Archieve Images

[snapcam]

I have watched DavyC's 'Heaven and Hell' and I wonder were we stand with the use of 'Googled Images'as used by Davy

or other archieve images used to portray something historic for instance.

It appears to be clear with regard to music use BUT what about image use.

Snapcam

[Ken Cox]

if it is on the web and no copyright - why worry about it

give credit for it as Davy and others do

ken

[fh1805]

Sorry Ken, I have to disagree with you. Your reply could be interpreted as "if it is published on the web it's free of copyright" and that just isn't true. Images are protected by copyright just the same as music, paintings, sculpture, literature, etc. Yes, there are images available on the web where the copyright owner has granted copyright clearance: usually on a not-for-profit basis. But the vast majority of images are still under copyright.

The only safe action is to use only your own images. If you want to use web-sourced images then you need to ascertain the status of the copyright on those images.

regards,

Peter

[Ken Cox]

Peter

are you saying that somebody , in no way should they use news article pictures - or picts out of books etc without checking with the author/publisher ?

the picts that were taken on or about 9/11, Olympics, etc have been widely distributed, in some cases i would say within the hour.

In your Alum show there is no credit given for all the old pictures in it but yet you copyrighted the show -- how do you legally do that? statute of limitations?

My initial answer to the thread states one should give credit for the picts -- in Davy's case, to Google-- the pict of the fireman raising the flag is all over the web if one looks for it and i dont know how many powerpoint shows i have collected over the years of 9/11 etc

there have been a multitude of shows offered to the members that were"historical" in nature and nobody questioned "did you check ?"

IMHO, you are making a "mountain out of a mole hill"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_a_mountain_out_of_a_molehill

ken

[coopernatural]

Snapcam,

The Peter Perfects of this world make me laugh.

OK maybe they only download a little bit of porn, or just copy the odd CD or DVD.

Maybe they only buy or download a small amount of cracked software or Music files, but they still do it, even though they will deny it.

There is all this copyright nonsense that can’t be enforced due to the sheer scale of the activities of the Peter Perfects of this world alone.

Yes there have been Publicity stunt trials with the RIAA and MCPS with outlandish scare mongering claims,

but the fact is, the scale is so vast that they are powerless to do much about it.

If I take a photo of a sculpture/painting/whatever, it’s mine.

Your man with a clipboard would need a court order to seize it.

That’s not going to happen, and even if it did, that guy with the clipboard is going to be walking funny.

The ‘You need a licence for this and a licence for that’. It’s like the clip from Monty Python sketch ‘Licence for a fish’.

Maybe on the forum there could be a Peter Perfect licence.

With the word Dog wiped out and ‘Peter Perfect’ written in crayon. Of course only a total idiot would buy that.

p.s. I live 3 miles out to sea in international waters and I have diplomatic immunity.

Davy

[Barry Beckham]

Davy

Best post I have seen on here in ages.

Peter Perfects, I love that phrase and I am going to wantonly steal it and use it (Copyright Free) in my lectures. If anyone wants to prosecute me I live at No 4 Great Barrier Reef, Australia.

Here is some feedback from a Lecture on Disk I provided on the subject of PTE and for maximumm fun value read it with the funny voice used in many m Monty Python sketches

There was no mention of copyright as applying to the music used in preparing an A/V presentation, although the credits did state that the music used in the example slideshow was “royalty free”, I feel the subject should be mentioned to prevent possible prosecution should copyright be infringed.

You can imagine the puffed out chest of Peter Perfect as he spouts these words of wisdom to enlighten us all. Anyone who does not know about copyright must have been in a coma for the last 50 years or they are just too stupid to be allowed anywhere near AV anyway:lol:

PS. Isn't that latest Tom Jones album just the greatest. I think its one of the best things he has done and he is around 70 I think.

[fh1805]

Peter

are you saying that somebody , in no way should they use news article pictures - or picts out of books etc without checking with the author/publisher ?

No, I'm saying that they should be aware that somebody, somewhere owns the copyright to those images. The user of such images should take whatever steps are appropriate to obtain any clearances that they may require. And should then give credit for them (as you rightly indicated in your reply.

In your Alum show there is no credit given for all the old pictures in it

The old photos were either scans of old postcards from my postcard collection or were images originally taken by Frank Meadow Sutcliffe. The copyright of the Sutcliffe images is held by Whitby Literary & Philosophical Society and are held at Whitby Museum (which is owned by that society). They get their credit via the mention of Whitby Museum in the scrolling credits - as agreed with them.

but yet you copyrighted the show -- how do you legally do that?

I own the copyright to the assemblage of the material into the AV sequence. And that copyright will last until 70 years after my death under current UK legislation.

My initial answer to the thread states one should give credit for the picts -- in Davy's case, to Google-- the pict of the fireman raising the flag is all over the web if one looks for it and i dont know how many powerpoint shows i have collected over the years of 9/11 etc

And the vast majority, possibly all, of those copies will have violated copyright law!

The original poster was querying whether it was "OK" to use images taken from the web. Your initial response implied that it was. I my initial reply I was pointing out that it isn't that simple. As in all the creative arts, there is the very complex issue of "copyright" to take into account.

regards,

Peter (far from perfect - and don't I know it!)

[David Porter]

Peter, well done on your replies. I think it correct that we should know the law regarding copyright after all we would all be a bit put out if we saw someone else using our stuff without permission or at least recognition. Yes, for what we do on this site nobody is going to take us to court but I still try to use copyright free music when I can. When I have used copyright music and put it on Youtube, they pick it up straight away but say is is okay to view and put an advert up front, so that's fine. On this site it is a bit like showing it to your family so we get away with it.

[denwell]

The old chestnut is raised once again!

No matter how I may feel - once I have taken a photograph the copyright is vested in me as creator of the image.

I can do nothing about it at all.

So saying, I am free to handle this right as I see fit - to give it away free, for a fee or just ignore it altogether.

The point Peter is making is that, whether or not we care a jot, the rights to all creative material, images or music is owned by the creator or their heirs.

"If I take a photo of a sculpture/painting/whatever, it’s mine"

Not so - whilst the image is yours, you would need a property release from the copyright owner to use the image commercially.

We overlook this issue so often, it's a minefield but must be recognised and respected.

I wouldn't advocate flaunting the issue, nor going to the ends of the earth to track down copyright owners, but we mustn't get onto the slippery slope of complacency.

I think Barry is trying, as he does so well, to ask us to lighten up, not get bogged down, but recognise the issue and deal with it as our concience sees fit.

I agree whole heartedly!

[Ken Cox]

well Peter i see you have dropped your "PGA" signature -- i guess the US PGA golf copyright police have trimmed your feathers

you could always use the following that i got from a member on another forum in the UK

"I used to be an Egotistical Megalomaniac - but now I'm just perfect!"

ken

[coopernatural]

Snapcam,

Sorry if things drifted a bit, but as you may have guessed that not all moderators are the same.

We are very lucky to have the likes of Ken, but the flip side is that we also have another one,

but he is far from perfect. (Don’t we know it too well)

So you can Google away if it suits you.

Mick,

Using copyright music is fine. I have a fair collection of it myself.

Youtube has made half hearted attempts to police music/videos, but it is half hearted.

You can get just about anything on it.

Denwell,

If I take a photo of a statue/painting it’s mine unless I try to profit from it.

I’d say that was fair.

Barry,

Go ahead and use the ‘Peter Perfects’ catchphrase. I stole it anyway and besides if I sell it, I’m in big trouble with the Wnsoft Stasi.

The Tom Jones album is great. I’m thinking he is of an age where he is hedging his bets with the big man up above.

He has led a life that would embarrass a priest.

To the less than perfect mod.

Just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean to say we are not out to get you.

Davy

[fh1805]

To the less than perfect mod.

Just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean to say we are not out to get you.

Davy

Davy,

My e-mail address is right there at the end of every post. If you want to take cheap shots at me on a personal basis, do it via e-mail and not on the forum. Personal attacks - on anybody - are not allowed on this or on any other forum. As far as I can recall, I have never taken a shot at anyone on this forum. If anyone knows different, please remind me about it and I'll apologise in public here on the forum.

regards,

Peter

[David Porter]

I am with Peter on this! A little ribbing is fine but I'm shocked at the level to which this has sunk. I think some apologies would be in order.

[snapcam]

Now, Now, Boys, lets all stay friends

I started this thread not to pick at anyones work but to make a genuine enquiry.

I DO enter festivals and do shows to local clubs and groups.As I said the position is

fairly straightforward to a degree with reguard to copyright music, I buy an annual licence. That may make

me 'Peter Perfect' but I don't fear a knock on the door from someone wanting to rifle my C.D. collection.

My reason for the question was to enquire if there was a similar situation with reguard to images.

Really enjoying the hornets nest by the way!.

Snapcam

[snapcam]

Davy

Best post I have seen on here in ages.

Peter Perfects, I love that phrase and I am going to wantonly steal it and use it (Copyright Free) in my lectures. If anyone wants to prosecute me I live at No 4 Great Barrier Reef, Australia.

Here is some feedback from a Lecture on Disk I provided on the subject of PTE and for maximumm fun value read it with the funny voice used in many m Monty Python sketches

There was no mention of copyright as applying to the music used in preparing an A/V presentation, although the credits did state that the music used in the example slideshow was “royalty free”, I feel the subject should be mentioned to prevent possible prosecution should copyright be infringed.

You can imagine the puffed out chest of Peter Perfect as he spouts these words of wisdom to enlighten us all. Anyone who does not know about copyright must have been in a coma for the last 50 years or they are just too stupid to be allowed anywhere near AV anyway:lol:

PS. Isn't that latest Tom Jones album just the greatest. I think its one of the best things he has done and he is around 70 I think.

Barry

I have reread your feed back quote and if it is read as written the person is saying that while they understand that the example has 'Royalty Free' music it should be explained at some point that the use of copyrighted music can lead to consequences. So rather than being a 'Peter Perfect' they are making a reasonable point particularly for someone new to the game.

Snapcam

[coopernatural]

Fh1805

If I was paranoid and somebody confronted me on that, I might construe that as a personal attack.

If however I was not paranoid and somebody said that I was, I could again construe that as a personal attack.

There is room for ambiguity in interpretation, so just to be clear, this was not a personal attack, it was an observation.

I only do personal attacks by appointment and never by email.

Mick,

Thanks for that, but I’m guessing we might have to wait a while (I am assuming that he is not the apologetic type) for an apology from fh1805.

Snapcam,

Some things have to be said even if they are true.

I bully bullies as a hobby. I just can’t help it.

Davy

[fh1805]

Davy,

You're not worth my wasting any more time on.

[coopernatural]

fh1805,

That is the nicest thing you have ever said to me.

I graciously accept that you are giving up.

"Be kind;life's too short to be angry"

Take care,

Davy

[fh1805]

"Be kind;life's too short to be angry"

Touché!

Peter

[Barry Beckham]

Well that livened up the forum, what can we do next

[cjdnzl]

Snapcam,

Sorry if things drifted a bit, but as you may have guessed that not all moderators are the same.

We are very lucky to have the likes of Ken, but the flip side is that we also have another one,

but he is far from perfect. (Don’t we know it too well)

So you can Google away if it suits you.

I have read and re-read this thread, and I have to say that the remark above, clearly pointed at Peter, is right out of order in my book. Of all the posters in here, he is the most correct in what he says.

Mick,

Using copyright music is fine. I have a fair collection of it myself.

Youtube has made half hearted attempts to police music/videos, but it is half hearted.

You can get just about anything on it.

This to say, Davy, that you are quite happy to break the law if you can get away with it, and you don't mind saying so in public. I dare say most of us have used copyright music at some time, but not as blatantly as you appear to do.

Denwell,

If I take a photo of a statue/painting it’s mine unless I try to profit from it.

I’d say that was fair.

The photo is, the copyright in the image isn't.

Barry,

Go ahead and use the ‘Peter Perfects’ catchphrase. I stole it anyway and besides if I sell it, I’m in big trouble with the Wnsoft Stasi.

The Tom Jones album is great. I’m thinking he is of an age where he is hedging his bets with the big man up above.

He has led a life that would embarrass a priest.

To the less than perfect mod.

Just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean to say we are not out to get you.

That is a totally uncalled-for attack on Peter, and by rights should get you banned from the forum. If I were a moderator you would be banned forthwith.

Colin

[Ken Cox]

well now, for those interested in a lesson in common sense, read this thread

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9575&st=0&p=62813&hl=certificate&fromsearch=1entry62813

Peter did not want to follow the rules - rules that were put in place to possibly save a life

ken

[Barry Beckham]

Quite right too, I have lost track of how many of my PC's have suddenly burst into flames and threatend not only my life but that of others.too.

I have a better Idea, lets allow any computer into any property or hall, but test the owners, some of those need to have a label attached, certainly certified !

Something like Jumped up Peter Perfect Smart Arse would fit the bill

[coopernatural]

CJDNZL,

If I remember correctly, it was your friend Peter who rushed to your defence after I had thanked you for replying to a message that was not even directed at, or for you.

It is interesting and informing now to see you take up a reciprocal defence. It’s all very touching, if just a tad suspect.

Now onto your enlightening points.

I have read and re-read this thread, and I have to say that the remark above, clearly pointed at Peter, is right out of order in my book.

Of all the posters in here, he is the most correct in what he says

Technically incorrect. Peter elected himself as being less than perfect, without that I could have been talking about someone else.

As such, Peter pointed the finger at himself. Your book of order has no place here methinks. Peter is not the most correct in what he says. He is writing, not talking.

This to say, Davy, that you are quite happy to break the law if you can get away with it, and you don't mind saying so in public.

I dare say most of us have used copyright music at some time, but not as blatantly as you appear to do.

I made no mention of my happiness to break any law.

Is it more of a crime to be honest and say you do something, than to lie and say that you don’t? Shame on you.

If I take a photo of a statue/painting it’s mine unless I try to profit from it.

I’d say that was fair.

The photo is, the copyright in the image isn't.

Please read this again. I only mentioned that the photo was mine. Nothing else.

To the less than perfect mod.

Just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean to say we are not out to get you.

That is a totally uncalled-for attack on Peter, and by rights should get you banned from the forum. If I were a moderator you would be banned forthwith.

The ‘Less than perfect mod’ was attributed by Peter.I merely addressed him as such.

Please do a Google search on the ‘Just because you are paranoid’ phrase. It’s meaning is not as you have incorrectly assumed and is not used in that context.

If you were to read further, you would see that I did clearly state that this was not an attack.

Assuming now that you have Googled away and can maybe understand the context to how that phrase is used

and In light of your incorrect assumptions, my being banned may be being a little bit harsh.

‘If I were a moderator’ is no doubt your dreams, but to burst your bubble, that is never going to happen.

I am quite prepared to accept your apology. Make it private if you wish. I can keep a secret.

Davy

[Almark]

Good Grief! What a carry on... ;-) What more can I say?

Apart from this: a mate of mine, Tim, was recently contacted by lawyers of Getty Images. They pointed out that he was using one of their copyright images on his web site. He immediately apologised saying that he had got the image from the Internet, via Flickr, and had asked the guy for permission to use it. As he got no reply he ASSUMED it was OK. It turns out the Flickr post was a breach of copyright and the author of the account could not be traced. Flickr immediately removed the account and all the images. But Tim was traced, via his web site. The lawyers were able to say that the image was first posted on his web site on 'such and such' a date, and as it had been on his website promoting his commercial venture for 6 months they demanded a $300 payment.

While they accepted that Tim was 'mistaken' in his belief that the image not subject to copyright, they insisted that if he did not pay up, they would take the case to the local small claims court and ask for maximum damages. While this smacks of blackmail (demanding money with menaces) it was quite clear that they were prepared to take the case to court (to perhaps make an example, get publicity, etc.) Tim sought legal advice but as a result he paid up.

Of course the crucial issue here is that Tim used the image on a business web site. Most of us here on the forum do the odd AV for our own entertainment, or to show at a camera club meeting. We are not selling our wares... However: the fact remains that the rights of some old archive images my be owned by - Getty - Magnum - etc., and merely saying 'this Av must not be used for any commercial purpose' may not be enough! Once it is on the 'net who knows how it will be used? ;-)

I hope you all noted my little ;-) above. The problem with text forums (and email) is that sometimes you can't get across what you mean at the time. As a result, others will pick up on the words, perhaps misinterpret them and reply with a vengeance. Heated debate is fine, but 'flame wars' here on this forum is not what I come here for!

I come here to see others AV's and to learn, providing feedback and getting feedback on my own work.