Boat seized and owner left homeless and sleeping in a car.

[Jerra]

9 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I'm afraid that while it may well be a technical infringement of copyright,the general assumption is that once you've shared something on the web, and social media in particular, your rights have gone up in smoke and unless you have specified that it's copyrighted and given contact details, it's in the public domain. Everything you write or post is stored, used and, if possible, sold by Google, FB etc, so I don't think you can complain too much about someone copying a photo from one site to another, as long as they aren't making money out of it. For example, I post a lot of music, and people use some of my stuff and I don't get a penny (or, usually, credit) for it unless they record it. I don't mind.

The rule is, if you don't want it in the public domain, keep it to yourself. The law might catch up with reality one day, but as it usually doesn't, i doubt it.

That to me says ignore the law because its OK for lots of people to do so.     A sad attitude.

[kris88]

It seems I can post on this forum again although I don’t intend to. I’m only posting to point out if I had wanted my photos posted on here I would have done so. It is rude to use a photo without asking and then not even crediting the source. But unfortunately it’s what I would expect from this forum. 

[dor]

9 hours ago, matty40s said:

Have you got a licence for that thing....

Does it need a boat safety cert for the stove pipe.

[matty40s]

5 minutes ago, kris88 said:

It seems I can post on this forum again although I don’t intend to. I’m only posting to point out if I had wanted my photos posted on here I would have done so. It is rude to use a photo without asking and then not even crediting the source. But unfortunately it’s what I would expect from this forum. 

Oh bugger off back and argue with TonyD about which is best....living in a car or shed.

?

Edited October 31, 2020 by matty40s

[Jim Riley]

10 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Oh bugger off back and argue with TonyD about which is best....living in a car or shed.

?

Was this edited to make it better or worserer? I dread to think what the original was if this is the improved version.

[Murflynn]

9 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Hey, it's a sext-cycle.

 

Get those effing boats out of the way, I'm coming through!

 

 

 

Ah, you mean for the image!

 

No. It's out of copyright and in the public domain due to it's age.

 

Here's the water mode view:

 

 

And here's another, in land mode:

 

 

 

 

 

does it come with a cassette or pump-out?

[matty40s]

11 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

does it come with a cassette or pump-out?

2 large holding tanks, you know it's time to empty when you get wet feet whilst in the canal.

[Mike Todd]

11 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Debatable either way - as indeed it has been in the EU and US Supreme Courts - but not in this instance.

 

Dora's photo was uploaded to Canalworld's server, not linked from Kris's post on Thunderboat.

I recall that one of the higher profile complaints came from primary newspapers who found that collators such as Google and numerous others, were linking in news items in a way that effectively bypassed the revenue stream for the publishers and gave them no credit.

[Arthur Marshall]

6 hours ago, Jerra said:

That to me says ignore the law because its OK for lots of people to do so.     A sad attitude.

No, because sometimes laws just don't work any more and someone somewhere sometime has to amend them so they reflect the real world. Unfortunately, mostly those who could don't because other things seem to them to be more important.

Or are you suggesting that laws must always be obeyed, even if they are manifestly morally wrong? Several people have been hanged for using that argument.

[Arthur Marshall]

7 hours ago, kris88 said:

It seems I can post on this forum again although I don’t intend to. I’m only posting to point out if I had wanted my photos posted on here I would have done so. It is rude to use a photo without asking and then not even crediting the source. But unfortunately it’s what I would expect from this forum. 

Welcome back, if briefly. Your last sentence is, indeed, what I would generally expect from a member of the other forum. I'm glad your usual attitude isn't reflected by all those who apppear on both.

And as I've said above, if you don't want stuff shared across social media, it's best to keep it to yourself. The world, for better or worse (probably the latter), has moved on.

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Or are you suggesting that laws must always be obeyed, even if they are manifestly morally wrong? Several people have been hanged for using that argument.

I can't think of a UK law which is "manifestly and morally wrong".

 

However when it comes down to things like theft, yes I do think they should be obeyed.  As the intro to Videos used to say (possibly still do) piracy is theft.   Using somebody else's work/intellectual property is both morally and legally wrong.

[ditchcrawler]

15 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Hey, it's a sext-cycle.

 

Get those effing boats out of the way, I'm coming through!

 

 

 

Ah, you mean for the image!

 

No. It's out of copyright and in the public domain due to it's age.

 

Here's the water mode view:

 

 

And here's another, in land mode:

 

 

 

 

 

So when did the photographer die.?

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

I can't think of a UK law which is "manifestly and morally wrong".

 

However when it comes down to things like theft, yes I do think they should be obeyed.  As the intro to Videos used to say (possibly still do) piracy is theft.   Using somebody else's work/intellectual property is both morally and legally wrong.

Hmm. Can't remember mentioning UK law. But I'll wager you break some of them nearly every time you go out in your car (and, if I could be bothered, I'm sure i could find some still on the statute book you'd find indefensible). Once you accept that one is optional, you can't argue that another is compulsory, you can't just pick and choose. Well, you can, you can argue what you like, you can cherry pick what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you don't regard the law as inviolate.

Who decides which are ok to be obeyed, and which not? Every individual, individually, every day.

 

[Jerra]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

Who decides which are ok to be obeyed, and which not? 

 

OK take it purely on moral grounds.   Theft is not acceptable morally, well not to most people anyway.

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

OK take it purely on moral grounds.   Theft is not acceptable morally, well not to most people anyway.

What? No white collar worker ever took a couple of pencils home? When I worked in a furniture factory, on the night shift whole wardrobes would walk out the door. The firm's lorry went out for fish and chips and delivered the stuff at the same time. Perks, they called it. Management turned a blind eye.

It just isn't black and white, any more than the CCing rules, or Tony's arguments with CRT are. It's fifty shades of grey, to coin a phrase, and everyone sees them differently. The law tries to differentiate, and is a useful guideline, but that's all, mainly because it derives from a certain very specific point of view. It's a mistake, I think, to see it as almost godgiven, as a way to decide on how people (usually other people, not oneself) should live.

Of course, I could be wrong. And, possibly, it isn't really a relevant discussion on this thread, but it is an interesting one.

[Quattrodave]

Any update on this situation, just wondering how Tony is getting on?

[Athy]

10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

What? No white collar worker ever took a couple of pencils home? When I worked in a furniture factory, on the night shift whole wardrobes would walk out the door. The firm's lorry went out for fish and chips and delivered the stuff at the same time. Perks, they called it. Management turned a blind eye.

 

Many people who would not dream of stealing anything from an individual tend to differentiate between individuals and corporate bodies (such as their employers). My late father, an ostensibly highly respectable grammar school master, always had a stock of those old-fashioned hard-back exercise books at home, indeed I still use one of them as my personal telephone directory/ address book. Sometimes I take a book from the shelves in my study and find that inside the front cover there's the stamp of "Woodhouse Grammar School" or one of the other educational emporia at which he taught.

[Murflynn]

11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

What? No white collar worker ever took a couple of pencils home? When I worked in a furniture factory, on the night shift whole wardrobes would walk out the door. The firm's lorry went out for fish and chips and delivered the stuff at the same time. Perks, they called it. Management turned a blind eye.

 

It was suggested that when the QE2 was being fitted out the Purchasing Department ended up buying twice the quantity of stuff that was actually needed for the ship.  That is a lot of beds, linen, crockery, curtains, baths, carpets, chandeliers, .............

 

When I worked for John Laing the company introduced a rule that machine operators were responsible for basic maintenance of their kit - bulldozers, cranes, etc.  From the outset the drivers were issued with 2 sets of tools and warned that asking for replacements for lost tools would not be tolerated.  There were some very well equipped home garages as a result.

[Jerra]

11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

What? No white collar worker ever took a couple of pencils home?

With a professionally produced image you may be talking about a day or mores work not a couple of pennies.

37 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

It was suggested that when the QE2 was being fitted out the Purchasing Department ended up buying twice the quantity of stuff that was actually needed for the ship.  That is a lot of beds, linen, crockery, curtains, baths, carpets, chandeliers, .............

 

When I worked for John Laing the company introduced a rule that machine operators were responsible for basic maintenance of their kit - bulldozers, cranes, etc.  From the outset the drivers were issued with 2 sets of tools and warned that asking for replacements for lost tools would not be tolerated.  There were some very well equipped home garages as a result.

Which sounds like condoning theft to me.

[tree monkey]

11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

What? No white collar worker ever took a couple of pencils home? When I worked in a furniture factory, on the night shift whole wardrobes would walk out the door. The firm's lorry went out for fish and chips and delivered the stuff at the same time. Perks, they called it. Management turned a blind eye.

It just isn't black and white, any more than the CCing rules, or Tony's arguments with CRT are. It's fifty shades of grey, to coin a phrase, and everyone sees them differently. The law tries to differentiate, and is a useful guideline, but that's all, mainly because it derives from a certain very specific point of view. It's a mistake, I think, to see it as almost godgiven, as a way to decide on how people (usually other people, not oneself) should live.

Of course, I could be wrong. And, possibly, it isn't really a relevant discussion on this thread, but it is an interesting one.

Dad worked at Vauxhall and recounts if a new car was bought by on the workers the line was quietly informed of its build number and all the extras would be either fitted or hidden inside the door cards

Edited November 1, 2020 by tree monkey

[Athy]

11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

 

Which sounds like condoning theft to me.

That's exactly what it is. Perhaps firms find it cheaper to accept that some items "walk" than to employ security staff  to -prevent that happening.

I don't know if it is still so, but when a building contract was completed, all the tools used by the builders were "written off". Almost to the end of his life (he died in 2004), my Dad used the wheelbarrow which the builders had left on site after completing my parents' new home in 1963.

[Arthur Marshall]

28 minutes ago, Jerra said:

With a professionally produced image you may be talking about a day or mores work not a couple of pennies.

Shaw or someone in a railway carriage to young woman: Would you sleep with me for a million quid? Well, I might... How about for a fiver? Sir, what do you think I am?

We've already settled that, now we're just haggling about the price.

 

If it's morally OK to steal pennies, then it's morally OK to steal. Because as I said before, who draws the line? The real reason that it's wrong to steal, and why the law is generally accepted as a good thing, is because everyone knows that if everyone felt free to half inch anything they wanted in the end no-one would have anything worth nicking. That, by the way, is why it used to be safe to leave your door unlocked and why it isn't now!

Morality is fine for those who can afford it. Mind you, it usually gives them an edge over those who can't.

In the instance that started this off, it is now the case that if you post something on the web, especially social media, without specifying usage restrictions, it's going to be borrowed as if it was public property. In effect, you've pinned your photo to a lamp post with a handy photocopier parked under it. You might not like it, but that's where we're at, which is why it was ok to post Kris' photo here. It's just the way it is. You put it out there for people to see, people see it, like it, share it. Your control goes the moment you post it. If you want an analogue comparison, it's why you never wrote confidential information on a postcard.

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by Arthur Marshall

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

Many people who would not dream of stealing anything from an individual tend to differentiate between individuals and corporate bodies (such as their employers). My late father, an ostensibly highly respectable grammar school master, always had a stock of those old-fashioned hard-back exercise books at home, indeed I still use one of them as my personal telephone directory/ address book. Sometimes I take a book from the shelves in my study and find that inside the front cover there's the stamp of "Woodhouse Grammar School" or one of the other educational emporia at which he taught.

The only extraordinary thing about this post is that you still have a paper-based telephone / address book!

[Jerra]

49 minutes ago, Athy said:

Almost to the end of his life (he died in 2004), my Dad used the wheelbarrow which the builders had left on site after completing my parents' new home in 1963.

That however isn't theft as you say the builders had left the barrow.   Using the old joke about the guy and wheelbarrows.   Everyday he left the site pushing a wheelbarrow of straw.   Security regularly stopped him and searched the straw, which was a waste product, found nothing.  Finally he retired and one day met one of security in the pub.   Security said we knew you were stealing something but we couldn't work out what, so what was it?  The reply.........

 

Wheelbarrows.

 

The point being if a company writes something off or doesn't take it with them deliberately, taking afterwards isn't theft.

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

That however isn't theft as you say the builders had left the barrow.   Using the old joke about the guy and wheelbarrows.   Everyday he left the site pushing a wheelbarrow of straw.   Security regularly stopped him and searched the straw, which was a waste product, found nothing.  Finally he retired and one day met one of security in the pub.   Security said we knew you were stealing something but we couldn't work out what, so what was it?  The reply.........

 

Wheelbarrows.

 

 

Yep.

I heard that story years ago, in the context of pushing the wheelbarrow over the border between West and East Berlin, which shows how long ago it was.