JumbleDuck
Well-known member
He has copyright in any pictures he has taken (assuming they were not taken as part of his work as an employee for someone else) until seventy years after his death.
I have just been Alan Mackie'd
- Thread starter dylanwinter
- Start date
- Status
He has copyright in any pictures he has taken (assuming they were not taken as part of his work as an employee for someone else) until seventy years after his death.
dylanwinter
Active member
I am sure his snaps are his own
- what amazes me is that he gets such great results - and they very good - using, apparently, a kite or a balloon which fortunately for him do not require a licence as opposed to a drone (which does) if used for commercial purposes.
V interesting.
D
PhillM
Well-known member
He is going to regret taking on the KTL massive!
dylanwinter
Active member
there are some really impressive web ferrets on YBW
RichardS
N/A
197aerial
New member
That's a good question.
My camera adds the date and time the image was taken to the RAW CR2 files, essentially the digital negatives. Of course, camera clocks can be set to anything you like so that's not always reliable as to time. It also adds copyright basic data, owner, contact details etc as metadata or digital watermarking. All the images are labelled automatically as my copyright.
In the case of old photos I do of course have possession of the negatives of the image and many others taken at the same time. With digital I have possession of the original CR2 data files.
In my case I usually take two or three photos of each subject from each angle so the fact of having a sequence of up to 20 or so photos all of the same subject at the same time (cars parked, cloud patterns, pedestrians in the same places etc) is pretty convincing proof, along with the CR2 files and derivitives, combined of course with evidence under oath, that I took and own the images.
I always offer anyone I'm seeking damages from the opportunity to get their legal people to come here and view the originals. So far only one organisation has taken up that offer. It was a major world-class university who were committing their third infringement over a four year period. They were pretty desperate and hoping against hope that I didn't have proof. I did, as always.
However, the law is a great deal clearer than that. It states that if I have a copyright claim on the page or image then it's up to the defenders (in England, defendants, as in criminal cases) to prove that I DON'T own the copyright. You might wonder how they're going to even try to do that?
The Act. which is Crown copyright, states in part:
104: (2) Where a name purporting to be that of the author appeared on copies of the work as published or on the work when it was made, the person whose name appeared shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved—
(a) to be the author of the work;
The ball is in the thieves' court, basically. They have to prove the contrary to my copyright claim of ownership. Not a chance.
Hope that helps?
A1Sailor
...
Not more recent, but this might be of interest:
http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0706scc.html
It is an unrelated case from 2007. Mr Mackie found one of his images on a website, published without permission and without an acknowledgement of the source, and was awarded £900 damages - reduced to £750 because that is what he had claimed.
Edit: I assume it is "the same Alan Mackie".
The full text of the "this bloke" case that Dylan describes above is at https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=019187a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Although it was decided that it was outwith the Court's jurisdiction (it would appear the case would need to be heard in a Court in the district from which the defendent published the website) there is discussion about the points of Scots Law that both parties might use at a subsequent hearing.
This bit of the judgement of SHERIFF PRINCIPAL B A LOCKHART might be relevant:
Last edited:
Yellow Ballad
Well-known member
Genuine question for Mr Mackie as he's here, how come you don't use any watermarks, right click/hotlink protection or exclude your photo's from Google's search results as your photo's are so rightly valuable to you? We had some family photo's taken the other week and the photographer sent us a link and all of the above had been used. I know it doesn't change the fact they're your photos but it may stop you having to go through legal action every time you find someone stealing your work.
claymore
Well-known member
Tomorrow is another day - leave this behind. It isn't worth a second thought.
claymore
Well-known member
Patronising twerp
[163233]
...
I actually have some sympathy for Mr Mackie, he's only trying to sell his photos.
See:- http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...-act-of-copyright-infringement-says-uk-judge/
Government guidance is also on Mr Winter's side:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...e-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet
(Top of page 5)
As I understand it, and as you have just said, these are inline links to image published publicly on your site, and you could have changed or removed the images at any time.
That said, I do think it's pretty rude of Mr Winter to link to someone's site in this way without getting permission first.
Mr Winter has said here that he has ceased and desisted though. Presumably that aspect is resolved to your satisfaction?
This is a little more problematic, the law isn't clear on hot-links.
See:- http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...-act-of-copyright-infringement-says-uk-judge/
Government guidance is also on Mr Winter's side:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...e-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet
(Top of page 5)
As I understand it, and as you have just said, these are inline links to image published publicly on your site, and you could have changed or removed the images at any time.
That said, I do think it's pretty rude of Mr Winter to link to someone's site in this way without getting permission first.
197aerial
New member
What you're quoting is the opinion of the Sheriff, stating his views, which I appealed against.
The Sheriff Principal sitting as the Appeal Court was of the opinion:
"I take the view that, when the defender uploaded the pursuer's photographs on her website in Wemyss Bay, she was at that time potentially committing a delict anywhere that the defender's website could be seen. She was accordingly at that time potentially committing a delict within the jurisdiction of Ayr Sheriff Court, and in fact did do so when her website was viewed there by various people including the pursuer."
The exact opposite of your ill-informed and mis-quoted posting.
This case is now quoted in legal textbooks. Look it up. If I sue you or anyone else, they have to come to Ayr to answer before a court. In point of fact, I could also bring the case in Glasgow or Aberdeen or St Ives because all of those locations are on the web. "anywhere that the defender's website could be seen."
Lon nan Gruagach
Active member
The paragraph you refer to does not reference hot-linking, but plain html <a href=URL></a> tags. Hot-linking is the method for including the graphic content on a page without hosting the file on the same server.
Way back in this thread hot-linking is covered and is not considered breach of copyright. It is, however, rude if such action has been forbidden by the copyright holder.
A1Sailor
...
By whom has my posting been mis-quoted?
Might you post a link to the appeal case? Thank you for your help.
Edit: I think I've maybe found the text of the appeal hearing - the one about "jurisdiction".
What happened at the susequent full hearing? Did you make any money?
Last edited:
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
According to a student from Southampton Solent University. I don't think it is quite as clear cut as he thinks. As I wrote, The Shetland Times vs The Shetland News is the go-to case in Scots law, and it's perhaps a shame that it was settled out of court.
In any case sticking (c) Keep Turning Left on a page containing other people's IP probably isn't a good idea.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
In the English system, Small Claims cases are automatically transferred to the defendant's nearest court, so it doesn't matter where the action is brought. Is that not the case in Scotland?
[163233]
...
Doesn't it? img tags are "simple web links" to my mind.
There's certainly no copying, hosting or circumventing restrictions involved.
197aerial
New member
Not a presumption it's safe to make. He has deliberately re-posted the image in this forum. So he has most definitely NOT ceased or desisted.
197aerial
New member
It's more complex than that, as the law tends to be.
My understanding is that In English Small Claims any copyright cases (and they are the only ones I have knowledge of) are transferred to the IP court in London, regardless of where the parties are located. I believe you are correct in respect of other cases but I don't have any direct knowledge.
In general, the rule in Scotland is that the case is brought in the court nearest the defender. However, thanks to the appeal case that I fought and won, in copyright actions the case can be brought in the court nearest to where the harm is done. In my case, Ayr. In one case I found the theft when I was browsing the web in Glasgow so presumably that case can be brought there if I choose. As I said, it's complex. If I sue in Ayr and give evidence it was found in Glasgow, they'll object to waste time and if I sue in Glasgow, etc etc.
The law on this is The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001 ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/3929/contents/made ) Schedule 8, 2 (c) as amended by The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Regulations 2007 ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1655/contents/made ).
Have fun working through it. The key text (edited heavily for clarity) is:
(In Scotland) ... a person may also be sued ... in matters relating to delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur;
I own the copyright, I would argue that I have been harmed by the illegal use of my property, I live within Ayr Sheriff Court jurisdiction therefore they come to me to defend.
A copyright infringement is a delict in legal terms. (I think it comes from dereliction of duty or something similar in Latin.)
I hope that helps?
Last edited:
197aerial
New member
I won the case, certainly. Did I make any money, bearing in mind the effort and costs? No, I didn't.
But I did win an important legal precedent which has saved me and many others a great deal of money since then.
I think of it as a succcess, rather than as a financial gain.
- Status