.



#16 Paul Taylor

Paul Taylor
  • Member

  • 1,094 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 18 May 2010 - 18:34

TNFers who post photos might want to check-out Motorsport Retro's photos on Facebook.

I've already found two of mine lifted from TNF and spotted one of Rob Ryder's. They've also used a load of my scans of stickers on their own website.

:mad:


I've said this before, if you distribute them for free, expect them to be re-distributed for free.

Edited by Paul Taylor, 19 May 2010 - 11:32.


#17 retriever

retriever
  • Member

  • 394 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 May 2010 - 19:06

One thing that irritates me is to see a painting that has been created by the painter virtually 'copying' a photographic scene wherein the vehicle is painted in exactly the same angle and elevation although the background may well be different. This appears to be a particular trait of those who paint pictures commissioned by calendar publishers.

I remember one picture of a 'chinese six' ERF (twin steer at front - single axle at rear) that featured on the cover of one of our books which later appeared in such a piece of work - exactly same aspect, different background although in this instance the chinese six had become an eightwheeler.

I do believe that such creations are also an infringement of copyright - do any fellow TNF'ers recall similar instances of their photos becoming paintings. Maybe DCN has experience of this happening to material for which he is a custodian.

#18 alansart

alansart
  • Member

  • 4,011 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 18 May 2010 - 19:16

One thing that irritates me is to see a painting that has been created by the painter virtually 'copying' a photographic scene wherein the vehicle is painted in exactly the same angle and elevation although the background may well be different.


I would hazard a guess that most paintings are done like that. Very few have the ability, time or money to fund doing it any other way!

#19 Andrew Kitson

Andrew Kitson
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: July 03

Posted 18 May 2010 - 19:22

I do believe that such creations are also an infringement of copyright - do any fellow TNF'ers recall similar instances of their photos becoming paintings.

My photos yes.


Advertisement

#20 Marc Sproule

Marc Sproule
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 May 2010 - 19:38

Here is a nifty way to search the web if you think your images are being used somewhere

http://www.tineye.com/

It's free, self-explanatory and will frequently catch the bad guys. It has worked for me in the past. It's not foolproof though as tineye makes it clear that not every image on the net is in their database.

#21 retriever

retriever
  • Member

  • 394 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 May 2010 - 19:49

My photos yes.


And have you followed these instances up and if so what was the response / result.

My real beef regarding such activities is those pictures where the vehicle (in my case - a lorry) is painted exactly as photographed - not an interpretation - and the setting they are pictured in is one of those scenes from the 1950s / 1960s wherein the 'artist' fills the canvas so that it is overflowing with 'nostalgia'. All his own work!

#22 Giraffe

Giraffe
  • Member

  • 7,000 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 18 May 2010 - 22:19

I do believe that such creations are also an infringement of copyright - do any fellow TNF'ers recall similar instances of their photos becoming paintings. Maybe DCN has experience of this happening to material for which he is a custodian.


If the image is recreated in a hand painted painting, no matter how many times and is not passed off as the original, then to date it will pass as this has not been tested in law.
If however the image is receeated as a giclee or print, then there is a definite copyright infringement. This is an issue of which I have personal experience.

Edited by Giraffe, 18 May 2010 - 22:21.


#23 Twin Window

Twin Window
  • Nostalgia Host

  • 6,609 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 18 May 2010 - 22:48

Circa 1983, a colleague of mine on Autosport had a photo of his photo copied by an 'artist' who, I believe, duly sold prints of his painting. My mate won his case and was compensated favourably from memory.

It was a particularly stupid choice of pic to copy by the 'artist' in question as the photo was taken using one of those [irritating, but fashionable in period] filters which stretched the whole of one side of the shot in a streaky 'speed' blur. It was that element which proved the case beyond doubt, if my memory serves.

#24 MotorSportRetro

MotorSportRetro
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 18 May 2010 - 23:39

Motorsport Retro is an online magazine run by enthusiasts for enthusiasts.

We take great pride in ability to commission a range of quality motorsport journalists and photographers to produce content for our site.

We also rely on a range of contributors, who we seek permission from, to use images and content and we credit and link to their sites as part of our policy.

We make every effort to attribute images to the correct source or photographer and we always seek to use images that are covered under a Creative Commons license or Public Domain policy. We do not "nick" images. See a recent example of our policy here. http://www.motorspor...monaco-drought/

Sometimes we are unable to determine the correct source prior to a post going live and we may run a photo without a credit. If you see your work on the site and you would like us to add the appropriate credit to it, please contact us with the details and we will happily add it in. Alternatively we are happy to remove the image, as we did for Twin Window.

We hope you enjoy the content on our site.

Kind regards


The Motorsport Retro team



#25 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 458 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 19 May 2010 - 00:41

We do not "nick" images.

Sometimes we are unable to determine the correct source prior to a post going live and we may run a photo without a credit.

I am having a lot of trouble reconciling these two statements. Images are intellectual property. They have an owner. if you run it without having obtained appropriate permission from that owner - which you must be doing if you haven't determined "the correct source" - then you are nicking it. The fact that you have no clue from whom you have nicked it is no defence.

#26 Marc Sproule

Marc Sproule
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 May 2010 - 01:13

"The fact that you have no clue from whom you have nicked it is no defence."

As someone who has had his photos nicked on more than one occasion, I agree wholeheartedly with PCC's statement.

The internet is a wonderful thing in many ways, but it has given free rein to too many who have no standards and feel that because a person's creation may be out there for all to see, it is also out there to be used by others who had nothing to do with it's creation.

Since I started posting my images on flickr in Jan I've been appalled by the cavalier attitude of those who are trying to make money off other peoples' work.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The world is too full of greedy and arrogant people.


#27 URY914

URY914
  • Member

  • 236 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 19 May 2010 - 01:19

I've had my photos from my flickr page downloaded and used all over the web. If I didn't want people to see them I wouldn't have posted them in the first place.

#28 lanciaman

lanciaman
  • Member

  • 552 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 19 May 2010 - 01:20

The standard regarding the use of photos as source material for original art is that it is permissable to use such photos...unless the artwork is copied for resale. In other words-- as expressed above-- an artist can nick a photo and replicate the scene for an original painting...but not for prints or giclees (the latter being considered reproductions, not prints, but that begs whether it is a "po-tay-to" or "po-tah-to").

This standard was tested a couple times in the 1970s, most notably when a photographer recognized a partial image of his reproduced in a magazine ad illustration. The illustrator used a pile of pics as source material and a bit of his finished artwork bore too much resemblance to the photog's work, and he sued and won.

As a practical matter, all artists use "scrap' or source material. One of my favorite racecars is the Lancia D50 and until I am able to attend an event where one of the brautiful repros is present, I will reply on photos I source on the internet for my references.

Anything on the net is susceptible to being swiped, borrowed, repurposed. Nothing you put on the internet, for marketing purposes in particular, is inviolable. I for one am pleased to see great motorsport photos on all sorts of sites, as long as those sites aren't directly selling images that don't belong to them.

#29 Cynic2

Cynic2
  • Member

  • 220 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 19 May 2010 - 01:24

Is crediting photos to "Autosport Forums" as is the case wth the current Motorsports Retro story on the 1967 German Grand Prix, really giving credit to the photographer?

#30 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 458 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 19 May 2010 - 02:15

Is crediting photos to "Autosport Forums" as is the case wth the current Motorsports Retro story on the 1967 German Grand Prix, really giving credit to the photographer?

No. And it's really beside the point. Their obligation - legally and ethically - is to agree on terms with the copyright holder before using the image. To use an image without doing so is theft, and simply acknowledging or crediting your victim doesn't change that.

#31 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 458 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 19 May 2010 - 02:28

If I didn't want people to see them I wouldn't have posted them in the first place.

You are free to make that choice. Just as others are free to protect their copyright - or at least to try to.

The point is, as owner of the image, you set your terms. Doug Nye (see post #14) sets very different terms, for very good reason. In either case, those who meet the terms may use the images, those who don't may not.

The principle is very simple. Enforcement, alas, is not.

#32 Marc Sproule

Marc Sproule
  • Member

  • 614 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 19 May 2010 - 03:08

Once again, PCC has stated the exact point so many people seem to overlook these days.

"Their obligation - legally and ethically - is to agree on terms with the copyright holder before using the image. To use an image without doing so is theft, and simply acknowledging or crediting your victim doesn't change that."

The vast majority of people put their images out there for others to see. Not to have them used by third parties to further their own enterprise.

I don't see why that is such a hard point to grasp.

An amusing story to illustrate my point....A number of years ago I was contacted by an orthodontist from southern California. He was the owner of Bobby Rahal's March 84C 7-11 car and wanted a print of it. I made the print, sent it to him and he paid the bill.

Two weeks later I was looking through the latest edition of Autoweek when I came to the classified ads. In it was an ad for that very same car, using a copy of my image of course, to illustrate the ad.

I contacted the good doctor and told him what my fee was for using my image in an ad, pointing out that he had used my copyrighted photo without permission.

At first he tried to argue that it wasn't copyrighted but dropped that argument when I told him to look at the copyright symbol on the back of the print.

His next comment was priceless: "People like you should be happy that people like me buy pictures from people like you."

After I stopped laughing I told him that his stupidity and arrogance had just cost him another $100 US on top of what he owed for using the pic without my permission.

At first he said he wasn't going to pay. I then informed him that I would search out every professional association he belonged to and file a complaint against him. He relented and sent me a check.

People like him then are no different from those today who feel that if an image is out there to be seen then it is fair game to be used.

As I said before, greed and arrogance.



#33 sandy

sandy
  • Member

  • 1,064 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 19 May 2010 - 05:18

Some time ago I allowed Motorsport Archives to include some of my pictures of car racing in the 1950s. Several days ago in the TNF thread Australian racing cars of the 50s & 70s, post number 3271 there is a picture of an ALTA taken by me in 1958 at Fisherman's Bend. Imprinted on it is my name and that of Motorsport Archives. It brings about a strange feeling seeing this picture. On the one hand I voluntarlly agreed to have it displayed on a site devoted to making available images of old racing cars to all and sundry; I also know that if it wasn't used in such a fashion then it ends up a skip when I die and would have been no use to anyone. And yet... it is mine and to see it in someone elses hands and being used to make a point or for general interest makes me have to decide very firmly that either I accept that I willingly approve of the use of my efforts for whatever purpose by someone else or I firmly control and retain the use of my pictures. So do I willingly share them with everyone or do I somehow personally benefit from the ownership of them and if so, how? Or do I just let them moulder away to be tossed out in years to come?

Edited by sandy, 19 May 2010 - 06:58.


#34 Nordic

Nordic
  • Member

  • 278 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 19 May 2010 - 06:58

Motorsport Retro is an online magazine run by enthusiasts for enthusiasts.

We take great pride in ability to commission a range of quality motorsport journalists and photographers to produce content for our site.

We also rely on a range of contributors, who we seek permission from, to use images and content and we credit and link to their sites as part of our policy.

We make every effort to attribute images to the correct source or photographer and we always seek to use images that are covered under a Creative Commons license or Public Domain policy. We do not "nick" images. See a recent example of our policy here. http://www.motorspor...monaco-drought/

Sometimes we are unable to determine the correct source prior to a post going live and we may run a photo without a credit. If you see your work on the site and you would like us to add the appropriate credit to it, please contact us with the details and we will happily add it in. Alternatively we are happy to remove the image, as we did for Twin Window.

We hope you enjoy the content on our site.

Kind regards


The Motorsport Retro team


Can you please pm me as there is a photo taken by me at the 1984 Silverstone 1000k on the site.

Regards,

#35 BrendanMcF

BrendanMcF
  • Member

  • 537 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 19 May 2010 - 08:52

Circa 1983, a colleague of mine on Autosport had a photo of his photo copied by an 'artist' who, I believe, duly sold prints of his painting. My mate won his case and was compensated favourably from memory.

It was a particularly stupid choice of pic to copy by the 'artist' in question as the photo was taken using one of those [irritating, but fashionable in period] filters which stretched the whole of one side of the shot in a streaky 'speed' blur. It was that element which proved the case beyond doubt, if my memory serves.


One of my photographs of Eddie Irvine at Cadwell in 1986 was used by an agency working for Duckhams in an advert published in Motoring News, and the trade press. They obtained the photo from the Autosport library and the picture credit was given to Jeff Bloxham. Both Autosport and the Agency repeatedly passed the buck to each other for the snafu, and after a long drawn out series of correspondence and phone calls I had to write it off to experience as I was getting nowhere and I didn't want to jeopardise future opportunities. Also, I couldn't afford to take legal action at the time...

BTW: I contacted Richard Fowler at MotorSportsRetro when I saw this thread, as I thought they should be aware of the allegations and correct the illegal image posts referred to here.

#36 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,834 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 19 May 2010 - 09:03

Image authenticity aside, this sounds like set of images I would be very interested in.

What a pity they have it somewhere I can't access. :(

#37 Giraffe

Giraffe
  • Member

  • 7,000 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 19 May 2010 - 10:26

Circa 1983, a colleague of mine on Autosport had a photo of his photo copied by an 'artist' who, I believe, duly sold prints of his painting. My mate won his case and was compensated favourably from memory.


Had the artist kept reproducing the painting himself rather than selling prints of it, he would have been ok. Essentially, that's how the Chinese 'painting factories' are able to get away with it.

#38 David Shaw

David Shaw
  • Member

  • 1,724 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 19 May 2010 - 10:57

I've said this before, if you distribute them for free, except them to be re-distributed for free.


Hmmm, bad spelling and grammar or transposed consonants?

#39 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 797 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 19 May 2010 - 11:03

OK, one question. How about this. I took this picture, and used it as a base for this drawing. Is this also regarded as photo theft?

In my defence, this drawing only exist in a single copy, and remains in my posession.;)


Advertisement

#40 Paul Taylor

Paul Taylor
  • Member

  • 1,094 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 19 May 2010 - 11:32

Hmmm, bad spelling and grammar or transposed consonants?


The latter.

#41 lanciaman

lanciaman
  • Member

  • 552 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 19 May 2010 - 11:49

OK, one question. How about this. I took this picture, and used it as a base for this drawing. Is this also regarded as photo theft?

In my defence, this drawing only exist in a single copy, and remains in my posession.;)



See my post above.
And if you took the source picture, why would there even be a question?
(Even if you didn't take the source picture, your nice rendering is non-specific enough that a photographer would not be able to challenge you..)

Edited by lanciaman, 19 May 2010 - 11:52.


#42 retriever

retriever
  • Member

  • 394 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 19 May 2010 - 21:26

Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Ferrari 312 T5, Brands Hatch 12 07 80, Q23 F10 (+ 3 laps !), with owners permission.

Hard to believe it was 30 years ago, poor Jody defended his WDC with a DNQ, four retirements, and one 5th place from 14 races, a real animus horribilis.

Today Jody is a successful organic farmer and his son Thomas is entered for his 9th Indy 500 in the #23 MonaVie, Dreyer Reinbold Racing, Dallara Honda at the end of the month.

http://www.life.com/image/88707450


Why does the copyright signage in R J Colmar prints have to be so large - it is so distracting and ruins otherwise great images that have appeared on a number of threads. On other threads I am a supporter of those who own extensive and valuable archives championing the efforts of those who fight copyright infringement - I own a large one myself on commercial vehicles - but honestly the point can be made just as well using a smaller and thus less intrusive font.

Edited by retriever, 19 May 2010 - 21:28.


#43 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,418 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 20 May 2010 - 00:32

Why does the copyright signage in R J Colmar prints have to be so large - it is so distracting and ruins otherwise great images that have appeared on a number of threads. On other threads I am a supporter of those who own extensive and valuable archives championing the efforts of those who fight copyright infringement - I own a large one myself on commercial vehicles - but honestly the point can be made just as well using a smaller and thus less intrusive font.

Errr, take a look at the current thread about having ones photos nicked. I do not blame Mr. Colmar in the least. In fact I wish that I had marked some of my photos that way; maybe they would not have been nicked if I did.
Tom

#44 hansfohr

hansfohr
  • Member

  • 573 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 20 May 2010 - 05:55

Why does the copyright signage in R J Colmar prints have to be so large - it is so distracting and ruins otherwise great images that have appeared on a number of threads. On other threads I am a supporter of those who own extensive and valuable archives championing the efforts of those who fight copyright infringement - I own a large one myself on commercial vehicles - but honestly the point can be made just as well using a smaller and thus less intrusive font.

Agree completely, it looks horrible. A quarter of the font size (with the text placed underneath the pic) will make it a trillion more times attractive.

#45 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 20 May 2010 - 06:21

A subtle little copyright message improves the picture, but also makes it easier to steal and crop
For protection purposes a watermark or other text must necessarily "ruin" the photo. But we can still see the cars in the Colmar photos, which is surely the point

#46 retriever

retriever
  • Member

  • 394 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 20 May 2010 - 08:10

Errr, take a look at the current thread about having ones photos nicked. I do not blame Mr. Colmar in the least. In fact I wish that I had marked some of my photos that way; maybe they would not have been nicked if I did.
Tom



Dear RA Historian - I am well aware of that thread and if you would like to peruse through its entries you will see I have already contributed to its content and support wholeheartedly the issue of copyright theft but I still think that the Colmar copyright signage is over the top and distracting.

#47 Giraffe

Giraffe
  • Member

  • 7,000 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 20 May 2010 - 08:21

Nobody in their right mind is ever going to pay me for my photographs so I'm quite flattered if anyone should go so far as to steal mine! :)

#48 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,662 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 20 May 2010 - 09:04

A subtle little copyright message improves the picture, but also makes it easier to steal and crop
For protection purposes a watermark or other text must necessarily "ruin" the photo. But we can still see the cars in the Colmar photos, which is surely the point


As I am responsible for digitalising Mr Colmar's work and it was my idea to use his images on this forum, perhaps I should apologise for the over the top copyright signage on his photographs.

The essential problem is that there is no way of locking ones photos into the TNF pages or most other web pages for that matter, all you have to do is click on a picture, any picture, and drag it on to your desk top.

Photo's that are locked on a web page can be copied using a screen shot anyway.

Given that this might well happen I looked at the different ways of water marking images and came to the conclusion they were all unsatisfactory to the eye, look at the LAT website and you'll see what I mean, I thought about using the Alan Cox approach of putting his small mark close to the vehicles and realised that was equally distracting and so thought well if people are going to nick RJC's work they may as well be left in no doubt who it came from, and that legal retribution would be a certainty when caught.

RJC is not a professional motorsport's photographer nor does he seek any reward for his work seen on these pages if it is to be used in the context of research and discussion within the frame work of the Autosport Forum, however he has had work posted on the internet stolen in the past, ironically by publishers of a book on internet law, and despite winning his case found the whole experience most distasteful.

Anyone who would like a copy of Mr Colmar's images sans copyright marks is welcome to contact me by the forum messaging service.

As I say I apologise it the marks offend but as David has observed the cars can be seen which is the point of posting Mr Colmar's images in the first place.

I hope that clarifies for now if not please do net hesitate to contact me personally :-)



#49 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,662 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 20 May 2010 - 09:48

Ref comments made about the Copyright Signage on Mr Colmar's photographs seen on the Autosport Forum.

As I am responsible for digitalising Mr Colmar's work and it was my idea to use his images on this forum, perhaps I should apologise for the over the top copyright signage on his photographs.

The essential problem is that there is no way of locking ones photos into the TNF pages or most other web pages for that matter, all you have to do is click on a picture, any picture, and drag it on to your desk top.

Photo's that are locked on a web page can be copied using a screen shot anyway.

Given that this might well happen I looked at the different ways of water marking images and came to the conclusion they were all unsatisfactory to the eye, look at the LAT website and you'll see what I mean, I thought about using the Alan Cox approach of putting his small mark close to the vehicles and realised that was equally distracting and so thought well if people are going to nick RJC's work they may as well be left in no doubt who it came from, and that legal retribution would be a certainty when caught.

RJC is not a professional motorsport's photographer nor does he seek any reward for his work seen on these pages if it is to be used in the context of research and discussion within the frame work of the Autosport Forum, however he has had work posted on the internet stolen in the past, ironically by publishers of a book on internet law, and despite winning his case found the whole experience most distasteful.

Anyone who would like copies of Mr Colmar's images sans copyright marks is welcome to contact me by the forum messaging service.

As I say I apologise if the marks offend but the cars can be seen which is the point of posting Mr Colmar's images in the first place.

I hope that clarifies for now if not please do not hesitate to contact me personally :-)

#50 Giraffe

Giraffe
  • Member

  • 7,000 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 20 May 2010 - 09:58

No. And it's really beside the point. Their obligation - legally and ethically - is to agree on terms with the copyright holder before using the image. To use an image without doing so is theft, and simply acknowledging or crediting your victim doesn't change that.


This is a point everyone conveniently seems to forget............