A Warning To All Forum Photographers

Originally posted by krizon@Mar 29 2006, 11:29 PM
Merlin, we only have your word that the collection of hanging baskets is your garden - to me it looks like a rather over-enthusiastic pub front! :o
Click to expand...
:lol: :lol: JON what do you want me lady! vodka and lime or a glass of that wicked wine???

I can assure you thats my pad (front of my house) and all the plants grown from seed by me................. a Kairdiff in bloom winner on many occasions too... without being egoistic................... :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Merlin the Magician@Mar 29 2006, 10:19 PM
Not a lot you can do unless as COL says you need to copyright any photo's you don’t wish others to use.................
Click to expand...
The copyright is automatically held by the photographer, nothing else needs to be done.

I have amended the T&C of the site to take this into account, this has been added to the link at the top of the page and will be added to the other area's where they are in the next 24 hours or so

© All postings are copyright protected, either by talkinghorses and/or the member who posts. Any unathorised reproduction of any text or images posted on this board will be seen as a serious breach of our terms and conditions, and may result (in extreme cases) in legal action.
Click to expand...
 
COPYRIGHT RULES HERE


PLUS THIS part taken from the above..............................

##################################################

What about computer programs and material stored in computers?
Computer programs are protected on the same basis as literary works. Conversion of a program into or between computer languages and codes corresponds to "adapting" a work and storing any work in a computer amounts to "copying" the work. Also, running a computer program or displaying a work on a VDU will usually involve copying and thus require the consent of the copyright owner. The copyright owner will usually need to give permission for 'adapting' and 'copying' a work, however you may not need permission to make transient or incidental temporary copies

What about databases?
Databases may receive copyright protection for the selection and/or arrangement of the contents. In addition, or instead, database right may exist in a database. This is an automatic right and protects databases against the unauthorised extraction and re-utilisation of the contents of the database. Database right lasts for 15 years from the making but, if published during this time, then the term is 15 years from publication.

Does material have to have novelty or aesthetic value to get copyright protection?
No, it simply has to be the result of independent intellectual effort. Technical descriptions, catalogues and engineering drawings are all examples of material that qualifies for copyright protection, whatever the subject matter.

Can copyright protect industrial articles?
No. Copyright may protect the drawing from which an article is made but copyright cannot be used to prevent the manufacture of articles. For information on protection of industrial articles see Designs.

Is material on the Internet protected by copyright?
Yes. Under UK law (the position in other countries may differ) copyright material sent over the Internet or stored on web servers will generally be protected in the same way as material in other media. So anyone wishing to put copyright material on the Internet, or further distribute or download such material that others have placed on the Internet, should ensure that they have the permission of the owners of rights in the material.
 
The culprit who started this is currently using the BBC website and she has said that it's alright as she placed a message saying that they were not here pics. :angy:
 
Of course it's not all right. She should have FIRST requested your permission, Dims, to use them. If you had given it, which you couldn't as you were never asked, she should have given you the credit as the photographer and also, preferably, named the site which first hosted them. She had put up loads of them before prompted to grunt "Yeah got them off someone I KNOW from another site" or something similar.
 
Dims, Barbara Livingston who is a well known US photographer always puts a "C" over her photo's so they cannot be coppied is it poss you could do this with yours?

Helen
 
Might I ask if this is an opportune moment to ban her again in her latest guise, as Louise? She's clearly breached forum rules yet again and is yet again taking liberties. This also seems to be a favourite hobby of Jejquade, posting other peoples photos of racehorses up everywhere. She's often done it, both on here before she was banned the first time, on FF and on OHR before she was banned from there, each time without crediting the photographer.
 
OMG I'm horrified now as I've just realised that I've done exactly what I'm cussing other peeps about :ph34r: I saw some photos of Dessie on the Greatwood site & posted them on a forum (not this one) about how well he looked for his age :shy: although in pleading my innocence I did say where I got them from & posted a link to Greatwoods site, then to top it off I posted them here & Kathy said they were hers :shy: :shy: :shy: :shy: I will now go & stand in the corner :o just shows how easy it is to do :(
 
It is easy but as has been said, most people don't mind as long as credit is given. I think the annoying thing about this is that Joanne tried to pass them off as her own, she certainly got praised for them and still didn't mention they weren't her photo's until much later in the thread!
 
Might I ask if this is an opportune moment to ban her again in her latest guise, as Louise? She's clearly breached forum rules yet again and is yet again taking liberties. This also seems to be a favourite hobby of Jejquade, posting other peoples photos of racehorses up everywhere. She's often done it, both on here before she was banned the first time, on FF and on OHR before she was banned from there, each time without crediting the photographer.
Click to expand...

Was it done maliciously or was it an error of judgement? I would be more inclined to think, from what I read here, it was the latter.

[edit]

if she was passing them off as her own, it is a bit pathetic, but maybe just a more serious error of judgement than malicious?
 
Having just read the thread on the BBC site, I withdraw my previous post. How easy is it to say "whoops, sorry, I realise now I shouldn't have posted that". Pathetic.
 
I think that Tout Seul has a serious point and no doubt Col and the mods can consider it . The need for urgent action however was demonstrated by what happened to Diminuendo's work
 
If she is telling the truth, it seems that another forum member passed the photos on her to her. However as she is already a member, under a different name, I cannot see how that is so.
 
It seems unlikely - note that she was more than aware of the thread and asked for pics of BJK .
 
It can't possibly be the truth.

If I get them sent to me by someone I know on another forum and I ask if I can use them on here like I have done many a time, then as far as I am concerned I have the permission
Click to expand...

Yeah someone I know off another forum took them
Click to expand...

There has to be a lie in there somewhere.
 
By the looks of it from what Diminuendo has posted over there - either she has now put them on a website for sale but more likely someone else has nicked them and is doing it
 
I have posted a link on the BBC site, to show her that I am trying to sell them on a small scale. Now she knows that they are not free for all.
I didn't want to post that link on here as I see it as advertising a business.
 
Just had a quick skim through this post as I was alerted to it while I was out.

I dont know if any of my pics were used on this BBC site or not as I didnt see it

The onus is not on the photographer to use a 'copyright' sign or wording or watermark each image in order to claim ownership. The onus is on the user or potential user to gain permission prior to using them. This applies whether a copyright sign is used or not.

The stupid will claim they didnt know they had to ask

The extremely stupid will still steal them anyway and try to obliterate any markings.

The even-dumber try to claim that the pics might have been taken by someone standing right next to you.

Irish Stamp kindly asked if he could borrow some of my Cheltenham pictures to show on an American forum. This is the correct procedure.

I am currently being paid by a design company on behalf of Arena Leisure £750 for a photograph of mine they stole ( from where we dont know ) and then used without permission. It was spotted by a friend of mine. This is for ONE photograph.

It should also be noted that the dinosaur that is UncleGoobersaurus still uses film and therefore has physical posession of all the necessary negatives to be produced in court.

If the thread reappears with my photos in there I will not hesitate to take further proceedings with great embarrassment and huge expense for those involved.
 
Having just read the FiveLive site, what Jejquade puts beggars belief!!! It just goes to show that the girl couldn't lie straight in bed - she displayed that same tendency to lie through her teeth on many previous occasions as Jejquade, Singspiel, Halling, Louise et al.
 
and another thing !

I upload my photos with a very low definition. If this criminal tries to print them any bigger than they appear on screen they will disintegrate. ( In five seconds!)

:lol:
 
That's a relief Diminuendo I thought for one awful moment that someone had nicked them and was trying to sell them on there .
 
Back
Top