SlotForum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Lets have an open session here on the subject of slot car photographs.

Jexy made a comment that I was out of order copying and pasting the URL on another public site without the permission of the photographer.

Jexy has his point of view and I have mine.

SlotForum is a public message board and photographs published here are in the public domain.

Unless a copyright message is put under the photograph then it is not an issue legally and anybody can grab the picture.

The publisher of the photogragh knew that when he/she published. If there was a link to a page on another website where there was a copyright message and the photograph was published there, then it is more of an issue.

And the point is Scalextric own the copyright to that picture as it is an image of one of their cars, not the photographer. That is how the law stands and I back Scalextric on this one.

When I publish a photograph here or at SCI or anywhere on any public site which invites for or has a membership then I know that that picture may well be subject to use elsewere without permission and I accept that.

So lets talk turkey as this type of negative sentiment is harmful to photography circulation and ultimately to the hobby.

I believe the moderators should make it very plain to all who post pictures here that anybody who does so in so doing has given permission for that photograph to be circulated to other message board around the world without the need to obtain permission. What must not be allowed is for the photograph to be used for any commercial purpose on a commercial website without permission, including Ebay.

That I think is fair and reasonable and everybody knows where they stand.

Anything any less to me is not acceptable as it is the slot car companies who pay for the licence to produce that car and the subject for that image and they should benefit from the photography however they do not hassle photographers who publish images of slot cars as they do not mind the free publicity.

However, if Jexy and like minded people have their way then there will be much less slot car photography in circulation as slot car companies will start hassling people for a payback if it suddenly is done for a commercial purpose rather than as a hobby.

And we all lose. Is anybody here a professional photographer or has ambition to become a professional photographer?

Those who have those ambitions will not publish photographs on a public message board.

Cheers
Moped
 

·
DT
Joined
·
5,195 Posts
QUOTE (moped rider @ 20 Dec 2003, 12:46 PM)Unless a copyright message is put under the photograph then it is not an issue legally and anybody can grab the picture.
That is not technically true. The person who takes the photo or creates the image, has a general copyright to the media even if it is not stated and he has the right to claim damages if it is used without his permission.

It is always a good idea to seek permission of the owner of the photo.
 

·
DT
Joined
·
5,195 Posts
QUOTE (moped rider @ 20 Dec 2003, 12:46 PM)SlotForum is a public message board and photographs published here are in the public domain.
This is not true either.

People publish their work here for the interest of the SlotForum community. It is not ok for another to use without permission of the original author.

If you have a problem with any of this, I'll put you in touch with some IP lawyers that I've worked with on Internet issues over the last 6 years.
 

·
DT
Joined
·
5,195 Posts
QUOTE (moped rider @ 20 Dec 2003, 12:46 PM)And the point is Scalextric own the copyright to that picture as it is an image of one of their cars, not the photographer. That is how the law stands and I back Scalextric on this one.
Another problem here.

When a photographer takes a picture, he owns the copyright. If he takes a picture of an image that is itself copyright, then the original owner becomes part of the loop. Fashion models are protected in this way as their look is what they sell and therefore they have a claim to it.

The manufacturer has a copyright on the car to protect someone making the same thing (the car), but not to protect someone photographing it. Imagine the problem of legal rights at a F1 race if every spectator had to pay rights to photograph the cars.

If someone takes a photo of a car, then he has copyright to that particular photo. If anyone else wants that photo, then they must ask the permission of the photographer, or go and get another image somewhere else.
 

·
Allan Wakefield
Joined
·
5,857 Posts
Lets clear this up once and for all shall we Moped? I have spoken about this before.

Regardless of your personal view on this Mope the SlotForum Rules on this are now below, if you don't like them tough mate.

1) NO picture posted on SlotForum can be reproduced elsewhere without an acknowledgement of the original source and SlotForum. If you cant find the original source don't take it.

2) NO pictures are to be moved here without the same courtesy to the original site and supplier. By all means ask the site first, most are fine as long as you don't just take. We would prefer to see pictures and an acknowledgment of the source than just a bare link.

IF there is a complaint to SlotForum, we will deal with it and remove the picture if requested and post why.
IF we have a problem with a picture being taken, or a member does with one he posted here, being taken, We will deal with it in a similar way.

It is ALL about common courtesy Moped.

Treat others like you wish to be treated.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,213 Posts
I think you have just about wrapped up most of the answers regarding Moped's original post.

Just to add, that I was a pro photographer years back so I know my copyright laws.

I think in the main people don't generally mind photos being copied, but my point was they should be asked always get permission.

If you think it doesn't matter cast your mind back a few years. Chap on EBay selling a CD with photos of nearly all the Scalextric cars. Sounded good, got in touch, he sent me some examples - my cars, my photos!!! He had downloaded every image from the Slot Portal site and copied them to CD. Adrian was not happy when I told him. EBay removed the item ASAP.

I don't post many pictures, but I don't want my pics copied to other sites without permission. Some of the companies I write articles about supply photos for use in specific publications at specific times. If they find (and they have) that the photos have been incorrectly used they get a bit pissed off.

Moped - your views on Copyright law are incorrect. Whilst there are some country based variations on copyright and intellectual property, in the main the photographer owns copyright regardless of how, where, when the image is produced, re-produced or edited. (See the recent protracted law suite regarding the image of the Cuban Marxist used on countless posters and T shirts for years, the photographer has been awarded copyright after 30 years of use by other and he's suing everyone he can find - and winning)

It's worth noting that photos taken at trade shows are a particular problem, some rules of events state that no photos can be taken without the organizers permission. This is easily enforced (but rarely) because you are taking the photos on someone else's private property.

At the end of the day, it's just common sense and manners.

Gareth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
It is one thing to own copyright but quite another to publish a picture in a public forum in the public domain without any claim to copyright.

You should think again before setting any general rules for photographs for this site so maybe you should get your heads together and think this through.

It is up to the individual who publishes the photograph to determine the rule for his or her picture at the time of publication. If nothing is said within the post which includes the photograph then it is in the public domain.

That individual may wish to further the hobby and is not bothered about the issues that so concern some of you. When I publish a photograph I do it for the good of the hobby, not for any self gratification or publicity.

Folk will obide by the wishes of the photographer if there is a clear statement on the part of the publisher of the photograph. Any rule should put the onus on the photographer to claim copyright rather than for it to be assumed on his behalf by the site administrator.

This is a public forum not a private web site.

Can you show me any other web site of this type that has rules about photographs?

It is all a bit silly and does nothing for the hobby or this site IMHO.

By the way, the same copywrite could apply to all site content including any messages, so where do we stand on that?

Here is an section from that copywrite link above:-

"Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net"

Anybody who posts here does so on that basis. To restrict people from doing otherwise does the hobby no favours.

Cheers
Moped
 

·
Allan Wakefield
Joined
·
5,857 Posts
I also am not getting into an argument here Moped, BUT..

If you are not moving info from one forum to another for personal gain or kudos then it is no problem for you to also acknowledge the source.

It is simply common courtesy Moped!

Please adhere to our wishes and everyone can gain the most benefit.

Thank you.
 

·
Alan Tadd
Joined
·
4,039 Posts
Interesting Thread and you learn something new everyday.

I've read all the arguments and I can see where you are all coming from and obviously will respect the Rules of the Forum, however what it will mean is that I will only ever publish photographs on this site that I have taken myself, (and as Swiss knows these are pretty poor efforts!). If others follow this example the Forum will be a poorer place.
I really would have thought that the manufacturers would WANT people to publish their pictures on this Forum. Far better to publish good quality pictures than ***s poor pictures like mine.
Surely there is some sort of "blanket" permission to allow Manufacturers pictures to be used here without having to contact them each time?. How many people would go to this amount of effort...not too many I would think.
I belong to several Forums and this is the only one, I'm aware of, where this issue has been mentioned and included in the site Rules. Not a criticism just a fact.

Good Topic Moped, thanks for raising it.

Regards

Alan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,883 Posts
I am keeping a fairly low profile, as I find the picture (pun thoroughly intended) quite difficult to see clearly! I have much to learn. Let's face it, if all the issues WERE crystal clear, the parasitic copyright lawyers would be having a leaner time with their cigars and brandies this Christmas.

QUOTE This is a public forum not a private web site.
On this point, I feel completely confident in stating that SlotForum IS owned privately and that our membership of it is at the absolute discretion of the owner, who may set his own requirements entirely as he sees fit, for entering his property, for partaking of the contents and for what he permits to be taken away from it. No one can impose other rules upon him nor should anyone wish to do so.

QUOTE Can you show me any other web site of this type that has rules about photographs?
Whether such web sites exist or not is quite irrelevant. How one particular host may choose to adminster his property has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on any other host.

On a more mundane level, I have the absolute right to choose who enters my house and the right to change my mind about that too. I can require visitors not to spit on my carpet, even though their other friends may encourage it on their carpets! (I am told that it does improve some carpets!) I certainly have the right to prevent anyone from swiping my "picture of the Fallen Madonna mit der big boobies" and also prevent them from making a copy of it, whether Van Klompf, the original artist, agrees with me or not!

Taking a common sense view, it seems to me that references to courtesy could be easily taken on board and that requests from our host must be honoured without argument and particularly not public argument. That is just common-sense.

Looking at the topic header, one might well respond with,
"Why are some people so INsensitive?"
 

·
DT
Joined
·
5,195 Posts
Thanks Phil


There is etiquette and intellectual property law. You can be rude and avoid etiquette, but you can't escape what is law.

If one day you're sent a letter by a law firm claiming damages or royalties for work published by you, where the copyright belongs to someone else, you'll be quite shocked I'm sure. I've seen it before and it can get ugly. Best avoid it.

I'll send an email to an owner of a site and ask permission to use his photos. I'll say in what context the photos are for and generally I'll find that they are flattered I asked. Look at this example:

I was looking for some Corvette racing pictures. I approached David Lord, a Pro photographer, who goes all over the place, but specialises in British GT. He selected a bunch of photos and gave me the right to use them on my site. I've shown them to some Corvette buddies and to SlotForum people. They are fantastic photos and I'm sure you'll agree that it is a pleasure to see them. All I did was ask and give credit where credit was due.

See David Lord's photos here
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,493 Posts
this is Moped! he is a twocer.

er yes, doing as photography at collage, but that has jack **** to do with copyright.

No, material that you produce is not copyrighted. However it belongs to you, ie you can post the photo anywhere you like, however if someone TWOC's the picture like you did, if the source of the picture is provided with the post/information, then all is fine and dandy, but there was nothing.

Rob.
 
G

·
As some people will know, I do a heck of a lot of photography for my father and quite a large amount of it has finished up in the rail racing book. Now, with regard to people using my photos my stance is thus: I don't mind people using them for non-profit purposes (but it'd be nice to be told, even if it were just to know someone considered them worth using!).

However, I'd be outraged if anyone used them for commercial purposes such as EBay sales or the earlier mentioned CD os Scalextric images. Generally, I'm pretty easy going about their usage and I imagine the same is true for many photographers out there who will be glad to cooperate if treated with respect for their work.

Rich
 
G

·
Copyright belongs to the person or photographer who took the picture, by law, of which ignorance is of no excuse. When placed on the internet it is considered public domain, the photo is likely to be accessed and used without knowledge. I only post pictures that have watermark or are manipulated to sub standard or are too small for any gain. Most pictures are accompanied with copyright symbols or warning messages if the pictures hold any commercial value, with third parties needing permission of use.

It may be worth considering that before posting, to mention the excellent picture seen recently of a Aston Martin manipulated by Dopamine on this Forum, worthy of any commercial inclusion.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a395/Triboy/c-2965-2.jpg

best wishes.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top