Advice Required

nucker

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hotlinking on a discussion forum to a newspaper site that has paid the the photographer already is a world apart from rehosting the image, or even aggregating content for commercial purposes.

The photographer has been paid by the newspaper for their image, the only thing even close to being 'stolen' here is bandwidth from the newspaper site, it is up to them to protect their content/bandwidth and protect from hotlinking, it's not the original photographers job to police that for them.

Based on your tone in the soccer forum I can only suggest you hand over royalty collection to a 3rd party agency that will be less hot headed PCP.

I would never be like PCP, though I would be upset nonetheless. Correct, its up to the newspapers to deal with how they deal with the images on their site, but the internet is full of ways around it. Correct, the newspapers/agencies should sue rather than members going mental on forums, it solves nothing with other members baiting people into reacting more.

brightspark

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hotlinking on a discussion forum to a newspaper site that has paid the the photographer already is a world apart from rehosting the image, or even aggregating content for commercial purposes..

True, but it doesn't mean copyright infringement didn't occur, and displaying the image here isn't exactly the same as showing the paper to a colleage at work.

As far as I am aware despite it's communtity appearance, Boards.ie actually employs people and raises revenue via advertising so it could be argued that as the content here attracts users, which in turn raises revenue from adverts, that any images posted here are for the commercial benefit of Boards.ie

The photographer has been paid by the newspaper for their image, the only thing even close to being 'stolen' here is bandwidth from the newspaper site, it is up to them to protect their content/bandwidth and protect from hotlinking, it's not the original photographers job to police that for them..

Just because the newspaper has paid to use the photo it doesn't mean that the photo is now the property and responsibility of that paper. The IP usually still belongs to the photographer, who still retains the right to decide who can and can't use that image.

By your logic once radio stations have paid for the right to broadcast songs, there is no further payment due to the artists. IMRO (who collect the licences from businesses throughout the country on behalf of the artists) would disagree with you on that logic, and I expect that the law fully supports them.

Based on your tone in the soccer forum I can only suggest you hand over royalty collection to a 3rd party agency that will be less hot headed PCP.

And if you think that a 3rd party agency will be happy with a "sorry we didn't know any better, but we took it down so go away" you are mistaken, they will demand that a fee be paid regardless (I've seen a letter sent by Getty Images to someone who unwitttingly used a Getty Image on their website)
As far as I am aware Boards.ie does have a commercial basis for it's existance and can be viably sued.



It's probably a reflection of how successful Boards.ie is that there seem to be a lot of amateurs and professionals using and supporting the site and as a result there are conflicts between them.

It's obvious that a lot of knowledgeable people support Boards.ie and I would guess that a lot of them are professionals in the areas to which they contribute, freely giving information that they probably charge others for during the day.

But unless Boards respects the professionals in the various fora, I am afraid that they will all eventually quit the site, leaving a much poorer experience here for the remaining members.

Perhaps the pros here (in all the various fora) need a special status like the "Verified representative" given to those posting on behalf of commercial organisations.


Finally while my photography is purely a hobby and I usually only lurk on this forum, until PCPhoto is unbanned I will no longer be giving any advice on the Electrical Forum.

AnCatDubh

brightspark wrote: »

...

I'm not sure if you've read the prison thread. It provides context from both sides.

Just posting as I think it's useful in understanding how things have ended up the way it has in that particular situation. Hope it helps.

ronanc15

AnCatDubh wrote: »

brightspark wrote: »

...

I'm not sure if you've read the prison thread. It provides context from both sides.

Just posting as I think it's useful in understanding how things have ended up the way it has in that particular situation. Hope it helps.

Also as the situation lies it really doesnt look like PCP's return is imminent

RoryW

Boards.ie went down in my estimation from this.

Whatever about whether his approach was hot headed and wrong or not, PCP was stating an option open to him which was a legal right of his if he so choose to do so.

Seeking clarification resulting in some unfortunate infantile responses from those in authority from whom one would expect a more professional response - again bringing boards.ie down in my estimatation.

To be told that his privilege to access boards has been revoked is akin to the treatment seen in certain countries where a person speaks against the government and is never heard from again.

It seems unfortunate that with right and wrong on both sides that an impasse has been reached where neither side appears willing to make the first move, apologise and move on.

Is it possible that boards.ie will show proper leadership and provide an amnesty for PCP rather than putting him in a position of having to eat humble pie if he wishes to use boards.ie again. His pride no doubt makes this difficult to do.

Boards.ie is a lesser place without him.

The photography forum is a lesser place without him.

artyeva

RoryW wrote: »

To be told that his privilege to access boards has been revoked is akin to the treatment seen in certain countries where a person speaks against the government and is never heard from again.

i understand the sentiment behind your post, but..... seriously???!!! :rolleyes:

brightspark

Gone well off topic now..

I think we are all guilty of thinking sites such as this, facebook and several others are for the benefit of the community, whereas in fact they are commercial operations, whose principal function is to make profits.

And as commercial entities they will do what it takes to protect their profit margins!

But PCPhoto was also only trying to protect his livelihood. There is plenty of blame on both sides

PopeBuckfastXVI

brightspark wrote: »

True, but it doesn't mean copyright infringement didn't occur, and displaying the image here isn't exactly the same as showing the paper to a colleage at work.

Inline linking to a legitimate bought and paid for copy of a photo is no different than proving a href link to the same public resource.

It's quite simply not copyright infringement, and would only be a grey area if the linked copy itself was infringing. In this case it isn't.

I'm open to being shown any examples of somebody providing a link to a public, legitimate copy of any content being found to be infringing copyright, if you can provide one.

I like PCP, and he's been a very valuable member of this forum, for what it's worth. However threatening legal action against boards, whether on spurious or legitimate grounds is a site banning offence, it's in the T&C's we all sign up for. Boards is a private service to which nobody has an a priori right of access, it was a silly threat and has cost both him, and us as a community community a great deal. And what's been achieved? An inline link to a copy of a picture that was bought and paid for has been removed from a random thread on boards, totally worth it...

brightspark

Have you ever read the terms and conditions of most websites (including the one belonging to the newspaper in question)

unauthorised framing of or linking to the Website is prohibited

also in their terms and conditions

You may not post, modify, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyright material, trademarks, or other proprietary information belonging to others without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights

This is because they have not "bought and paid for" the photo, they have merely obtained a licence to use it, in limited predefined circumstances.

I also doubt if a newspaper website is truely a 'public resource' as no doubt it is also within their terms and conditions to be able to limit access to whomever they choose.

Calhoun

RoryW wrote: »

To be told that his privilege to access boards has been revoked is akin to the treatment seen in certain countries where a person speaks against the government and is never heard from again.

It seems unfortunate that with right and wrong on both sides that an impasse has been reached where neither side appears willing to make the first move, apologise and move on.

Is it possible that boards.ie will show proper leadership and provide an amnesty for PCP rather than putting him in a position of having to eat humble pie if he wishes to use boards.ie again. His pride no doubt makes this difficult to do.

Boards.ie is a lesser place without him.

I don't think boards has ever pretended to be a democracy or to provide the rights of one, if you look at prison or the DRP threads enough you come across a common trend of folks thinking they have the right to type what they like on boards without consequences but 9/10 they are slapped back into place.

As an outsider looking at this I think that PCPhoto was given enough goodwill which he threw back in the face of mods, I am not sure what more they can do because if you check helpdesk there is a question from the folks of the soccer forum asking for him to be banned. If the rules are to be enforced it has to be the same for all and not one rule for some but another for others.

I don't think boards is lesser for this, as a user for nearly 10 years someone who would threaten such a valuable but free service doesn't deserve the right to post.

PopeBuckfastXVI

brightspark wrote: »

Have you ever read the terms and conditions of most websites (including the one belonging to the newspaper in question)



also in their terms and conditions




This is because they have not "bought and paid for" the photo, they have merely obtained a licence to use it, in limited predefined circumstances.

I also doubt if a newspaper website is truely a 'public resource' as no doubt it is also within their terms and conditions to be able to limit access to whomever they choose.

Not prohibited by law though, so it's pretty meaningless.

Public Resource is a technical term referring to the Web Server access permissions of a given file, in this case an image.

PCP should have taken the newspapers failure to secure their resource from hotlinking up with them, if by failing to prevent linking they were breaching the terms of the license.

You can't violate copyright without a copy!

Fionn

seems a bit extreme

pcp has been a great contributor to Boards.ie in general and the photography forum in particular.

Is there any common ground that can be got where perhaps we could have some meaningful resolution to this, from reading both sides of this the Mods havent exactly covered themselves in glory (comments like 'acting the dick' are a bit juvenile eh?) nor has the position that pcp took.

But perhaps after some reflection and some time to review things, some positive outcome can be attained.

I do have to say that the 'new look' Boards has not augered well with this debacle, and
quite frankly things havent been great for some time around here in the photography forum.

LiamoSail

The photo was being used as part of a discussion in a community of which he was part. Admins, Mods etc give their time to the community, free of charge, and I'd bet a hell of a lot more time then it took the lad to take that photo. To go in threatening legal action against a community that has obviously given him a lot (judging by his post count) was pathetic

Its greed fueled selfish folk like that that threaten the future of communities such as this

AnCatDubh

LiamoSail wrote: »

etc..., etc...

You appear to have little idea of this forum or PC Photo's involvement.

For the record, PC Photo has been one of the most generous posters on this forum always giving of his time and his most valued advice. He was a nett contributor (by a long shot) to the forum. He has championed boards community members rights both on and off this forum. I understand he has personally paid legal fees in respect of some forum members and made significant contacts into the legal world on behalf of forum members in order to assist them with matters. He sought and has received nothing in return.

The photo was being used as part of a discussion in a community of which he was part.. .. .. Admins, Mods etc give their time to the community, free of charge

We decide to do so.

Being a boards member does not oblige you to give anything outside of the terms and conditions. His approach to the matter on another forum brought him outside of the terms and conditions and thus understandably action gets taken.

and I'd bet a hell of a lot more time then it took the lad to take that photo.

Yes, yes, the photo probably took about 1/500 of a second to take but you appear to have no idea what may have been required in order to get the photograph.

To go in threatening legal action against a community that has obviously given him a lot (judging by his post count) was pathetic

His actions aren't condoned in any respect in terms of the approach he took on this specific occasion. If he had taken the same approach on this forum he would have ended up in the same boat albeit there may have been a little more coaxing applied. That said, it doesn't surprise me where he has ended up through his own approach.

He may have been incorrect in his approach but he stood up for his belief and had the consequences applied. This makes his action misguided but certainly not pathetic.

Its greed fueled selfish folk like that that threaten the future of communities such as this

Again, you have no idea what a generous individual he was so please refrain from making assumptions.

When you get your post count to the level his was at and be the nett contributor that he was around these parts, then perhaps you will be in a position to understand how absurd are your comments here.

His photography is his livelihood. It's not greedy to want to be able to pay your mortgage, put food on your table, and be able to get by. He saw what he perceived as an injustice, he spoke up for himself, he put himself at variance to the sites terms and conditions, didn't listen to the individual advice that was being given to him, and he has the consequence. No where in any of this is greed or selfishness.

You are incorrect about PC Photo.

LiamoSail

AnCatDubh wrote: »

etc..., etc...

I take your points about deciding to contribute, as oppose to your work being contributed by someone else. While I don't know his input into this forum, having being a member of the Soccer Forum for a number of years, I can certainly see his attempts to bleed a few pound out of it for what they are

As you quiet rightly pointed out, I don't know what his contribution has been, or anything about him as an individual so I should correct my condemnation of him to his input in that particular forum as oppose to him as an individual

I do maintain my point however, that the likes of the soccer forum would be a far poorer place if people were to get as anal as he did over something as trivial that

I would also maintain that someone posting a picture on a discussion forum that he took has absolutely no relevance to him paying his mortgage or putting food on the table. If he's in a position that he has to threaten legal action against a poster with good intentions to do so, well perhaps he should be looking for a different line of work

Go after the newspapers etc by all means, but its out of order to threaten an ordinary poster as he did

CabanSail

I would like to echo the sentiments of AnCatDubh above. PCPhoto has put into this community way more than he has taken out. To see him sitebanned was a real shock. I personally have been active behind the scenes trying to negotiate a better outcome. So far those efforts have not succeeded.

LiamoSail wrote: »

I would also maintain that someone posting a picture on a discussion forum that he took has absolutely no relevance to him paying his mortgage or putting food on the table. If he's in a position that he has to threaten legal action against a poster with good intentions to do so, well perhaps he should be looking for a different line of work

Go after the newspapers etc by all means, but its out of order to threaten an ordinary poster as he did

Looking into this matter I've read the thread in the Soccer forum which lead to the ban. In my opinion it is quite nasty and many posters in it acted poorly. I do realise that PCPhoto may have seemed to come across quite strong, but he had a point in that another poster was using his image in an illegal manner. To hot link an image from a site is ok if that site allows that. In this case they don't and thus it was breach. Now I know this happens a lot but in this case the person posting it was caught out by the copyright owner. It's at this point it all went wrong and it resulted in a legal threat being made, which leads to an automatic ban (it's in the T&C's)

In the eyes of those on the Soccer forum PCPhoto may have seemed to over react but viewed from the perspective of many here we know how hard it can be to set up and capture an image. There may have been quite a few hours spent to arrange to get that shot. The capture itself may be brief but then so is a kick of a ball. It's the years of practice and experience behind those instants that are worth the money.

I'm sure that most would be outraged if their employer said "Your pay is short this week as 4 hours was stolen". This image would have been one of very few that PCPhoto was relying on for his wages that week. This particular one should have been a bonus but it seems that many publications have tried to steal it from him, hence this thread. Now with that knowledge and knowing that this community meant a lot to PCPhoto, go and read that other thread and see how he was feeling.

I realise that the Admin here are in an awkward place and PCPhoto probably could have handled things better, but we do make mistakes when under extreme stress. I personally miss his input and hope to see him return soon.

LiamoSail

CabanSail wrote: »

I would like to echo the sentiments of AnCatDubh above. PCPhoto has put into this community way more than he has taken out. To see him sitebanned was a real shock. I personally have been active behind the scenes trying to negotiate a better outcome. So far those efforts have not succeeded.

I take your word for it, and I don't dispute this point

CabanSail wrote: »

Looking into this matter I've read the thread in the Soccer forum which lead to the ban. In my opinion it is quite nasty and many posters in it acted poorly. I do realise that PCPhoto may have seemed to come across quite strong, but he had a point in that another poster was using his image in an illegal manner. To hot link an image from a site is ok if that site allows that. In this case they don't and thus it was breach. Now I know this happens a lot but in this case the person posting it was caught out by the copyright owner. It's at this point it all went wrong and it resulted in a legal threat being made, which leads to an automatic ban (it's in the T&C's)

Realistically, to expect posters on a forum to check for copyright infringement prior to posting on a forum is absurd.

It was a ridiculous reaction by him in the SF, and the responses were fully justified. You act the dick in any forum, you'll be called on it. A bit of perspective is needed, what harm did posting the photo do? Absolutely none. What if every copyright infringement on this site was handled in a similar manner? There'd be mayhem

CabanSail wrote: »

In the eyes of those on the Soccer forum PCPhoto may have seemed to over react but viewed from the perspective of many here we know how hard it can be to set up and capture an image. There may have been quite a few hours spent to arrange to get that shot. The capture itself may be brief but then so is a kick of a ball. It's the years of practice and experience behind those instants that are worth the money.

I'm sure that most would be outraged if their employer said "Your pay is short this week as 4 hours was stolen". This image would have been one of very few that PCPhoto was relying on for his wages that week. This particular one should have been a bonus but it seems that many publications have tried to steal it from him, hence this thread. Now with that knowledge and knowing that this community meant a lot to PCPhoto, go and read that other thread and see how he was feeling.

I realise that the Admin here are in an awkward place and PCPhoto probably could have handled things better, but we do make mistakes when under extreme stress. I personally miss his input and hope to see him return soon.

If he's relying on copyright payments from an internet forum for wages, he my as well be waiting on Enron shares to come good. Its not going to happen

Fair enough, chase up the newspapers etc, but to go threatening ordinary people for using his picture for absolutely no gain, on an internet forum leaves me with little sympathy

There's a great thread on the soccer forum dedicated purely to football photos. Its an excellent thread (by and large) and I'd hate to see it go because of something as daft as copyright infringement on a forum. But that's the sort outcome that PCPhoto is promoting with his legal threat

brightspark

LiamoSail wrote: »

Realistically, to expect posters on a forum to check for copyright infringement prior to posting on a forum is absurd.

Perhaps they should assume everything they 'find' is subject to copyright until they do check?

If he's relying on copyright payments from an internet forum for wages, he my as well be waiting on Enron shares to come good. Its not going to happen

It might not pay the mortgage but perhaps pay for a pint, is that too much to expect?

Fair enough, chase up the newspapers etc, but to go threatening ordinary people for using his picture for absolutely no gain, on an internet forum leaves me with little sympathy

Why use it if there is no gain? but there is the gain of being the poster who 'found' the pic and posted it, no monetary gain but otherwise why bother?

There's a great thread on the soccer forum dedicated purely to football photos. Its an excellent thread (by and large) and I'd hate to see it go because of something as daft as copyright infringement on a forum. But that's the sort outcome that PCPhoto is promoting with his legal threat

It's not 'daft' it's against Boards terms of use

•post Material that infringes any patent, trade mark, trade secret, copyright, rights of privacy or publicity, or other proprietary right or intellectual property right of any party

We live in a strange society, where because some things appear freely available people think that they are free.

EVERYTHING has a cost to someone, for example, when I listen to a song on the radio the artist still gets paid by the radio station, who in turn get money from adverts, which are eventually paid by the targeted audience who purchase the advertised product. So when I purchase the advertised product I am also paying the artist whose song I heard on the same radio station.

CabanSail

If you look into it, it's The Sun Newspaper which forbids its images being hot linked without permission. So if the SF are using those images then there is a breach of copyright. The solution isn't to carry on ignoring the matter but rather to address it.

In this particular case the difference in income to PCPhoto was probably nothing. The Sun was one of the few who had paid him. The problem was that his image was being used all over the place and most were stolen. What happened in the SF appears to me to be at the end of long day another illegal use is found, but in a place where he has a voice. The user in this instance copped the frustration meant for the many. Yes the approach was a lot less diplomatic than his normal style but the core fact remains that the image appeared without rights.

LiamoSail

brightspark wrote: »

Perhaps they should assume everything they 'find' is subject to copyright until they do check?

There's not a hope that I'd bother checking copyright prior to posting a picture on a discussion forum. If it were a commercial site, perhaps, but for the purpose of discussion where there is no monetary gain from the pictures use, not a chance. And I would imagine there are many posters with a similar attitude

brightspark wrote: »

It might not pay the mortgage but perhaps pay for a pint, is that too much to expect?

Yes. Again, its an internet discussion forum, not the New York Times. Theoretically, if the image could not be physically inserted without payment, I can absolutely guarantee that the thread would have simply gone without the picture. Not a hope someone would pay for the privilege of posting it

brightspark wrote: »

Why use it if there is no gain? but there is the gain of being the poster who 'found' the pic and posted it, no monetary gain but otherwise why bother?

Gain of being the poster who found the picture? What, you think there's some sort of merit in being able to use the google image search function

The picture showed the subject of discussion, no harm posting it but the picture was hardly the fulcrum of the discussion

brightspark wrote: »

It's not 'daft' it's against Boards terms of use

We live in a strange society, where because some things appear freely available people think that they are free.

EVERYTHING has a cost to someone, for example, when I listen to a song on the radio the artist still gets paid by the radio station, who in turn get money from adverts, which are eventually paid by the targeted audience who purchase the advertised product. So when I purchase the advertised product I am also paying the artist whose song I heard on the same radio station.

Similarly, by hotlinking an image, people may visit the site, hence increasing the value of advertising to the site and ultimately paying for the copyright of the image used on the site

CabanSail wrote: »

If you look into it, it's The Sun Newspaper which forbids its images being hot linked without permission. So if the SF are using those images then there is a breach of copyright. The solution isn't to carry on ignoring the matter but rather to address it.

In this particular case the difference in income to PCPhoto was probably nothing. The Sun was one of the few who had paid him. The problem was that his image was being used all over the place and most were stolen. What happened in the SF appears to me to be at the end of long day another illegal use is found, but in a place where he has a voice. The user in this instance copped the frustration meant for the many. Yes the approach was a lot less diplomatic than his normal style but the core fact remains that the image appeared without rights.

I do sympathise if there was widespread illegal use by various different businesses, but come on, when you start chasing the little people and threatening legal action, I loose all sympathy.

I do however accept the point about it being the end of a long day. However, if this were the case, surely an apology would have been forthcoming on that particular thread

I'm assuming the majority here are photographers and so have a vested interest in the upholding of copyright. However you have to accept, and I'm sure through your own experiences you're well aware, that the vast majority without a vested interest don't care about it, particularly when its use is as trivial as this was

CabanSail

OK .... Let me put a hypothetical scenario to you.

You sell .... let's say ..... football shirts for a living. There is a big match coming up and you have your order of 10 000 shirts in the back of the van coming from the docks. You stupid assistant stops off to buy fags and forgets to lock the van and when he come out of the shop there is an empty van waiting. You spend all day talking to Gardai, Insurers, Suppliers, etc. All you will get back, if lucky, is the wholesale value of the items less excess and transport costs. There is no way to get another order before the match and so cannot exercise your exclusive rights. All together a fairly crap day.

After all this you decide to go to the Pub for a couple of pints with some mates for a few pints. While there a couple of lads stroll in wearing your shirts. What do youthink would be the outcome?

LiamoSail

CabanSail wrote: »

OK .... Let me put a hypothetical scenario to you.

You sell .... let's say ..... football shirts for a living. There is a big match coming up and you have your order of 10 000 shirts in the back of the van coming from the docks. You stupid assistant stops off to buy fags and forgets to lock the van and when he come out of the shop there is an empty van waiting. You spend all day talking to Gardai, Insurers, Suppliers, etc. All you will get back, if lucky, is the wholesale value of the items less excess and transport costs. There is no way to get another order before the match and so cannot exercise your exclusive rights. All together a fairly crap day.

After all this you decide to go to the Pub for a couple of pints with some mates for a few pints. While there a couple of lads stroll in wearing your shirts. What do youthink would be the outcome?

Its a different scenario. He never stood to make money from a boards.ie user posting the photo. Nor did the photo being available free online stop me, or I would assume, other users from purchasing it as a situation was not going to develop whereby end users would have purchased such a picture

If he had suffered a financial loss, I could empathise, but he didn't. He never stood to make money from the pictures use on this site, but still demanded its removal, and in a completely unreasonable and threatening manner. This is why I have no sympathy.

dirtyghettokid

fair enough, you have no sympathy -- but some of us do. i can see both sides of the coin. there's no point in dragging the arse out of this......

just my opinion.

bring back pcphoto

tororosso

LiamoSail wrote: »

There's not a hope that I'd bother checking copyright prior to posting a picture on a discussion forum. If it were a commercial site, perhaps, but for the purpose of discussion where there is no monetary gain from the pictures use, not a chance. And I would imagine there are many posters with a similar attitude

You mightn't bother but the right to copy a particular photo belongs with the photographer. Just because the culture exists of breaching a photographer's copyright does not justify the practice and it seems that the culture is definitely one of wilfull ignorance. PCPhoto was banned due to a rule in the terms and conditions which many might not deem important in a similar manner to the manner in which many users approach copyright issues. The issue is probably a can of worms on the site as it is largely prevalent.

tororosso

LiamoSail wrote: »

Its a different scenario. He never stood to make money from a boards.ie user posting the photo. Nor did the photo being available free online stop me, or I would assume, other users from purchasing it as a situation was not going to develop whereby end users would have purchased such a picture

If he had suffered a financial loss, I could empathise, but he didn't. He never stood to make money from the pictures use on this site, but still demanded its removal, and in a completely unreasonable and threatening manner. This is why I have no sympathy.

Directly making money from a photo is largely irrelevant as it is skirting past the real issue of the photographer holding copyright and the integrity of a photographer's work through control of where the images are displayed.

LiamoSail

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

fair enough, you have no sympathy -- but some of us do. i can see both sides of the coin. there's no point in dragging the arse out of this......

just my opinion.

bring back pcphoto

Its a discussion forum. Rather then duck in, voice an unpopular opinion and duck back out, I'm discussing the issue

tororosso wrote: »

You mightn't bother but the right to copy a particular photo belongs with the photographer. Just because the culture exists of breaching a photographer's copyright does not justify the practice and it seems that the culture is definitely one of wilfull ignorance. PCPhoto was banned due to a rule in the terms and conditions which many might not deem important in a similar manner to the manner in which many users approach copyright issues. The issue is probably a can of worms on the site as it is largely prevalent.

Where is the issue though with use such as in the soccer forum? The discussion could have continued without the photo, and the photo was not being used for commercial purposes. There was profit for him to make down this particular avenue yet he still threatened and objected. Is there any rational reason for this?

I could understand if it was a photo he didn't want shown, but given it was widely available, that wasn't the case

tororosso wrote: »

Directly making money from a photo is largely irrelevant as it is skirting past the real issue of the photographer holding copyright and the integrity of a photographer's work through control of where the images are displayed.

Integrity? He said he'd sell it for €100. Its not integrity he's after, if it were he wouldn't have sold it to the sun

I would agree if the likes of the sun or mirror stole a picture he didn't want used by them. But to sell it to the sun, then object to its use on an internet discussion forum citing integrity is facial

dirtyghettokid

to me it just looks like you are trying to repeatedly prove your point. maybe just agree to disagree. i would echo what cabansail says, my thanks on posts shows what my opinion is. i just feel there's no need to keep going over the same points repeatedly. we already know pcphoto acted somewhat inappropriately, but we know he was having a hard day already. in the heat of the moment he reacted. he got banned. what more do you want?

CabanSail

LiamoSail wrote: »

But to sell it to the sun, then object to its use on an internet discussion forum citing integrity is facial

What he repeatedly pointed out was that The Sun do not allow their images to be Hot Linked without permission.

The majority of users of this image have not purchased the rights.

I wish PCPhoto was here, as he knows these laws better than I do.

LiamoSail

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

to me it just looks like you are trying to repeatedly prove your point. maybe just agree to disagree. i would echo what cabansail says, my thanks on posts shows what my opinion is. i just feel there's no need to keep going over the same points repeatedly. we already know pcphoto acted somewhat inappropriately, but we know he was having a hard day already. in the heat of the moment he reacted. he got banned. what more do you want?

Its a discussion forum. That's what people do, discuss things. If you don't want to do that don't reply. Simple as

CabanSail wrote: »

What he repeatedly pointed out was that The Sun do not allow their images to be Hot Linked without permission.

The majority of users of this image have not purchased the rights.

I wish PCPhoto was here, as he knows these laws better than I do.

Regardless of the law, can someone explain what harm posting the photo on the forum caused?

I think we can agree that it being posted there did not cause the photographer any monetary loss

jpb1974

Regardless of the law, can someone explain what harm posting the photo on the forum caused?

If someone I didn't know in the slightest borrowed my car without my permission, took it for a drive, replaced the used petrol and dropped it back to my house... it wouldn't cause any harm, and of course I wouldn't be bothered...

... or would I?

I suppose it depends on me since I own the car. Even if it was something as trivial as pair of socks... would I be bothered, well that'd be up to me wouldn't it?

If it happened to someone else, I probably wouldn't care less, cos it's not my car... it's someone elses and it's their problem to worry about right?

Just because you think someone shouldn't care doesn't mean they shouldn't care... that's their choice isn't it?

dirtyghettokid

LiamoSail wrote: »

Its a discussion forum. That's what people do, discuss things. If you don't want to do that don't reply. Simple as

ok so. are you a photographer? i don't recall seeing you around here. you haven't participated in this forum outside of this thread. you haven't even posted in the soccer forum. it seems a little odd that you would come in here, to argue with photographers... and THIS:

jpb1974 wrote: »

Just because you think someone shouldn't care doesn't mean they shouldn't care... that's their choice isn't it?

LiamoSail

jpb1974 wrote: »

If someone I didn't know in the slightest borrowed my car without my permission, took it for a drive, replaced the used petrol and dropped it back to my house... it wouldn't cause any harm, and of course I wouldn't be bothered...

... or would I?

I suppose it depends on me since I own the car. Even if it was something as trivial as pair of socks... would I be bothered, well that'd be up to me wouldn't it?

If it happened to someone else, I probably wouldn't care less, cos it's not my car... it's someone elses and it's their problem to worry about right?

Just because you think someone shouldn't care doesn't mean they shouldn't care... that's their choice isn't it?

I loose a lot of sympathy when analogy's such as this are drawn. Perhaps a more accurate one to draw would be to ask if I would be upset if someone cloned my car and used it, without interfering with my version of the car

I would sympathise if someone stole the photographers own copy, leaving him without one, or if he didn't want the image made public, or if it were used for commercial purposes, but I fail to see any justification for objection to how it was used on this site

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

ok so. are you a photographer? i don't recall seeing you around here. you haven't participated in this forum outside of this thread. you haven't even posted in the soccer forum. it seems a little odd that you would come in here, to argue with photographers... and THIS:

No I'm not a photographer, but this topic is related to copyright as oppose to photography specifically and I find it relevant

I haven't posted in the soccer forum because you need 50 posts to apply for access. Once I achieve this I will apply. I was however a member of the soccer forum for a number of years under a closed account. I'd also like to clarify that I wasn't banned, but choose to close my account and I can verify this with any Mod if there is an issue

jpb1974

I loose a lot of sympathy when analogy's such as this are drawn

Sympathy for who/what?

Perhaps a more accurate one to draw would be to ask if I would be upset if someone cloned my car and used it, without interfering with my version of the car

How is cloning a car more accurate? Not sure I know anyone who clones cars.

Regardless of the law

If it's accuracy your after it might be a good idea to actually start considering this.

No I'm not a photographer

Maybe this explains why you don't appear to understand the value a person is entitled to place on their own photographs?

LiamoSail

jpb1974 wrote: »

Sympathy for who/what?

For those who's copyright has been infringed

How is cloning a car more accurate? Not sure I know anyone who clones cars.

The analogy was drawn between a car and the photo by a previous poster, not by me. The point about cloning the car referred to the fact that posting the picture in the soccer forum, it had essentially been cloned/copied from the original

If it's accuracy your after it might be a good idea to actually start considering this.

People comply with regulations/laws etc in different ways. If I'm told something is law or regulation, I won't just blindly comply, I'll seek to understand the justification and reasoning behind it. That's exactly what I was seeking to understand by that question which of course you edited out half of and didn't answer

Maybe this explains why you don't appear to understand the value a person is entitled to place on their own photographs?

Yea you're right, relative to those who are involved in photography through work or as a hobby how could I? This is why I'm discussing the issue

I'm getting a lot of stick here, but nobody is answering the question I'm asking, in that in this particular instance, what harm was there in posting that photo on that thread, particularly given there was no monetary loss to any party, and the Photographer had proved he was happy for the photo to be published online

Many, if not all of you may not agree with my opinion, but given the high importance you place on copyright, certainly a far higher importance then the likes of myself (of which there are many of a similar mind), why not answer the question, or at least engage amicably, instead of this ''you're not a photographer, you wouldn't understand'' bull****? Surely its in your interests to attempt to change opinion, as others have done on this thread

Teferi

LiamoSail wrote: »

I'm getting a lot of stick here, but nobody is answering the question I'm asking, in that in this particular instance, what harm was there in posting that photo on that thread, particularly given there was no monetary loss to any party, and the Photographer had proved he was happy for the photo to be published online

Like yourself I don't regularly post here however I am a regular lurker.

I would point out that many, many poster have now answered the particular question you are asking and explained it very well but you don't accept their answers. This is your issue, not theirs.

I would add that you have talked about how you are here to debate yet you don't seem to be able to see the other point of view or accept a differing opinion even after reasoned explanation. I find this odd for a person who is here to discuss the issue.

jpb1974

it had essentially been cloned/copied from the original

The point being what?

what harm was there in posting that photo on that thread, particularly given there was no monetary loss to any party, and the Photographer had proved he was happy for the photo to be published online

What harm you ask? OK, well I suppose PCPhoto would be the best person to answer this but I'll give it a stab.

The harm appears to be anxiety and anger. It was his photo, he owned the copyright, he didn't want it hotlinked on boards.ie. It's a simple as that.

Just because you think that there was no financial loss doesn't mean that PCPhoto was wrong.

I'm not saying he was wrong, I'm not saying he was right... all I am saying is it was his photo and he was entitled to be p*ssed off if he wanted to be.

Surely its in your interests to attempt to change opinion

Why? We all have opinions, we are entitled to them. Why do you feel you need to change anyone's opinion? What opinion are you trying to change exactly?

Pa Dee

jpb1974 wrote: »

I loose a lot of sympathy when analogy's such as this are drawn

Sympathy for who/what?

Perhaps a more accurate one to draw would be to ask if I would be upset if someone cloned my car and used it, without interfering with my version of the car

How is cloning a car more accurate? Not sure I know anyone who clones cars.

Regardless of the law

If it's accuracy your after it might be a good idea to actually start considering this.

No I'm not a photographer

Maybe this explains why you don't appear to understand the value a person is entitled to place on their own photographs?

In fairness the car analogy is a silly one

jpb1974

In fairness to what?

At least it goes to the effort of attempting to explain something rather than just saying something is silly because you can.

LiamoSail

Teferi wrote: »

Like yourself I don't regularly post here however I am a regular lurker.

I would point out that many, many poster have now answered the particular question you are asking and explained it very well but you don't accept their answers. This is your issue, not theirs.

I would add that you have talked about how you are here to debate yet you don't seem to be able to see the other point of view or accept a differing opinion even after reasoned explanation. I find this odd for a person who is here to discuss the issue.

I haven't found an answer that justifies the objection in this particular instance. Answers have referred to analogy's or situations which to my mind aren't relevant

As for not seeing the other side of the debate, I disagree. As is evident from my posts, I do see it as more of an issue then I previously would have, but more so when, as was pointed out to me, there is scope for a financial loss

jpb1974 wrote: »

The point being what?

The analogy was made between borrowing a car and hotlinking the photo. I stated that it would be more similar to an instance where someone cloned a car, rather then borrowed it without permission. Yes I am aware cars can't be cloned, I simply made the point to continue the analogy

What harm you ask? OK, well I suppose PCPhoto would be the best person to answer this but I'll give it a stab.

The harm appears to be anxiety and anger. It was his photo, he owned the copyright, he didn't want it hotlinked on boards.ie. It's a simple as that.

And that's understandable, however surely as an experienced photographer he must be aware that once a photo is available online, this sort of thing is a distinct possibility. Rightly or wrongly, you can't control the internet

As has been pointed out however, he raised the objection on a forum in which he had a voice and so I can understand. He may have been frustrated and went the wrong way about it, however threatening legal action is a fairly serious step to take. While we all say/post things in the spare of the moment, following some consideration perhaps he could have apologised for his approach and respectfully requested the image be removed

Just because you think that there was no financial loss doesn't mean that PCPhoto was wrong.

I'm not saying he was wrong, I'm not saying he was right... all I am saying is it was his photo and he was entitled to be p*ssed off if he wanted to be.

As I said above, I can understand, but he went the wrong way about things and didn't back down from his hardline stance (I don't mean change his stance, but approach the issue more amicably)

Why? We all have opinions, we are entitled to them. Why do you feel you need to change anyone's opinion? What opinion are you trying to change exactly?

I was actually referring to those with a vested interest in the protection of copyright trying to change the opinion of someone like myself, with no vested interest, not the other way around

jpb1974

To be honest with you... I'm not sure where you're you're going with this.

It's pretty well established at this stage that

(a) he's perfectly entitled to be píssed off if he wants to be

and

(b) most of thing that losing the plot maybe wasn't the best course of action

But this craic of... "bah, it's only a photo", well.. maybe it is, maybe it isn't, maybe it's not for me or you to decide, maybe it's for PCPhoto to decide.

brightspark

LiamoSail wrote:

People comply with regulations/laws etc in different ways. If I'm told something is law or regulation, I won't just blindly comply, I'll seek to understand the justification and reasoning behind it.

Society wouldn't work if people could decide which laws apply to them and which ones don't based on their own views, laws are there for the general benefit of the population not the individuals.

If you think the copyright laws (or any other laws for that matter) are too strict then you need to campaign and get the laws changed, not just ignore them.

LiamoSail wrote: »

I haven't found an answer that justifies the objection in this particular instance. Answers have referred to analogy's or situations which to my mind aren't relevant

How about the fact that everytime copyright is infringed (regardless of the loss of income involved), the more it becomes the norm and apparantly acceptable behaviour. Eventually leading to a situation where copyright effectively no longer exists.

No doubt infringing copyright here doesn't bother you, but for PCPhoto and others it's the thin end of the wedge.

AnCatDubh

Just to be clear to the forum;

There is no suggestion that the user(s?) on the soccer forum or boards.ie breached copyright albeit perhaps this is how PC Photo saw it / understood it to be.

Hotlinking technically is accomplished via a segment of text within a web page delivered by a service provider with which a users browser interprets, causing a 'linked image' to display in a users browser. It is the linked site (not boards in this case) which hosts the image that may be at fault if its not licenced to host the image. The text segment which provides the location of the image to the browser isn't the copyright of the image copyright holder.

In this case PC Photo's target to threaten legal action on should have been the media site hosting the image. This is where the copy of the image existed. However, I understand that they were licenced to host the image but i'm guessing that their licence didn't stipulate PC Photo's desire that his copyrighted material is not to be made available via hotlinks (assuming that was his desire).

I'm not aware of it being proved in Irish case law but the above is accepted in some jurisdictions (see Perfect 10 [adult site] v Amazon, Google refers - wiki article). The working understanding of boards and virtually all other sites is that hot linking doesn't violate copyright broadly on the basis of the explanation offered above.

Had the image been an attachment to the post on the thread, ie. boards would have held a copy of the image on its servers which was being delivered via the segment of code referred to above, then yes, boards would likely to have been in breach of copyright. This was not the situation.

Once again (sorry to be repeating myself), PC Photo is banned as I understand it for a threat of legal action against boards.

If copyright infringement does occur then it doesn't matter who doesn't care about individual's rights, or thinks 'sure what harm' or 'no one will profit from it' or any other way they may wish to dress it up. They (those that infringed the persons copyright) will be culpable. Tough on them. They are acting at variance to the law of the land.

CabanSail

In essense I agree with you. However there is a bit of a twist here.

PCPhoto has pointed out that the Sun.co.uk specifies in it's T&C's that it forbids items on it's website to be Hot Linked elsewhere. I understand that the Sun are one of the few who have paid for the image rights. So the person who posted that image was probably in breach with the Sun.co.uk and hence, I assume, also be outside the T&C's of Boards.ie too.

pixbyjohn

Why are the Mods explaining all this, very unusual for them to give such explanations in a general thread. Lets move on, whats done is done.

Saint_Mel

Not adding any of my cents to this but, just as an observation, and sorry if someone else covered this, I found it interesting/odd that at the top of Soccer Forum there is a sticky about copyright infringement etc ... and then further down in the forum there is a quite active 72 page photo thread where I would assume 90% of the images posted/hotlinked/whatever are done so without the copyright holders knowledge.

LiamoSail

Society wouldn't work if people could decide which laws apply to them and which ones don't based on their own views, laws are there for the general benefit of the population not the individuals.

If you think the copyright laws (or any other laws for that matter) are too strict then you need to campaign and get the laws changed, not just ignore them.

How about the fact that everytime copyright is infringed (regardless of the loss of income involved), the more it becomes the norm and apparantly acceptable behaviour. Eventually leading to a situation where copyright effectively no longer exists.

No doubt infringing copyright here doesn't bother you, but for PCPhoto and others it's the thin end of the wedge.

That's not what I meant about law/regulation. It's not about comPlying with those I agree with, it's aboutI understanding the rationale behind those laws, whether or not I believe them to be necessary

Agree with your points about copyright infringement, and contrary to my stance in this instance, I do respect copyright to an extent (I don't download music/films illegally)

I would however maintain that there's a lot to be said about picking your battles. The likes of this (supposed, legally i dont know what the standing is) infringement should not be illegal once it's available online. If it weren't, it would go some way to ensuring breech of coPy right does not become the norm

As an example, someOne who sees no issue with the soccer forum example may then adapt a no respect attitude towards copyright. However, if the above example were considered fine, then perhaps people would base the seriousness on which they consider copyright on a more serious infringement, and perhaps then have a greater respect/appreciation for the infringement


Edit: I'm on the phone so the quote's aren't formatted. Haven't a clue how to do it

AnCatDubh

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Why are the Mods explaining all this, very unusual for them to give such explanations in a general thread. Lets move on, whats done is done.

Speaking for myself only here John, I think i've contributed to this thread 3 times;

First to point people to the prison thread where they could read all about it and make their own minds up,

Second time as PC Photo's character was being called into question. This really annoyed me as I knew to the contrary and how valuable a contributor he could be on this forum. PC Photo wasn't able to defend himself as he's banned and I would happily defend anyone in a similar manner where I knew inaccuracies were being posted about them.

Third contribution was posted as the issue dragged on to broadly go around in circles, so I hoped that I could clarify for people that there were no issues of copyright present.

Apologies if you think I was being excessive but 3 contributions over a ~100 post, 7 page thread is hardly hogging the floor imho.

(oh, and i type too much usually )

pixbyjohn

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Apologies if you think I was being excessive but 3 contributions over a ~100 post, 7 page thread is hardly hogging the floor imho.

(oh, and i type too much usually )

Apologies accepted

CabanSail

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Why are the Mods explaining all this, very unusual for them to give such explanations in a general thread. Lets move on, whats done is done.

For a start, most of what I write in the forum is not as a Mod. I try to make it VERY clear when I'm posting in that capacity, otherwise it's a normal post like anyone else. In this case I have been in touch with PCPhoto and Admin to try to get this issue resolved.

mrboswell

Its a shame as mods here have pointed out. PC has been a great contributer to our forum.

He did go in shooting from the hip. Understandable, though, in the context of the image in question and as per the forum rule he got a soccer ban. Fair enough. Considering all the yokes calling for his head in that forum he's better off out of there.

I think the MODs that brought about his banning have dropped to the basement in my opinion. Having looked at the prison thread, regardless of what he did or how he acted, he gets this: "No, you get punished for acting the dick.". So much for taking the higher ground. On those grounds he should ban himself!
In the original thread the local 'confectionary' wasn't much help in dealing with it while he was in the middle of it. Probably should have been locked straight away.

Anyway I think PC should syndicate. Leave it with them and forget about this mess.