262 replies to this topic

[Doug Nye]

May I ask again - he wrote, plaintively - how does one get to see this particular offending site?

DCN

[Lee Nicolle]

Well, I got this link in an e.mail today:

http://www.motorspor...s-longford-1964

Nice, I thought. Then as I watched I noticed that there were stills rotating under the film clip. The thing that really made me sit up and take notice, however, was that one of those stills was mine!

It looks like most of those pics are pirated. And be carefull as it froze on me. Those sites scare me when they do that.

[Ray Bell]

Doug, the link is in the first post in this thread...

But the site is motorsportretro.com

[stuartbrs]

Doug, the link is in the first post in this thread...

But the site is motorsportretro.com

PlanetDomain Pty Ltd.

Registered Office:
Level 4, 1-3 Smail Street
Ultimo, Sydney
NSW, 2000, Australia

Telephone: +1300 36 64 05 (Australia)
Facsimile: +612 80790742
Email: info@planetdomain.com
ABN: 89 122 194 745

[Frank S]

Linking to a photo on a site: when I started making a few HTML pages I did that a couple of times. Pretty lucky that it was an understanding site-owner who emailed me; even more lucky, since he was one of very few who ever bothered to speak up about my innocent transgressions, and lucky that he took the trouble to tell me that "deep linking" - that is linking to anything other than a site's "home" page - was impolite. It takes a little more work on the part of the page-maker and on the part of anyone following the link in order to reap the proffered benefits, but, hey, polite is polite.

Seems to me that, as is true for many other previously common courtesies, that kind of politeness has faded to practical non-existence. For my part, I've attempted to maintain civility in this regard, and in case I've erred and not corrected it, I again express gratitude to those against whom I've transgressed, for their kind forbearance.

There is a Usenet group for Webmasters where I learned quite a bit; some of the denizens were happy to advise the deep-linkers and ask them to remove the link or at least credit the photo. Others delighted in immediately substituting an excruciatingly offensive photo for the one in question, and online-chortled about the reaction of visitors to previously purloined territory.

I have stopped putting my original photos on line in any seriously useful size (larger than 800 px in the long dimension, in my view). Not that any of them are particularly desirable as trophy-size prints, but if the world changes enough that they become such, they'll have to be inferior and small prints.

[Option1]

An interesting judicial decision about similar, but not copied images: http://www.dpreview...._Copyright_Case

Kind of silly to my mind.

Neil

[E1pix]

An interesting judicial decision about similar, but not copied images: http://www.dpreview...._Copyright_Case

Kind of silly to my mind.

Neil

Yes O1, and "kind of" is an understatement! Man, if that's infringement, then anyone lucky enough to be somewhere first and shoot what later becomes a "cliche" image owns all perpetual rights to shooting that scene? Can't imagine how many millions of Niagara Falls or Great Pyramid "infringements" have occurred...

I personally never "shoot in another's tripod holes" as it were, I want something fresh. But for anyone to sue for that is pretty sad — sadder yet that they won a judgment, especially in this case where the photos are really not copies of each other.

Geez...

Edited by E1pix, 25 January 2012 - 20:16.

[Option1]

"Kind of silly" = Orstralian understatement for "In my best McEnroe voice 'You've got to be freaking kidding me!!' "

Neil

Edited by Option1, 25 January 2012 - 20:30.

[E1pix]

"Kind of silly" = Orstralian understatement for "In my best McEnroe voice 'You've got to be freaking kidding me!!' "

Neil

Well Said. Thanks, Mac (I'm a fan as well).

[bradbury west]

Alan Cox has posted this elsewhere, but always useful to have wider coverage, perhaps, in the hope that more people might become aware..
http://www.theregist...ht_white_paper/
Roger Lund

[E1pix]

Thanks Bradbury, I did see Alan's post but your efforts are most appreciated.

I have no clue how anyone thinks this legislation is appropriate. Perhaps their salary should be removed for fair play.

[D-Type]

A related question: If I buy a bunch of negatives on e-bay like this lot do i automaticallybuy the copyright - or do I have to ask for confirmation from the vendor? As I have never printed a photo or even scanned one I am asking out of idle curiosity.

[Alan Cox]

A related question: If I buy a bunch of negatives on e-bay like this lot do i automaticallybuy the copyright - or do I have to ask for confirmation from the vendor?

You would need confirmation from the vendor that the copyright was included, Duncan. It can never be assumed that copyright is included with a print/negative/transparency. Likewise, if you buy an original painting/drawing, copyright would rest with the creator, unless otherwise specified.