Adam the Wanderer is innocent!

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Not quite. There is a difference between the copyright of the photo (which always lies with the photographer), and the intellectual copyright of the image. A (commercial) photographer will get the subject, or owner of a subject, to sign a consent form, to allow the photographer to use the image as he wishes.

 

Yes, anybody can take a picture of your boat, but they could not use the image of your boat commercially, in say a calender for example. For that, they need your consent.

 

Thank you - beat me to it.

And - just as our professional photographer friend explained it.

 

The photographer cannot use it without the 'subjects' (or subject owner's) approval

[Guest]

The copying of images and passing them off as your own (which is what Adam did, and we are arguing about) certainly falls under the definition of plagiarism.

 

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to add the word 'of'.)

No it doesn't.

 

See my post above.

[MtB]

You post 113 says you are happy to be corrected.

 

I am correcting you

 

MtB

Edited June 15, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Guest]

You post 113 says you are to be corrected.

 

I am correcting you.

 

MtB

No you are not.

 

Wiki it.

[MtB]

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=plagiarism+definition

 

noun

noun: plagiarism; plural noun: plagiarisms

the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

Note it says "work" not "written word"

Hope that helps clarify your thinking

MtB

[Delta9]

 

I have a video of mine that was pirated removed from YouTube without filling any American forms in when I stated I was in the UK.

 

Well Done. You are still not allowed to issue takedown requests for content you don't own the copyright to unless specifically authorised by the.copyright holder. British laws are virtually identical to American laws in this area.

[luctor et emergo]

Well, if wikipedia says it though...

[Felshampo]

Found this on a photography web site discussing various aspects of copyright.

 

Chris October 31, 2012 at 12:35 pm

Hi Linda, I was wondering if you could help me please? I am in my final year of a BA (hons) photography degree, for my dissertation I writing about the current attitudes towards photography, and incidents where photographers – who are seemingly within rights to photograph – are being told they cannot!

I have many articles that reference the right to photograph in public spaces etc, but I cannot find the actual legislation that relates to this. Any help you can give me on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards

Chris

REPLY

Linda Macpherson December 31, 2012 at 6:04 am

Sorry Chris, this answer is more than a little late for you! I get asked this quite a lot, but the fact is that there isn’t really any legislation that relates specifically to photography (with exception of legislation controlling indecent images of children and the by-laws prohibiting commercial photography without a permit in places like Trafalgar Square and the Royal Parks). Instead the reasons for restricting photography or the use to which photographs can be put come within a plethora of other laws (statutory and common-law) that are aimed at a much wider range of behaviours than merely photography. e.g. The Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended), the Human Rights Act 1998, The Data Protection Act 1998, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the common law of trespass (and, in Scotland, breach of the peace) are all frequently cited as reasons for preventing photography. And while all of them may affect the right to photograph or to publish photographs in some circumstances, none of them expressly prohibit photography in general. And they are not infrequently mis-used, by security guards, PCSOs and sometimes the police, as reasons for telling people that they cannot take photographs even when they legally can.

 

So it seems there isn't a specific law about commercial use of photographs after all.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Felshampo

[luctor et emergo]

 

Found this on a photography web site discussing various aspects of copyright.

 

Chris October 31, 2012 at 12:35 pm

Hi Linda, I was wondering if you could help me please? I am in my final year of a BA (hons) photography degree, for my dissertation I writing about the current attitudes towards photography, and incidents where photographers – who are seemingly within rights to photograph – are being told they cannot!

I have many articles that reference the right to photograph in public spaces etc, but I cannot find the actual legislation that relates to this. Any help you can give me on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards

Chris

REPLY

Linda Macpherson December 31, 2012 at 6:04 am

Sorry Chris, this answer is more than a little late for you! I get asked this quite a lot, but the fact is that there isn’t really any legislation that relates specifically to photography (with exception of legislation controlling indecent images of children and the by-laws prohibiting commercial photography without a permit in places like Trafalgar Square and the Royal Parks). Instead the reasons for restricting photography or the use to which photographs can be put come within a plethora of other laws (statutory and common-law) that are aimed at a much wider range of behaviours than merely photography. e.g. The Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended), the Human Rights Act 1998, The Data Protection Act 1998, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the common law of trespass (and, in Scotland, breach of the peace) are all frequently cited as reasons for preventing photography. And while all of them may affect the right to photograph or to publish photographs in some circumstances, none of them expressly prohibit photography in general. And they are not infrequently mis-used, by security guards, PCSOs and sometimes the police, as reasons for telling people that they cannot take photographs even when they legally can.

 

 

and its relevance to copyright is?

 

 

EDit to make the quoted post a little less 'in your face'

Edited June 15, 2014 by luctor et emergo

[Guest]

Well, if wikipedia says it though...

I could quote others that also place emphasis on the written word and 'authorship' if you wish?

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=plagiarism+definition

 

noun

noun: plagiarism; plural noun: plagiarisms

the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

 

Note it says "work" not "written word"

 

Hope that helps clarify your thinking

 

MtB

It does, it clarifies that you don't know what the term 'plagiarism' means in it's normal context which generally applies in an academic environment and not the context of what Adam did.

[Felshampo]

 

Yes, anybody can take a picture of your boat, but they could not use the image of your boat commercially, in say a calender for example. For that, they need your consent.

No they don't.

[MtB]

I could quote others that also place emphasis on the written word and 'authorship' if you wish?

 

It does, it clarifies that you don't know what the term 'plagiarism' means in it's normal context which generally applies in an academic environment and not the context of what Adam did.

 

I disagree. All the take down notices Starcoaster issued and successfully enforced for me last year were for plagiarism, and not for academic publications.

 

MtB

[Guest]

No they don't.

Correct - I seem to recall mac of cygnet's boat now appears on the sides of buses in West Yorkshire but he was never asked for permission.....

[mango]

 

The copying of images and passing them off as your own (which is what Adam did, and we are arguing about) certainly falls under the definition of plagiarism.

 

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to add the word 'of'.)

It is not plagiarism if you acknowledge the source. Plagiarism is unacknowledged copying. I have not seen a link to what Adam has done.

[Guest]

I disagree. All the take down notices Starcoaster issued and successfully enforced for me last year were for plagiarism, and not for academic publications.

 

MtB

Your prerogative to do so.....

 

I would like to know more though before I concur they fell under plagiarism, breach of copyright or theft of intellectual property....

 

Where they images?

[Jerra]

No they don't.

If this is correct why do photography property release forms exist.

 

QUOTE.

 

A property release is a legal release signed by the owner of property used in a photograph or video granting permission to use or publish the photograph or video in one form or another.

 

END QUOTE

[Keeping Up]

I had a lovely example of how copyright applies - albeit not to photos because it dates back to before they were invented - told to me by the chief of a Tlingit Indian (ie native American) tribe in Alaska. He said that he had been at a convention when another tribe had sung a song that he really liked, and he had asked the chief of that tribe for permission for his tribe to sing it. The other chief replied that he was very happy to hear that his song was liked, so for a period of exactly one year and until the next full moon after, he would pass the word that nobody of his tribe was to sing the song and anyone from the requesting chief's tribe could make free use of it and could sing it as often as they pleased. For a year they sung it wherever they were and whenever they liked, and then they just stopped; on the night of the next full moon the original tribe sung it again to re-assert their ownership.

 

To me that represented the true spirit of copyright.

[Guest]

If this is correct why do photography property release forms exist.

 

QUOTE.

 

A property release is a legal release signed by the owner of property used in a photograph or video granting permission to use or publish the photograph or video in one form or another.

 

END QUOTE

I didn't give permission for my house to appear on street view.......

[Jerra]

I didn't give permission for my house to appear on street view.......

Which doesn't exactly answer the question now does it?

[DeanS]

I didn't give permission for my house to appear on street view.......

 

yes but Google can do what they like.

Adam cant.

[Guest]

Which doesn't exactly answer the question now does it?

What question?

 

You quoted a link to a form that would require my permission for somebody to use an image of my property in a photograph or one form or another.

 

I stated google didn't seek my permission when they published a picture of my house on street view which suggests no body needs to seek my permission to do so.

 

I wasn't attempting to answer any bodies question.

 

I don't understand your point.....

yes but Google can do what they like.

Adam cant.

Actually they can't.

[Alan de Enfield]

I didn't give permission for my house to appear on street view.......

 

Thats why there has been so much controversy about it - there have been legal challenges and I seem to remember that 'Germany' are looking at European legislation to 'stop it'

[Jerra]

What question?

The one you responded to by saying google hadn't asked your permission. I asked the question if permission isn't required why do Property (and model) release forms exist?

[Guest]

You don't need to mount a legal challenge, you just show them the image you want removing and they will do it.

The one you responded to by saying google hadn't asked your permission. I asked the question if permission isn't required why do Property (and model) release forms exist?

There wasn't really a question to answer though, you were querying a previous post suggesting permission was required.

[Jerra]

You don't need to mount a legal challenge, you just show them the image you want removing and they will do it.

I am not sure if this is an answer to my last post but a property release form is a form the photographer gets the owner of the property to sign so that they can use the photo just as they get the models to sign model release forms. It isn't a form of legal challenge (If of course the reply is to my post if not apologies as I have misunderstood.).