Is this element of the sale legal?

[Lyulph Hesling]

"I fail to understand why people do not realise just how serious a crime this is in the eyes of the law.... on conviction you can get 10 years...."


Would the correct punishment not be flogging and/or keel hauling?

 

[Lakesailor]

Well. The forumites have risen en-masse to support a pedantic law that until this moment had been riviled as plain stupidity in the same way as H&E has been attacked.

Who'd have thought the forumites could actually give a toss about Data Protection. e-mail addresses are traded openly in massive lists. Are we going to follow everyone who didn't make provision for this in their T&Cs?
You can opt out of the transfer of data. Where is the leg upon which you wish to stand?

Now it appears that forunites will fight IPC every step of the way.

Seems a bit short-sighted to me. IPC provide these forums at no cost to us (although they do make revenue from advertisers who are attracted by the visitor numbers).

Storm in a tea-cup. No-one is going to take anyone to court over these quibbles. No criminal prosecutions will be brought.
Unless of course you think that the possibility of the infringement of a petty law is worth the loss of the forums in total.

If I was at IPC and all this kicked off I would think it's time to draw down the curtain.
Then maybe start again with watertight T&Cs and a fully moderated forum. Possibly even a subscription.

Get a grip. It's not real life. If anyone has posted on Classic Boat forum something that they feel has a commercial value, fool you. Once on an open forum it's available to the world.

The Genie is out of the bottle, and has left the room.

 

[photodog]

Well I hate to say this Lakey, but I think you are pretty wide of the mark there.....


What is happening with this forum needs to be placed in to context. On its own, it appears to be a storm in tea-cup as you say... but this is not happening in isolation.

Most major media companies have been attempting over the past decade or so to source editorial material at lower or zero costs to themselves. The biggest stumbling blocks to this has been the copyright act of 1988, and employment law.

We have seen virtually all of the major national newspaper groups attempt to force through changes to their licencing with contributors with no consultation and with no regard to the contracts that they hold, such that they gain copyright on IP.

News International did this in the early 00's with the News Of the World, The Gaurdian did this 4 years ago with their infamous "Christmas Grab", IPC attempted to do this a decade ago, the Mail has been engaged on a stealthy grab recently.... I could go on. Largley they have failed to make substantial progress.

Recently media groups are starting to attempt to monetize there "User Generated Content"... The Huffington post is a excellent example... as they realise that this content actually has value....

This is another example of the attempt by large media groups to change the nature of Copyright law to shift the ownership and rights from the individual or originator, to the channel or outlet....

These companies know that in fact the internet potentially empowers the individual to capitolise on their creativity.... thus threatening their dominance. So, they need to destroy the individuals ability to do so.

If the major publishers and media companies are allowed to tear up licencing agreements and ignore copyright law, then the creative industries as we know it will simply cease to exist. There is no escaping the fact that the creative industries need to work in the context of the Internet. This is the dominant channel and not engaging with it is not a option.

Your assertion that "The Genie is out of the bottle, and has left the room. " could not be further from the truth in relation to established media outlets within the EU and the United States.

These companies are operating within the context of the relevent legislation where they are based, and are answerable to the law.

Over the past several years, copyright infringments by established companies in the EU and the US has been on the decline. It has become increasingly easy for us to control the distrbution of our material within these markets, as they become more familiar with and compliant with the legislation...

By way of example...

Since January of this year I personally as part of my work have;

1) Had our photography blocked on 4 publishers websites in the EU and the US.
2) Stopped the publication of 2 books in the US.
3) Had 3 videos pulled off of Youtube.
4) Had several facebook accounts suspended and their pages removed.
5) Had 2 websites taken off line permanently by their hosts.
6) Had material pulled from googles index.
7) Had material deleted from Twitter.
8) Received compensatory payments from several sources, including The Daily Mail.


I spend a good 30% of my time licencing material, including photography, video and copy, around the world. I also spend a fair amount of time pursuing infringers of our copyright.

It is not the wild west, but by allowing large companies to decide whose copyright they will respect, and whose they will ignore, and whose licences and contracts they will respect and whose they will ignore, we will ensure that it becomes so.

As I work in the industry daily, and as I deal with these issues daily, I can see very clearly the potential ramifications of IPC conducting this transaction without the consent of the licence holders and in breach of their licence....

it may;

1) establish new precedent as to the ability to transfer IP to a third party(in relation to section 56).
2) establish new precedent in regards to incidental inclusion.
3) establish new precedent in regards to a quality test for copyright worthiness.
4) establish new precedent in regards to the moral right to be identified as the author.
5) establish new law in regards to ownership when the author chooses to waive their moral right to be identified.

Thats just off the top of my head....



Copyright law is IMO a human right. We have the right to expect protection for our original ideas and works.

We allow others to erode those rights at our peril.

Copyright law is one of the drivers of economic activity in a advanced economy.

We allow others to erode those rights at our cost.

On its own, this is no big deal, but in the context of what is happening in the industry it is a very important, but small, act.

IPC and Chelsea publishing have several easy options to conduct this transaction within the context of their licence. There is no need for them to break the terms of their licence, and commit multiple breaches of the legislation, both civil and criminal. Yet they appear to be choosing to do so......

They will find that by working within the law they will preserve the goodwill in their contributors, and in fact add value to their product. All real value in the content on these forums will be destroyed if they transfer this material without the consent of their contributors, as the will be creating a liability for the end users and new owners that did not exist before.

 

[chinita]

in the same way as H&E has been attacked.

H&E?

Do you mean Elfin Safety?

Was Health & Efficiency a Freudian Slip?

 

[old_salt]

H&E?

Do you mean Elfin Safety?

Was Health & Efficiency a Freudian Slip?

Health & Efficiency was a mag with naked Lady's in it the nineteen fifty's.
Well the pics where so tiny you needed a magnifying glass to see anything of interest and that was when I had good eyesight at the tender age of 13.

 

[Lakesailor]

... and that quickly deteriorated.
I don't know what I meant to post and can't be arsed to go back and read it.

Photodog may have some points, but I think he is applying the rigours of his everyday life to a simple social forum where there shouldn't be any copyright issues.


I too had problems with IPC and EMAP in the dim and distant past, but can't see how this is part of the same thing.
I don't post anything I would want to follow up copyright transgressions of.
Does anyone actually licence IPC to use their material. I just stick it up there. Anything on an open forum is available to anyone in the world via the magic of Google.

 

[mikefleetwood]

Tell me, would people be getting so steamed about this if the T&Cs referred to used the term "forum owner" instead of "IPC"?

The effect would be the same - we licence the owner to use any material we post in whatever way they choose. I think it would be clear to any court that this was thhe intended meaning and effect.

I can understand why PD might go to considerable lengths to protect copyright in materials that were produced by way of business (even if an "amateur" who got paid for a one-off that happened to have a commercial value). But that is not what we are talking about - our posts have no intrinsic monetary value to protect.

I really cannot understand why some people are getting so excited over something that does not affect them in the slightest way.

The only consequence for any of us is that the stuff we posted will be somewhere other than where we left it!

 

[chinita]

Health & Efficiency was a mag with naked Lady's in it the nineteen fifty's.

......and men! But all the naughty bits were 'whited' out.

I think it was the first magazine I ever nicked - or was that 'Parade'?

OMG! Did I really say that!!!

 

[KINGFISHER 8]

I think there are a few people on here who need to get out more!

 

[Captain Coochie]

I can understand why PD might go to considerable lengths to protect copyright in materials that were produced by way of business (even if an "amateur" who got paid for a one-off that happened to have a commercial value). But that is not what we are talking about

Isnt it ? Thats what i have been objecting too and still do .

 

[Lakesailor]

Which of your posts on Classic Boat have an intrinsic monetary value?

 

[Captain Coochie]

The ones that have been SOLD to another publisher by IPC .

The point is that the content of the forum is not owned by IPC only on loan under thier own contract . To sell the content is against the law as they do not own it .
It may be a minor thing to most people but it is a source of material for a publisher and getting the source for free is a massive saving in costs . For example they may not need to call Doug to get a photo of a classic boat as there is quite a good one on the forum that we can use .
I can get free timber from my local yard if i wait for them to close and i jump over the wall but that is called theft .

 

[Lakesailor]

Ah! You have explained your confusion to me now.
The fact that they have sold the forums and the posts therein does not constitute selling the copyright or reproduction rights over and above the licence you gave to publish the words and pictures (if any) as part of the threads.

When you posted your contributions it was implicit in that action that the forum visitor interest engendered in such a move was of value to IPC in that it created and maintained a level of traffic that was attractive to advertisers.

I can't see that that situation has changed, other than the advertisers will be paying their fees to a different company.

 

[cliffordpope]

Just get used to the fact that anything you ever post on the internet or say in an email is public property, and than get on with life.