A question

Please use this area for off topic conversations and banter
Nigel
Posts: 1238
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Thornbury SC, Bristol

Re: A question

Post by Nigel » Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:50 am

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

I can understand the concerns about wholesale reproduction of books etc. I think it starts to get a bit cloudier though on other things. Isn't there a clause somewhere about "original creative work". So for example, If someone posted a scan of one of the old dinghy guides, how much of that is original or indeed creative. the text seems to be direct copy of marketing & press releases from the manufacturer, the measurements are items of fact, not creativity. The author has not written a review, he has gathered pre-existing data and there is no additional analysis of this data to add value.

Is someone actually going to sue for us advertising a film that is no longer on release or repeating marketing material for a boat that is no longer in production? It would take a creative lawyer indeeed to argue a value for damages for such infringements.

I am not saying we should reproduce this stuff. I am just a bit puzzled.

Michael Brigg
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:11 pm
Location: Gosport, UK

Re: A question

Post by Michael Brigg » Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:57 am

This thread is wandering around like a Viking ship trying to find America!

I take the point about copywright and perhaps it would be a good idea to flag up these concerns (in summary) with the appropriate references in Niel's "Image Posting guide" in the "Announcements" section about posting pictures and other such links.

It seems to me that the lawyers are like politicians getting their fingers into more and more pies.

Of course it is fair that the aurthor of an image made as part of his employment should profit from its use. Increasingly however the compexities of the internet and electronic imaging are beginning to influence this proccess.

In my line of work we have to send copies of medical notes to lawyers. These need to be photocopied, and then read through for 3rd party references. It all takes alot of time and staff to do this but because Patient records now are part of a "computer record," 1) any records must be "freely available" to the patient, and 2.) When making copies of notes we may only charge 0.1p per sheet up to a maximum of £50. (This of course is relevant when corporate lawyers seek things like electronic bank records from companies) but when a Lawyers letter carries a reminder that under the "Freedom of Information act 2000 whatever" he will only give me 20p for photocopying & proof reading 200 pages!... :evil:

I digress however. I presume the law related to material on the site is also affected by wether it is a ".org," or a ".com," or for that matter the .uk, .au or whichever other nationality the service provider originates from. For example, can a posting on a .co.uk site be prosecuted in a USA court? As I understand it, this site being ".org" is one that has international access, so does this make it more or less vulnerable to legal redress?

Increasingly I believe in British courts, the decisions seem to be based on intent rather than letter of the law. So for example, posting of an advert (Such as my use of "The Vikings" poster ) might be seen as fulfilling its original purpose, the poster originally being available for free, with the intent to advertise and increase awareness of the film. As such it is not breaching any copyright on its original purpose of publication.

But Judges , like lawyers, cannot be relied upon to make any decisions that make common sense.

Its a shame because alot of the pictures used make these theads so much more fun
Michael Brigg

User avatar
Ancient Geek
Posts: 1133
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:50 am
Location: Sletten,3250, Denmark and Hampshire GU33 7LR UK

Re: A question

Post by Ancient Geek » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:47 pm

http://www.is4profit.com/business-advic ... lAodNixHTA
May help, but having gone this way some years ago and this would never happen on the CVRDA site (Such good chaps and chappeses.) is Libel at which point the poster, the site owner, and the owner of the terminal used (office etc.) become implicated.
As always balance and common sense is the thing.
There are far too many "Inverted McAwbers", waiting for something to turn down, it's all just grist to the "Civil Service" "jobsworth" mentality that is gaining not losing.
Simples.

User avatar
jon711
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: Harlow, Essex, UK

Re: A question

Post by jon711 » Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:16 pm

As an aside, some of the pictures I posted of boats sailing at Oulton Week were copywrited. However, after posting them I realisied that I may be in breach. So, I contacted the photographer, whose response, was along the lines of, as long as you give me credit for the photo's, OK, but please check first.. (A lesson to learn!!). I then edited my post!!

The message is, check with the photographer/writer first!!!!

I was lucky, I am good friends with the photographer... He would have been in his rights to sue me, for unlawful use of his photo's, and possibly the CVRDA too. However, as I posted the pictures, surely, only I woulde be liable? Question for the lawyers maybe?

Jon

Michael Brigg
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:11 pm
Location: Gosport, UK

Re: A question

Post by Michael Brigg » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:35 pm

jon711 wrote:As an aside, some of the pictures I posted of boats sailing at Oulton Week were copywrited....
I was lucky, I am good friends with the photographer... He would have been in his rights to sue me, for unlawful use of his photo's, and possibly the CVRDA too.

However, as I posted the pictures, surely, only I woulde be liable? Question for the lawyers maybe?

Jon
We are all driven by media hype driven catastrophe theory here. We have some antipathy towards the law and are regularly given illustrations of the fact that the Law is an ass. But we are equally reminded that it can kick like a mule.

I think however that you might find in most of the instances of copyright infringement here that that is precisely what it is; infringement and not theft. Some here on this forum I think have a much closer experience of both Politics and red tape, (and for that matter double standards and disdain held for this sort of thing by the very people who should be upholding it) and are consequently less worried by the threat of legal correspondence.

Having said all that I can fully understand Ed and Neils worry that a few careless or naive postings might potentially jeapardize a forum into which they really have put heart and soul. So whatever I might feel about the loss of opportunity to illustrate a point, or tease a wry smile, I fully respect their moderation of this particular issue

I believe the copyright owner (if it can be proven to exist) certainly has a right to claim a reasonable fee for the use of his material, but he really only has a right to sue you, and to demand any punitive redress if he can prove:-

1.) That you had no intention to pay such a fee, and continue to refuse even when it has been reasonably demanded ,

...and 2.) That the legal owner of copyright has suffered some sort of secondary loss, for example if the user of his copyright was taking credit for the material and gained a business advantage as a result.

Taking a person to court is an expensive process. It is more likely to be done by large organisations with permanently retained lawyers, who haven't got enough to do, and the complainant would also want to be sure that the damages recovered would be worth the risk of not being awarded costs or worse, loosing the case, which might land them with a legal bill far exceeding any recoverable damages.

Unless someone had a reason to believe that the CVRDA represented a business theat, (and here perhaps I should be careful about what I say about L***R and T****R just to name a few :| :? :!: ) the available assetts of the CVRDA hardly amount to much worth going to court about.
Michael Brigg

User avatar
Ancient Geek
Posts: 1133
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:50 am
Location: Sletten,3250, Denmark and Hampshire GU33 7LR UK

Re: A question

Post by Ancient Geek » Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:06 pm

Michael,
The voice of reason, and common sense.
AG
Simples.

User avatar
jon711
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: Harlow, Essex, UK

Re: A question

Post by jon711 » Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:27 pm

Ancient Geek wrote:Michael,
The voice of reason, and common sense.
AG
Here, Here..(I will wave my papers around!)
Bl***y Hell this forum is starting to sound like the House of Commans!!!

Jon

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:12 pm

Re: A question

Post by admin » Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:38 pm

You'll find that many forums now have a no images policy. We don't want to implement this on the CVRDA forum, all we are asking is for some common sense. If in doubt don't post it.

If you own the image then it's fine to post it. If you don't then you need to be aware that there are risks. When registering for the forum you all agreed not to post any material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where CVRDA forum is hosted or International Law.

We will be using takedown policy as part of the forum moderation where we will remove material first and ask questions later. We will not be drawn into a discussion about the legality of material. If we think there is likely to be a problem it will be removed.

Thinking that as legal action is an expensive process therefore it won't happen is rather naive. There are several photo agencies making a very nice living tracking down their material and billing users for use. Ignorance is not an excuse. The CVRDA provide the forum, you are responsible for your posts and your assets will exceed those of the CVRDA.

As this thread has gone way off topic, even for one in the banter section it's time to put it out it misery. Shame really as the keelboat question was quite interesting.

Locked