Review articles stolen phah.
I heard about a bloke who had his Phd dissertation 'stolen' and made into a UK government dossier to justify going to war with Iraq. ;-)
Stolen images !
- Thread starter Wayland
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Review articles stolen phah.
I heard about a bloke who had his Phd dissertation 'stolen' and made into a UK government dossier to justify going to war with Iraq. ;-)
It might be worth putting an no right click message on your sight similar to that used in the undiscovered scotland website
When somebody right clicks on your image to download it they get a pop up message telling them that the image is copyrighted and it also stops the save picture as.. dialogue being displayed.
It won't stop anybody who's determined to steal from you but it may stop the casual theif who really doesn't know about the Copyright Design and Patents Act or the concept of intelectual copyright.
When somebody right clicks on your image to download it they get a pop up message telling them that the image is copyrighted and it also stops the save picture as.. dialogue being displayed.
It won't stop anybody who's determined to steal from you but it may stop the casual theif who really doesn't know about the Copyright Design and Patents Act or the concept of intelectual copyright.
Really? is it illegal to save other peoples pictures to computers? I download often hundreds of pictures, usually paintings I like or animals purely to look at because I like them. Is that bad?
Ive always asked for permission before using anything so Im ok there. Im not to sure what the laws are for printing stuff out though. Not that Im implying Ive printed anybodies pictures here,I aint! sometimes I print paintings out but this always goes on cheap paper in a reference file,to remind me of painting techniques or they generally gets phone numbers wrote all over them.
hmmm....These laws can be so complex as the technology moves faster than they do.
***Technically its a bit of a grey area I think as your not using them to make a profit it could be argued that you're using them for reference or study, which is not illegal. Try arguing it with sony though about the album that you downloaded "for study or personal use" and you will find that it's illegal.
It really would depend on the authors, in this case "waylands" personal views and interpretation.***
Please do not take this as a point in law as it has been about 10 years since I studied any photographic law.
Technically it is illegal to download and hold a copy but as most browsers do that anyway it's unenforceable.
I think most people draw the line when people use it commercially or try to pass work off as their own. That's certainly how I feel.
I've been looking around with Tineye and found a lot of instances of my images being used around the internet without permission.
One was to illustrate an article and the rest is things like avatars and the like.
I don't particularly approve of it but I guess there's not much I can do about it so I'll let them lie.
But I will always land like a ton of bricks on anyone using my stuff commercially without permission.
I think most people draw the line when people use it commercially or try to pass work off as their own. That's certainly how I feel.
I've been looking around with Tineye and found a lot of instances of my images being used around the internet without permission.
One was to illustrate an article and the rest is things like avatars and the like.
I don't particularly approve of it but I guess there's not much I can do about it so I'll let them lie.
But I will always land like a ton of bricks on anyone using my stuff commercially without permission.
If this only prevented the saving of images I would agree but I find it so annoying with regards to how it prevents efficient use of web sites. I normally, right click to open links in new tabs and this is then prevented
I just avoid web sites set up like this.As you say, if you want to get an image, it's really not difficult. *This doesn't mean I condone copyright infringement.
That is not even worth doing. I browse the vast majority of the internet with javascript disabled so I wouldn't even see the popup message.
A photographer I know puts a little copyright tag in a corner on the photograph, so atleast there is no doubt that the image is not public domain
http://www.denyerec.co.uk/gallery.php
I suppose I aught to worry about my little dvd collection more, ive no excuses for that!
I just used tineye on my pictures . you know im slighly disapointed I havent been nicked!! that said, I have work I know is on another site because I allowed it to be there but it has not produced that result.
I just used tineye on my pictures . you know im slighly disapointed I havent been nicked!! that said, I have work I know is on another site because I allowed it to be there but it has not produced that result.
I'm probably alone,but the patent and copyright laws annoy me.
For millenia mankind has proressed as a species by having a collective mind,someone had an idea and others discussed, refined and developed the idea so it worked more effectively for the common good. eg. the wheel progressed from a log roll,then planked wheel, then spoked wheels made from different woods. Society benefited. Then someone realised you could make money from your own ideas therefor charging the rest of society for his contribution to the collective mind.
I know I have strayed away from the thread a bit, but if you put your pictures on the web and into the public domain,I for one would expect to have someone else use them if they had need to, without feeling cheated or stolen from as I had already put them out there.
For millenia mankind has proressed as a species by having a collective mind,someone had an idea and others discussed, refined and developed the idea so it worked more effectively for the common good. eg. the wheel progressed from a log roll,then planked wheel, then spoked wheels made from different woods. Society benefited. Then someone realised you could make money from your own ideas therefor charging the rest of society for his contribution to the collective mind.
I know I have strayed away from the thread a bit, but if you put your pictures on the web and into the public domain,I for one would expect to have someone else use them if they had need to, without feeling cheated or stolen from as I had already put them out there.
I don't think its as black and white as that.
The patent process requires that the details of the invention to be made public, and anyone can read them free of charge. Obviously if you want to use the method, then you have pay. Without it all would remain trade secrets and wouldn't have it publicly available.
Also fair use trumps copyright laws. So if you believe copying would be classed fair use, then you covered.
Not saying the system is perfect, but it could be a lot worse.
"Fair use" is only a convention in UK law, not a statute so it trumps nothing.
I have no problem with someone looking at my pictures and using the same idea, this incident is a perfect example of that.
http://www.waylandscape.co.uk/html/lindisfarne_2006.html
http://www.mikemcfarlane.co.uk/gallery/view/19/
I actually prefer Mike's shot to my own in that case. Fair play to him.
What I do object to is the wholesale theft of my work, time and skills.
If someone wants a similar picture they should get off their backsides and travel hundreds of miles to the same place, they should set up equipment that has cost them their hard earned cash and use the skills that they have learned from years of education and hours of trial and error.
When they have done that, they should sweat in front of an overworked computer and promote it on their own website which is the product of even more hard work.
After all that, they should tell me they don't mind when someone rips off their work and passes it off as their own.
That's why we have copyright laws and that's why I will enforce them where necessary.
My last patent application cost me £200 to find out that the idea had been patented in 1845, even though the engineering technology didn't exist to make it practical for another 150 years. The one before that cost about the same, only to find out that I could not have the patent as some Japanese gentlemen had published the idea 25 year ago and so was effectively public domain..........( in case you wonder, I do have several patents that are successful)
In real terms, all intellectual property is only any good if you are prepared to protect your position by legal action, this is both expensive and difficult. In business, I mostly take the stance that it’s just not worth the wasted time which would be better spent doing something more profitable than feeding lawyers your money.
That said, it’s worth firing a warning shot (letter) for the record, so if they seem to be making a lot of money your protected for a claim in the future.
The fact is that in engineering, which is my field, ideas are cheap. By that I mean they take nothing to produce, and the Inventor carries no risk (setup costs, investment in development, etc.)
Though the Idea is worth something, economically it is never worth as much as most egos would think. That said some ideas are truly valuable, if so, as a minnow, the only hope is to ally (licence) yourself with a large company, as these have the heavies to keep the wolf from the door....
I think in art, and I classify photography as such, theft is just that, theft, as the image is effectively the product of the photographers business. That said, you again have to be prepared to legally defend your work or else you will lose value.
I would recommend trying not to get angry with infringement, after all you are upsetting your peace of mind, not that of the perpetrator of the theft. Just be ‘matter of fact’ about it, as it is a business event. If it is not for money that you do your 'art', then being polite is your only option unless you want to bankrupt yourself in the legal system.(Many a man has). Maybe asking for a photographer’s credit or for it to be removed is the only real option...
“For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness.”
Plagiarised by Bimble from Ralph Waldo Emerson
Anyway these are my own views, I work with plenty of people who would disagree with me. The link below it to the British governments Intellectual Property Site. Their guides are straight forward and will make interesting reading if you have not already done so...
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/
In real terms, all intellectual property is only any good if you are prepared to protect your position by legal action, this is both expensive and difficult. In business, I mostly take the stance that it’s just not worth the wasted time which would be better spent doing something more profitable than feeding lawyers your money.
That said, it’s worth firing a warning shot (letter) for the record, so if they seem to be making a lot of money your protected for a claim in the future.
The fact is that in engineering, which is my field, ideas are cheap. By that I mean they take nothing to produce, and the Inventor carries no risk (setup costs, investment in development, etc.)
Though the Idea is worth something, economically it is never worth as much as most egos would think. That said some ideas are truly valuable, if so, as a minnow, the only hope is to ally (licence) yourself with a large company, as these have the heavies to keep the wolf from the door....
I think in art, and I classify photography as such, theft is just that, theft, as the image is effectively the product of the photographers business. That said, you again have to be prepared to legally defend your work or else you will lose value.
I would recommend trying not to get angry with infringement, after all you are upsetting your peace of mind, not that of the perpetrator of the theft. Just be ‘matter of fact’ about it, as it is a business event. If it is not for money that you do your 'art', then being polite is your only option unless you want to bankrupt yourself in the legal system.(Many a man has). Maybe asking for a photographer’s credit or for it to be removed is the only real option...
“For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness.”
Plagiarised by Bimble from Ralph Waldo Emerson
Anyway these are my own views, I work with plenty of people who would disagree with me. The link below it to the British governments Intellectual Property Site. Their guides are straight forward and will make interesting reading if you have not already done so...
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/
Looking on their site though, thay do have a fair choice of gear, might get something, cheers for the heads up
<Whistles, all innoccent like>
<Whistles, all innoccent like>
Sorry I've really got to get on my soap box here. If somebody works for a living why should somebody else be allowed to STEAL from them and profit at they're detriment.
Example:
A photographer shoots a wedding and makes his money from selling the prints to the relatives and friends of the couple. Should he not be paid for them? or should the bride and groom buy one copy and then take them down to their local copy shop and have them copied for all their friends. The second option saves the family some money but takes the money out the photographers pocket.
Example 2:
You work hard to earn money to feed your family but I mug you on the way home taking your pay packet. But its Ok because I need the money and you get paid to much anyway? Or I should get the jail for mugging you?
There really isn't much difference between the two IMHO in both somebody suffers. However I would agree that the Copyright design and Patent act does actually leave quite a bit to be desired but what law doesn't.
I think there is a difference between photographic/image copyright and technological copyright. An Image is a one off event owned by the artist. Technological patents can be abused, for instance, oil companies own the patents to electric car batteries to prevent them becoming a more economic choice. I cannot see how artistic lisencing can really be used to harm in the same way
There's ways round the 'no right click' thing anyway. I've done it before, just because I wanted to see a picture on its own rather than with no clutter around it. It can also be a real pain in the butt for people (like me) who like to open links in new tabs. When stores use a picture as their hyperlink, if you right-click to open in new tab and get the 'no right-click' message, it just really annoys me and I don't buy from them, I go elsewhere.
Similar threads
