Always happy to admit I'm wrong (not)

[Moley]

I'm an illustrator and therefore understand the importance of protecting and maintaining control over what you create. I was speaking up for an artist who may not know their work is being shown here and passed on to others. That's all.

 

I would imagine that the artist would be delighted that his work was being appreciated, and Sarah was only offering to send a single copy to the owner of the boat the guy had painted, not to all and sundry.

 

The artist will always have copyright, and if Carl then decides to have that image reproduced as greetings cards, the artist could take legal action.

 

Speaking as one who could easily put that image into print, I've just downloaded it and opened through Photoshop, and it's a very low res. image of 797 x 556 pixels, so may just about reproduce well enough at business card size, but no bigger.

 

I do understand your point though Carrie, but Tomsk called me a sanctimonious pedant, so I thought I'd see if the cap fit.

[carlt]

The artist will always have copyright, and if Carl then decides to have that image reproduced as greetings cards, the artist could take legal action.

 

I do understand your point though Carrie, but Tomsk called me a sanctimonious pedant, so I thought I'd see if the cap fit.

I think one of the main problems with artists (real ones, not the business end of the market) is the fact that they undervalue their work. SWMBO is a brilliant artist, friends' and relatives' homes are full of proof of this, but she won't sell anything. Her boat stuff, like the painting Sarah kindly showed me, is different to the usual chocolate box rubbish I see at shows (apologies if I offend anyone, my opinion has no value in the art world) but she just gives the stuff away.

 

And also it's a shame that the boat owner gets no royalties. If I had a fiver for every time Lucy's photo was published in a book or magazine I'd have a restored boat by now. Usk has never earned her keep though.

 

Which reminds me of another question I've pondered. Do magazines pay the photographer? One of my photos was published in a canal magazine without my permission, I was credited in the caption but offered no payment, or more importantly, no apology when I complained.

[Moley]

And also it's a shame that the boat owner gets no royalties. If I had a fiver for every time Lucy's photo was published in a book or magazine I'd have a restored boat by now.

 

If your boat is in a public place I have ‘implied licence’ to photograph it and publish my photos, of you too if you happen to be at the tiller with your back to me. If you tell me to stop, you have revoked that licence and if I continue to take photos or publish those photos you can have me for it.

 

If your face is visible and can be identified, I must not publish without a signed model release.

(edit: which would specify if a fee was payable to you).

 

Do magazines pay the photographer? One of my photos was published in a canal magazine without my permission, I was credited in the caption but offered no payment, or more importantly, no apology when I complained.

 

Yes they do, and if they've published without your permission they are in breach of your copyright, no two ways about it.

Edited April 26, 2007 by Moley

[carlt]

If your boat is in a public place I have ‘implied licence’ to photograph it and publish my photos, of you too if you happen to be at the tiller with your back to me. If you tell me to stop, you have revoked that licence and if I continue to take photos or publish those photos you can have me for it.

 

If your face is visible and can be identified, I must not publish without a signed model release.

(edit: which would specify if a fee was payable to you).

I've actually no objection to my boats being photographed, painted or tattooed on someone's bum. I get excited when I find a new picture of Lucy (especially in the latter medium). I hate having my photo taken though and frequently ask people to wait while I dip out of sight.

 

Yes they do, and if they've published without your permission they are in breach of your copyright, no two ways about it.

 

 

Thank you. This is something I will pursue as the photographs keep getting published out of context, despite the person who I lent them to being asked to stop.

Edited April 26, 2007 by carlt

[Richard Fairhurst]

Which reminds me of another question I've pondered. Do magazines pay the photographer? One of my photos was published in a canal magazine without my permission, I was credited in the caption but offered no payment, or more importantly, no apology when I complained.

Yes, they do. If a magazine prints your copyright material (e.g. a photograph), they should ask before publication, and expect to pay.

 

The exception is if the photo has been supplied to the magazine with an expectation of use. If BW (or, indeed, a canal society) sends us a press release with a photo we sure as heck don't pay them for the photo!

 

I'm frantically hoping the magazine in question wasn't WW, but do PM me if you think the details might be relevant/of interest.

 

Moley: I'd agree with you on everything except on signed model release. It's accepted practice in some circumstances but there's (AFAIK) no legal requirement to do so, and it's certainly not standard on the waterways.

 

Richard

[fuzzyduck]

On the copyright front Moley is bang on.

 

However I think he's wrong on the photography front. It is my understanding that for non commercial photography, if I wanted to take a picture of a boat and its skipper there is naff all the skipper can do.

 

I always ask out of curtesy, but if I chose not to, tough.

[carlt]

Yes, they do. If a magazine prints your copyright material (e.g. a photograph), they should ask before publication, and expect to pay.

 

The exception is if the photo has been supplied to the magazine with an expectation of use. If BW (or, indeed, a canal society) sends us a press release with a photo we sure as heck don't pay them for the photo!

 

I'm frantically hoping the magazine in question wasn't WW, but do PM me if you think the details might be relevant/of interest.

 

Moley: I'd agree with you on everything except on signed model release. It's accepted practice in some circumstances but there's (AFAIK) no legal requirement to do so, and it's certainly not standard on the waterways.

 

Richard

Don't worry Richard, not WW (I would have PMed you).

 

It was actually a series of photographs I took of Lucy breasted up with Raymond, to highlight the inaccuracies of Raymond's rebuild. I gave them to someone to copy, stressing that they were for his collection only.

 

The first time one of them appeared in print it had the caption "Raymond and Lucy, like two peas in a pod", not quite what I had in mind.

[Moley]

Moley: I'd agree with you on everything except on signed model release.

 

Agreed, it's a very grey area.

 

It all depends on the context, whether the person is the main focus of the image or incidental to it, adult or minor, if the image was taken with the intention of commercial use, etc., etc. Also, my knowledge is at last 20 years out of date so I could be talking utter shoemakers.

[Sir Nibble]

My understanding is that if you are photographed the copyright belongs to the photographer unless you are engaged in "a theatrical performance or presentation". If witholding permission made photography illegal, the papperazzi would be out of business.

[fuzzyduck]

Sorry, it's shoemakers.

 

can't paste the link here but I will later, if the photographer is in a public place taking the image, essentialy you have to grin and bear it. (or hide your face)

 

the world according to linda macpherson LLB. and her ukphotographers rights guide.

[John Orentas]

My understanding is that if you are photographed the copyright belongs to the photographer unless you are engaged in "a theatrical performance or presentation". If witholding permission made photography illegal, the papperazzi would be out of business.

 

 

 

What came out during the Diana business was that in this country you are free to take photographs of anyone or anything from a public place.

[Guest]

For a freelance photographer I was taught that any image taken in public could be taken without anybody's pemission and that the copyright for that picture belongs to that photographer, but different rules could be enforced on private premises. The rules change if the photographer is contracted to others. If I take a photo at work, the copyright belongs to the education authority for whom I work. That is not an opinion, but a fact that was argued in a court of law some years ago. Another point to be aware of: Some photo competitions require one to sign over the copytright of the picture. They then often appear in later years, and the photographer doesn't get a bean for them.

[Carrie]

I think one of the main problems with artists (real ones, not the business end of the market) is the fact that they undervalue their work. SWMBO is a brilliant artist, friends' and relatives' homes are full of proof of this, but she won't sell anything. Her boat stuff, like the painting Sarah kindly showed me, is different to the usual chocolate box rubbish I see at shows (apologies if I offend anyone, my opinion has no value in the art world) but she just gives the stuff away.

 

The point being that it is entirely her choice, as it should be for anyone creating artwork.

I do loads of artwork that I mark 'Copyleft' which can be used and re-used by anyone - but this is stuff done for free for demos, rallies, anti-gobalisation stuff. I just think it's important that people have the right to make that choice for themselves and depending on the circumstances.

[Richard Fairhurst]

I vastly prefer "public domain" to "copyleft". But that's a whole nother story and one which I'd require several pints of cider to explain.

[bottle]

Here is the link Fuzzy was alluding too Uk photographer's rights it is a PDF document

[fuzzyduck]

Thanks Bottle, it's a pain in the bum copying links from one page to another on my mobile.

 

Richard. I'm quite happy to realease any picture I take into the public domain, if you do the same with WW.

 

For the time being I use the creative commons, non commercial, attribution, share and share alike license. As I do with everything I write. Public domain is fine, but you'll quickly find bottom feeders like Disney editing it slightly, and then not only having the nerve to claim copyright, but to then lobby for increasingly longer terms.

 

Not that it matters, most of my pics are crap, likewise EVERYTHING I write.

[ditchcrawler]

Thought I would tag it on this one, X R&D have just built a hull with a nozzle rudder, it can be seen on Facebook at Canals and Rivers UK | Facebook but I can't  copy the photos here as I don't own the copyright 

[Ange]

That was a trip down memory lane - some much missed members there. For a short while I didn't pay attention to the dates and thought we'd had a flood of returnees!

Thank you

[magnetman]

It would be nice to hear from Wayne fuzzy duck I'll see if I can wake him up. 

 

I don't think he died. 

 

I think John Orentas might have shuffled orf though. 

[Ange]

53 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It would be nice to hear from Wayne fuzzy duck I'll see if I can wake him up. 

 

I don't think he died. 

He got upset when he arranged a big birthday banter, laid on loads of beer and only a couple of people turned up 

It didn't help that he'd not been to banters so hardly anyone knew him In real life, which sort of puts you off travelling miles and spending money on accommodation not knowing whether anyone else is going to be there 

His parting words were something along the lines of "I thought I had friends on here"

Definitely sad, he was good fun.

Actually he did turn up for one Loughborough banter. To say he didn't make a great impression on the banterers moored in the basin would be an understatement.

Full speed with loads of breaking wash on his grp boat - never a man to make a quiet entrance!

Edited December 16, 2023 by Ange

[Ange]

On 10/11/2012 at 20:08, fuzzyduck said:

I guess I'd deluded myself that I'd made friends through CWDF.

 

The fact that none of you bothered to turn up tells me how wrong I was.

 

This will me my last post.

 

Bye all.

 

Reading back the word snowflake springs to mind. Maybe having a hissy fit about folks talking about an upcoming banter put people off? It really wasn't a good look from someone we'd never met.

It was a shame, we would definitely have been there if it was the week before or after. I told him straight away that was Remembrance weekend, there's a three line whip every year, no exceptions 

Others just said they'd never met him. If only he'd made an effort and come to banters @fuzzyduck

Right to reply respected.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Ange

[Ange]

This was when he turned into Mr stupid. And wondered why no one turned up 

[Tonka]

9 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Thought I would tag it on this one, X R&D have just built a hull with a nozzle rudder, it can be seen on Facebook at Canals and Rivers UK | Facebook but I can't  copy the photos here as I don't own the copyright 

Saw that and couldn't work out how it was going to work once the prop is in place. Surely the amount of movement is going to be very limited. Also how do you get stuff off of the prop

[ditchcrawler]

24 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Saw that and couldn't work out how it was going to work once the prop is in place. Surely the amount of movement is going to be very limited. Also how do you get stuff off of the prop

I think it will be interesting, but reading the comments it seems its been tried in the past and worked  

[Tracy D'arth]

9 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think it will be interesting, but reading the comments it seems its been tried in the past and worked  

I know of a David Piper hull with the same rudder arrangement, a Kort rudder?

It does work, a bit odd in reverse, but I have sailed it and it is interesting.