I have received a series of threats about one image i posted here a few years ago.
it is a simple image obtained from one of many of the same image on the web, from a personal family blog site, i believe.
I am now being threatened with legal action, and have removed the image temporarily, under duress.
It is my contention that if we accept this kind of bullying, which in this case comes from a third party, and not even the intellectual owners, many wonderful images on this and other forums will have to come down, which would be a great shame.
Im all in favour of copyright and intellectual ownership, but in this case, on a local history site, with no commercial remit whatsoever, I see this as completely wrong, and against the very spirit of this forum.
I think this kind of thing is best dealt with in the open, and not via a series of threatening personal messages
Id welcome any views you may have.
copyright issues
Re: copyright issues
Will:
What more can you tell us? I've no doubt everyone using this forum will sympathise with you, but what sort of motivation is there behind these threats? Do you think it just being vexatious, or is there a credible commercial or other systematic interest?
Is this something which people on other forums come up against, and if so, how do they respond? Is it a growing or reducing problem?
What more can you tell us? I've no doubt everyone using this forum will sympathise with you, but what sort of motivation is there behind these threats? Do you think it just being vexatious, or is there a credible commercial or other systematic interest?
Is this something which people on other forums come up against, and if so, how do they respond? Is it a growing or reducing problem?
-
will greenwood
- Posts: 352
- Joined: 14 Jan 2008 23:45
- Location: moorlinch
Re: copyright issues
well, i dont want to say too much, just in case.
hopefully it can be dealt with via admin.
I used the image to jog some memories, and as i say, there is no commercial aspect here.
the guy in question had previously used the image with permission from the intellectual owners, but since then it has been copied and pasted all over the web.
the problem seems to be that he thinks he now has rights to it.
most copyrighted images are blocked from linking or they have acknowledgements that go with them.
the image i used had neither.
the copyright owners can, i believe in cases like this ask you to remove the image, but im sure its diaspora accross the web would make it very hard to trace an 'original' copyright 'thief', and as such would be difficult to prosecute.
Im sure the owners wouldnt bother...they obviously havent up till now.
The man in question has made no contribution to the forum and came straight to my pm box demanding an explanation as to why ive used 'his' image', and 'requiring' that i remove it, which, considering he had already said it wasnt his image , was a bit overzealous, perhaps.
I believe he should have contacted admin, at the very least, or started a topic we could all take part in.
i apologise if I sound annoyed, but ive asked him to stop pming me 3 times and the last message came before breakfast.
anyway, lets hope it all blows over...
just a storm in a milk machine......
cheers
hopefully it can be dealt with via admin.
I used the image to jog some memories, and as i say, there is no commercial aspect here.
the guy in question had previously used the image with permission from the intellectual owners, but since then it has been copied and pasted all over the web.
the problem seems to be that he thinks he now has rights to it.
most copyrighted images are blocked from linking or they have acknowledgements that go with them.
the image i used had neither.
the copyright owners can, i believe in cases like this ask you to remove the image, but im sure its diaspora accross the web would make it very hard to trace an 'original' copyright 'thief', and as such would be difficult to prosecute.
Im sure the owners wouldnt bother...they obviously havent up till now.
The man in question has made no contribution to the forum and came straight to my pm box demanding an explanation as to why ive used 'his' image', and 'requiring' that i remove it, which, considering he had already said it wasnt his image , was a bit overzealous, perhaps.
I believe he should have contacted admin, at the very least, or started a topic we could all take part in.
i apologise if I sound annoyed, but ive asked him to stop pming me 3 times and the last message came before breakfast.
anyway, lets hope it all blows over...
just a storm in a milk machine......
cheers
Re: copyright issues
This is my aide memoire into photographic copyright:
http://web.archive.org/web/200403120754 ... graphs.htm
There is a technicality that most photos that 'appear' here are not hosted on STF but are links to other public servers. Hence two questions, does that server host have rights to the image (or are there are no rights existent) and whether they are prepared to allow 'deep linking' to that image from STF. Two separate questions.
The latter is the easiest to deal with. They can proscribe linking in their terms of use and/or make it difficult to do so. So that is fairly straightforward and I will ensure it is honoured if the hoster will bring it to my attention.
The first question - does that other host or other third party have 'rights' is not possible for me to judge and I don't think I should. It is really up to the 'owner' and the 'hoster' to sort out their differences directly. I am not sympathetic to parties who accuse STF of showing copyright images but don't go after the original host. I have to say I have received some abuse for this position but no reasoned arguement - yet.
Anyway Will if you wish to PM me with the issues and thank you for not naming names. It is unhelpful if we work out vendettas in public.
Admin
http://web.archive.org/web/200403120754 ... graphs.htm
There is a technicality that most photos that 'appear' here are not hosted on STF but are links to other public servers. Hence two questions, does that server host have rights to the image (or are there are no rights existent) and whether they are prepared to allow 'deep linking' to that image from STF. Two separate questions.
The latter is the easiest to deal with. They can proscribe linking in their terms of use and/or make it difficult to do so. So that is fairly straightforward and I will ensure it is honoured if the hoster will bring it to my attention.
The first question - does that other host or other third party have 'rights' is not possible for me to judge and I don't think I should. It is really up to the 'owner' and the 'hoster' to sort out their differences directly. I am not sympathetic to parties who accuse STF of showing copyright images but don't go after the original host. I have to say I have received some abuse for this position but no reasoned arguement - yet.
Anyway Will if you wish to PM me with the issues and thank you for not naming names. It is unhelpful if we work out vendettas in public.
Admin
-
tulse hill terry
- Posts: 688
- Joined: 25 Jun 2007 01:33
- Location: sarf lunnen
Re: copyright issues
Surely the issue, if the use is neither commercial nor defamatory, it is one of credit, and no more . . . .
Last edited by tulse hill terry on 3 Jun 2012 04:30, edited 1 time in total.
Re: copyright issues
I think some correction is due here to clear my name. My original posting as a PM was not threatening to Will Greenwood.
In fact to prove it I will post here what I sent to him in that PM I'm determined to clear things on this because Will Greenwood has lied from the beginning and he knows it.
QUOTE
I'm sorry to say but your Jubbly photo you have lifted from another site and don't have permission to place a copy on the forum.
It doesn't matter but this photo was posted originally by me with permission of the makers of the original Jubbly Carton (Tetrapak International) and I don't think they gave permission for it to be freely copied on the web.
Perhaps you'd like to comment on why you didn't seek permission to post it up here on a specifically local site please.
Plado.
So you see I was polite. I was as respectful as can reasonably be expected and I didn't make the comment publicly on the forum.
I merely reminding him that he hadn't actually got the right to use the picture because the Copyright I maintained was belonged to Tetrapak International who furnished me with a Copy of the picture and agreed to let me post it in 2 non-commercial places provided I acknowledging that the picture was "Photo with kind permission of Tetrapak International" who had given me permission to post it up on Friendsreunited and a Nostalgia site.
I would like to know whereabouts in that posting I made any claim to the rights of the photo being my own.
Seeing the photo somewhere else I was annoyed that somehow no matter how far back down the chain, the photo has been lifted and used as if it was public property.
I never suggested the photo belonged to me, nor that the copyright did. I don't know how or why that has now turned into the exaggerated claim that I made any threats. That is total nonsense. I merely asked for his views as you'll see in the final sentence.
I thought it reasonable to expect that anyone else using the picture would ask the original owners of the photo (where that could be ascertained) their permission to use it, in just the same way I did when I first had the picture procured for me by Tetrapak.
Tetrapak have a patent on the tetrahedron jubbly style carton and they sent to a colleagues office in Switzerland to find a black and white photo for me. However the over-reaction from Will Greenwood was insulting and abusive and he wrongly assumed that I was claiming the photo was mine.
I have this morning had a call from Tetrapak and they have said that I was right to bring the matter to their attention but as it's not a product in current production there is little likelihood that they could make intellectual property rights stick in a legal claim, but they do have to be careful of that all the time. They say that they have no objection to the old Jubbly photo being used in a non-commercial sense.
The copy was in fact a photostat of the original photo so there is no copyright existing on it. It is in effect Royalty Free so please would the Moderator admin put the photo back up here and accept my apology herewith for bothering him with the issue.
I don't offer any apology to Mr Greenwood because of the ungracious and disrespectful shower of nastiness he threw my way in his over-reacting defence - I really can't understand where that came from.
A note here to Admin. There has been considerable problem with copyright of "School Photos" posted up on Friendsreunited and where the copyright owner cannot be found the photos are usually quite wisely posted up with a note saying "If anyone knows of the copyright on a photo and objects to the photo being broadcast on the site we will take steps to remove it".
Of course if the owner is no longer alive nobody will mind but there's no harm in being careful not to tread on the wrong toes. That's all I was doing.
Now that the matter is resolved I am not really prepared to say any more on the matter as I wanted to clear my name. But feel free to place the photo back up with the milk machine picture and I don't expect to hear any more silliness about threats.
--
Plado
In fact to prove it I will post here what I sent to him in that PM I'm determined to clear things on this because Will Greenwood has lied from the beginning and he knows it.
QUOTE
I'm sorry to say but your Jubbly photo you have lifted from another site and don't have permission to place a copy on the forum.
It doesn't matter but this photo was posted originally by me with permission of the makers of the original Jubbly Carton (Tetrapak International) and I don't think they gave permission for it to be freely copied on the web.
Perhaps you'd like to comment on why you didn't seek permission to post it up here on a specifically local site please.
Plado.
So you see I was polite. I was as respectful as can reasonably be expected and I didn't make the comment publicly on the forum.
I merely reminding him that he hadn't actually got the right to use the picture because the Copyright I maintained was belonged to Tetrapak International who furnished me with a Copy of the picture and agreed to let me post it in 2 non-commercial places provided I acknowledging that the picture was "Photo with kind permission of Tetrapak International" who had given me permission to post it up on Friendsreunited and a Nostalgia site.
I would like to know whereabouts in that posting I made any claim to the rights of the photo being my own.
Seeing the photo somewhere else I was annoyed that somehow no matter how far back down the chain, the photo has been lifted and used as if it was public property.
I never suggested the photo belonged to me, nor that the copyright did. I don't know how or why that has now turned into the exaggerated claim that I made any threats. That is total nonsense. I merely asked for his views as you'll see in the final sentence.
I thought it reasonable to expect that anyone else using the picture would ask the original owners of the photo (where that could be ascertained) their permission to use it, in just the same way I did when I first had the picture procured for me by Tetrapak.
Tetrapak have a patent on the tetrahedron jubbly style carton and they sent to a colleagues office in Switzerland to find a black and white photo for me. However the over-reaction from Will Greenwood was insulting and abusive and he wrongly assumed that I was claiming the photo was mine.
I have this morning had a call from Tetrapak and they have said that I was right to bring the matter to their attention but as it's not a product in current production there is little likelihood that they could make intellectual property rights stick in a legal claim, but they do have to be careful of that all the time. They say that they have no objection to the old Jubbly photo being used in a non-commercial sense.
The copy was in fact a photostat of the original photo so there is no copyright existing on it. It is in effect Royalty Free so please would the Moderator admin put the photo back up here and accept my apology herewith for bothering him with the issue.
I don't offer any apology to Mr Greenwood because of the ungracious and disrespectful shower of nastiness he threw my way in his over-reacting defence - I really can't understand where that came from.
A note here to Admin. There has been considerable problem with copyright of "School Photos" posted up on Friendsreunited and where the copyright owner cannot be found the photos are usually quite wisely posted up with a note saying "If anyone knows of the copyright on a photo and objects to the photo being broadcast on the site we will take steps to remove it".
Of course if the owner is no longer alive nobody will mind but there's no harm in being careful not to tread on the wrong toes. That's all I was doing.
Now that the matter is resolved I am not really prepared to say any more on the matter as I wanted to clear my name. But feel free to place the photo back up with the milk machine picture and I don't expect to hear any more silliness about threats.
--
Plado
Tim Lund wrote:Will:
What more can you tell us? I've no doubt everyone using this forum will sympathise with you, but what sort of motivation is there behind these threats? Do you think it just being vexatious, or is there a credible commercial or other systematic interest?
Is this something which people on other forums come up against, and if so, how do they respond? Is it a growing or reducing problem?
-
will greenwood
- Posts: 352
- Joined: 14 Jan 2008 23:45
- Location: moorlinch
Re: copyright issues
ok
No copyright existing on it!
so, what on Earth did this chap think he could achieve with all this nonsense?
He also obviously didnt read admin's remark about it being unhelpful to play out vendettas in public.
No one has been named here, and therefore he has been accused of nothing, and as he says, the issue is resolved....although there seems never have been an issue in the first place.
So well done him for raking it all up again.
The issue is, in fact, that he arrived directly in my inbox, as opposed to that of admin, or preferably the original server, or any other posters of the same image accross the web, or even the actual copyright holders in fact...and that he has no claim over the image at all, merely an interest ...and that he 'required' me to remove the image.
The first pm may be seen as more, shall we say, menacing and pointless, i agree, but the following ones were full of legal threats and personal remarks....and he now calls me a liar.
as for being abusive...I simply commented honestly to what I considered a crank email.
I suspect I was right, sad to say.
It has wasted my time, admin's time, tetrapak's time, and of course, his own.
So, the world turns, and all is back as it was before.
wasnt that fun.
(at least he made a contribution to the forum)
Royalty Free!
........ as it's not a product in current production there is little likelihood that they could make intellectual property rights stick in a legal claim, but they do have to be careful of that all the time. They say that they have no objection to the old Jubbly photo being used in a non-commercial sense.
The copy was in fact a photostat of the original photo so there is no copyright existing on it. It is in effect Royalty Free so please would the Moderator admin put the photo back up here and accept my apology herewith for bothering him with the issue.
No copyright existing on it!
so, what on Earth did this chap think he could achieve with all this nonsense?
He also obviously didnt read admin's remark about it being unhelpful to play out vendettas in public.
No one has been named here, and therefore he has been accused of nothing, and as he says, the issue is resolved....although there seems never have been an issue in the first place.
So well done him for raking it all up again.
The issue is, in fact, that he arrived directly in my inbox, as opposed to that of admin, or preferably the original server, or any other posters of the same image accross the web, or even the actual copyright holders in fact...and that he has no claim over the image at all, merely an interest ...and that he 'required' me to remove the image.
The first pm may be seen as more, shall we say, menacing and pointless, i agree, but the following ones were full of legal threats and personal remarks....and he now calls me a liar.
as for being abusive...I simply commented honestly to what I considered a crank email.
I suspect I was right, sad to say.
It has wasted my time, admin's time, tetrapak's time, and of course, his own.
So, the world turns, and all is back as it was before.
wasnt that fun.
(at least he made a contribution to the forum)
Re: copyright issues
And is quite possibly surfing the Nations web sites at the moment looking for other tetrapack image " violations " to report to them ???????????????????? How Odd
-
digime2007
- Posts: 258
- Joined: 10 Sep 2007 18:26
- Location: Sydenhham
Re: copyright issues
My favourite thread for ages. Hilarious. Thanks for the effort of everyone involved!
Re: copyright issues
I do not always enforce the rule on personal abuse since some good natured banter can enliven things. But calling people liars firmly crosses the line. Let's have no more of that here. There are polite ways of contesting the facts.
BTW - I didn't remove the photo. It is up to the original poster to re-edit back in if they so wish.
Regards,
Admin
BTW - I didn't remove the photo. It is up to the original poster to re-edit back in if they so wish.
Regards,
Admin
-
bigbadwolf
- Posts: 726
- Joined: 7 Jan 2008 21:21
- Location: Forest Hill and Sydenham
Re: copyright issues
I'm not entirely sure as to whether or not this is a wind-up. But if it is, you've certainly made me laugh. Either way - good show, gentlemen.
Re: copyright issues
Someone has to say it - a storm in a tetrapak?
-
will greenwood
- Posts: 352
- Joined: 14 Jan 2008 23:45
- Location: moorlinch
Re: copyright issues
....lovely jubbly!
