A note about Copyright

[Falkor]

If you think it's okay to look at something but not to be able to photocopy it without paying a hefty sum then you should, by rights, stab yourself in the eyes and carry on living the rest of your life blind.

Cameras work just like the Eye; they contain lenses that focus an image onto film, or in the case of the Eye, at the back of the retina.

Before our ancestors ever evolved the Eye, the very first thing they learnt to do at the root of the Tree Of Life was to make copies of DNA, cells, and to collonise them. Indeed, the whole purpose of life's existence in the surrounding Cosmos, resembling that of a Black Hole Factory--right from the start--is to make copies! Without this ability, the human race and life as we know it would not exist.

Copying is our free privilege.

Terry's religion involves worshipping statues of the Crystal Palace; he's done a fantastic job so far of gathering up copies of the various Crystal Palace statuary--themselves casts of famous originals--and presenting them free of charge to the public. You have to respect Terry's religion just like the government respects that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from the law, which everyone else has to obey, against the taking of Hallucinogenic drugs. I hope Terry continues to update his threads.

Next time you eat a steak, just remember that you are devouring billions of copies of the Britannica Encyclopedia in the form of DNA.

[Rebelmc]

If you think it's okay to look at something but not to be able to photocopy it without paying a hefty sum then you should, by rights, stab yourself in the eyes and carry on living the rest of your life blind.

Cameras work just like the Eye; they contain lenses that focus an image onto film, or in the case of the Eye, at the back of the retina.

Before our ancestors ever evolved the Eye, the very first thing they learnt to do at the root of the Tree Of Life was to make copies of DNA, cells, and to collonise them. Indeed, the whole purpose of life's existence in the surrounding Cosmos, resembling that of a Black Hole Factory--right from the start--is to make copies! Without this ability, the human race and life as we know it would not exist.

Copying is our free privilege.

Terry's religion involves worshipping statues of the Crystal Palace; he's done a fantastic job so far of gathering up copies of the various Crystal Palace statuary--themselves casts of famous originals--and presenting them free of charge to the public. You have to respect Terry's religion just like the government respects that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from the law, which everyone else has to obey, against the taking of Hallucinogenic drugs. I hope Terry continues to update his threads.

Next time you eat a steak, just remember that you are devouring billions of copies of the Britannica Encyclopedia in the form of DNA.

I wouldn't fancy being in your shoes if you ever needed to rely on that principle as a defence in court!

[Falkor]

You choose to live your life based on fear, but I choose to live mine differently... Nobody is going to bother taking a poor guy like me to court over a poxy photo of the Crystal Palace. However, I better not piss off that Ebay user 1924lineone; I reckon he must be a millionaire and could easily afford to take me to court over one of his images just for the sake of it...
http://tinyurl.com/29nqju
I better not mess with that dude! He certainly means business when it comes to the Crystal Palace, but I'm not at all sure of his agenda. He's probably an all-round antique dealer without any specific passion.

[Rebelmc]

You choose to live your life based on fear, but I choose to live mine differently...

No, I choose to live my life based on the law of the land and the basic work ethic that says "If I put a lot of effort into producing or providing something unique, I have a basic right to protect that effort from being exploited at no cost to others".

What you should be in fear of is the possibility that someone will take a poor guy like you to court; it can, and has, happened and, if someone chooses to do it, it will make a poor guy like you substantially poorer.

Copying is said to be the sincerest form of flattery, but plaigiarism is also the one of the largest sources of income, just ask MC Hammer, he knows what copying without permission is all about.

[admin]

I have moved this to Town Asylum since I think we are in danger of going off-topic. The rights and wrongs of copyright and publication right are not Sydenham specific. Only how it is applied to this website/forum.

Whatever we personally think of intellectual property rights the position of this website and, by consent, of posters here is not to post illegal material on our servers. That includes copyrighted material. To determine what may be legal/illegal I have posted a link from our terms of use (http://www.sydenham.org.uk/usage.html) to the most useful link I could find here: http://tinyurl.com/2bsukz.

This applies to stuff hosted on this website/forum server for which I am ultimately responsible. There is also an issue about links. Clearly I can't be responsible for what is at the end of a link if it is on another server. As fot the legal position of links, and in particular inline links is, as far as I can determine, untested in any court of law and has great consequences for how the web operates. In all a vexed question for an expensive lawyer. And community websites would not exist if they had to rely on the advice of a lawyer.

So the bottom line is I don't want to be paranoid about copyright. But actively depriving an IP holder of income is not something this website/forum should become embroiled in either first hand or second hand - for its own future. So I ask that posters act reasonably in this area.

Admin

[Falkor]

No, I choose to live my life based on the law of the land and the basic work ethic that says "If I put a lot of effort into producing or providing something unique, I have a basic right to protect that effort from being exploited at no cost to others".

Yep, nearly everybody follows laws without even questioning them, so the government is free to keep introducing new ones all the time, especially after 9/11. People are scared to break the law and will not stand up to the goverment, but the goverment was actually put there by the people in the first place. The powers they have over us now is getting rediculous. They want to know everything about us, but we're not allowed to know anything about them. Soon your DNA will be stored on their in house databases. There will be satellite cameras everywhere watching you. Channel 4's Big Brother is being used to train people up for this future where we live like prisoners in our own country being tracked by implanted chips and ID cards. The governments want to rule the world. Keep watching the European Union, American Union and the Asian Union; they are soon set to merge into one world government.

Copyright law is the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard. Nice quote by the way, though there's nothing "unique" about photos of the Crystal Palace. One set of photos, which have been reproduced in all kinds of forms over the years, are currently being sold by a minimum of 3 different companies on the Internet. They want 31 Euros or £26 per image--even if it's only for personal use! They are out to "exploit" people... and their claim to copyright is suspicious to say the least, given the evidence. I've been giving them free advertisement lately, waiting for Terry to enquire about the source. The worst ones you have to watch are the Medway Archives or the Centre For Kentish Studies... These organisations aren't there to promote research into local history, but rather, to make a handsome profit out of materials that have been donated to the people so to speak. Medway will charge you for using your own camera to make copies of documents or the like, regardless of whether they are in copyright or not (depending on how long that random period is meant to last); firstly, you have to pay a set day charge for using your camera each visit. Secondly, they charge you about £1.50 for every snap you take and have to kind of like supervise you and your camera at all times! The Centre For Kentish Studies bans the use of cameras altogether, although you're allowed to enter the premises without being blind-folded. They force you to pay £4 per photocopy using their own machine. You can see whose really doing the exploitation here. The author of "Watering Places Around Lewisham" was even denied permission altogether to photocopy a list of early breweries from that centre. Copyright law is so dubious that it's hardly ever clear who is actually the rightful owner. I've got mates who have been sold the UK, European or World rights to films. In a lot of cases they think they've paid for the rights to be able to sell on the films in whatever region, but it turns out several corrupt companies are selling exactly the same rights which they each claim to own for the same movies, and getting my mates to sign a piece of paper to give the impression that it's all being done legit. You see, the companies are clever. In a lot of cases, they don't actually own the rights, but they know that the copyright of low budget foreign films is never going to be disputed in court. They carry on exploiting the sheep and benefitting from it. We are the mugs who lose out by following these petty rules and laws.

What you should be in fear of is the possibility that someone will take a poor guy like you to court; it can, and has, happened and, if someone chooses to do it, it will make a poor guy like you substantially poorer.

Out of the billions of poor people who have broken copyright law, how many of those actually get taken to court? The newspapers are mass produced to reach the whole nation, but the only people who write in to send their articles are the few who have been unlucky enough to be taken to court over something petty, which gives the impression and causes the fear that there's a high chance of this happening to somebody else. In reality, the chances are slim and the numbers are on my side. I've done even worse things compared to the horific crime of publishing Crystal Palace images on a forum; I've actually taken a camcorder into a cinema to record a film due to it being unreleased and unavailable in over 30 years. Oh, how shocking! You know, the staff actually sat next to me and did nothing. The fools and cowards are the only ones who lose out in life, not me. I've not got a criminal record or anything mate. I haven't murdered anyone yet, but I don't need the government or religion to tell me what is morally correct or not. If I murder someone then I know their family is going to come after me so I don't do it.

Copying is said to be the sincerest form of flattery, but plaigiarism is also the one of the largest sources of income, just ask MC Hammer, he knows what copying without permission is all about.

I agree that selling copies of Crystal Palace images would be immoral, even though it's considered such a minor crime compared to what MC Hammer copies. I'm just suggesting that we should be allowed to use cameras in the same way we use our eyes. I find these copyright laws an insult to my intelligence.

[kennyb2]

I take it then Falkor that should you ever, after years of hard work and research ,publish a book or similar, that I can copy it all out and flog it off as my own work, or use it for my own ends ?

The notion that I live by my laws and not yours is exactly the problem caused by the claims of muslim nutcases and the like.

[Falkor]

I take it then Falkor that should you ever, after years of hard work and research ,publish a book or similar, that I can copy it all out and flog it off as my own work, or use it for my own ends ?

No problem with 2/3 requests, but it would be a bit shady to flog it off as your own work. When I share images of the Crystal Palace I don't pretend they came from my collection, and will state the source if requested. Also, no profit is being made here.

The notion that I live by my laws and not yours is exactly the problem caused by the claims of muslim nutcases and the like.

I disagree. I think it has more to do with their religion in my opinion. Also, Muslims are being used as scapegoats lately for crimes they never actually committed.

[JVLFord]

Falkor has effectively stated that he has no interest in copyright law. This is a very narrow and very ignorant view of copyright law. Companies pay considerable sums to protect their name, their logo and their products from copyright theft (that is what it is at the end of the day and it seems to me that Falkor is condoning it). They go to these considerable lengths to ensure that their good name and reputation is maintained and that they quite rightly reap the financial and reputational rewards for huge outlays on products and services. Let us all wait and see what happens when he uses or uploads the Coca-Cola or Harrods logo!

[leenewham]

Falkor has effectively stated that he has no interest in copyright law. This is a very narrow and very ignorant view of copyright law. Companies pay considerable sums to protect their name, their logo and their products from copyright theft (that is what it is at the end of the day and it seems to me that Falkor is condoning it). They go to these considerable lengths to ensure that their good name and reputation is maintained and that they quite rightly reap the financial and reputational rewards for huge outlays on products and services. Let us all wait and see what happens when he uses or uploads the Coca-Cola or Harrods logo!

You are mixing copyright and trademarks. Coca cola is a trademark, it is registered. You can also protect your inventions with a patent. THis is also different to copyright. What Falkor is talking about is being able to use images that other people claim ownership to for non commercial means.

The images of the Crystal Palace are out of copyright if they are older that 70 years old. If someone takes a photograph of an image the reproduction rights of the copy are copyrighted, both photos of the original.

The hollywood sign is not copyrighted, but if you take a photograph of it and sell that image you can be sued by the La authorities because it is a trademark.

Falkor has a point and at worst the owners of the image she posts and often gives credit to where possible may ask for the images to be removed. I very much doubt he would be in serious trouble as he is not depriving someone of an income or gaining an income from someome elses property.

Hope that clarifies the situation a bit (I am a graphic designer and have seen the wrong side of copyright infringement and trademark infringement).