Using Unauthorised Sailing Pictures From Web Sites - A Honey Trap Warning

[Reverend Ludd]

that advice is worth even less than you paid for it, and neatly shows why you should never trust a solicitor.

maybe they were hoping to pick up work defending you?

@ukmctc - Ask him if he put his wallet in plain view on the table during your meeting, would it be ok for you to take it?

 

[Scillypete]

Interesting but I'd like to have a reference to the legal position on old photos.



Sounds like a legal can of worms....so I'll just be cautious.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-artisticworks.htm

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-ownership/c-creator.htm

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm

There you go tells you all you need to know, photography is included in artistic works and copyright exists for 70 after the death of the creator unless he waived his ownership rights.

and as you say it is a legal can of worms so much so that even finding a lawyer willing to pursue a case is very hard. As I said earlier with the digital age it is an absolute nightmare for those trying to protect their intellectual property rights and also keep up in a fast moving market.

 

[yesod]

The web master at the Clyde Sailing site below gives an interesting description of how he used a photograph from a site without authorisation and subsequently was threatened with legal action for damages.

http://www.clydesailing.co.uk/webwarning.htm

back to the original, thought provoking article though....

i'd have thought that if he's earning money from aerial photography work using a model aircraft, then the caa would need to be involved. like sailing, once things go commercial, the game changes.... the latest edition of cap722 says:

This edition incorporates the changes to legislation introduced in Air Navigation Order 2009 (ANO 2009) regarding the requirement for operators of small unmanned aircraft to obtain a CAA permission when their aircraft are being used for aerial work, and also in some cases for surveillance or data acquisition purposes (now termed small unmanned surveillance aircraft)

got to be worth asking the caa for their views, given this guy is clearly commercial...

 

[Twister_Ken]

back to the original, thought provoking article though....

i'd have thought that if he's earning money from aerial photography work using a model aircraft, then the caa would need to be involved. like sailing, once things go commercial, the game changes.... the latest edition of cap722 says:



got to be worth asking the caa for their views, given this guy is clearly commercial...

Oooh, you, Sir, are nasty and devious. But I like you.

 

[agurney]

Huge debate on that activity - which is called Hotlinking ...

It's been mentioned that Google won a case on this or similar activity - but iirc that was in the US - not the UK.

My view is that whilst I don't think it is a violation of copyright it's not something I'd do on a regular basis and never "for profit" ..

As for mentioning brand names - you cannot stop someone from saying/writing a name - although you can object to the context - usually if they're associating themselves with the brand or conversely, putting the brand down without true/firm evidence.

There's a precedent from 1996 in Scotland set by the Shetland Times, when they obtained an interim interdict against one or more parties for hotlinking.

 

[webcraft]

There's a precedent from 1996 in Scotland set by the Shetland Times, when they obtained an interim interdict against one or more parties for hotlinking.

That case wasn't actually about hotlinking, it was about deep linking - which is not the same thing and is even more of a minefield. It was also about framing. The News site had headlines that were links to Shetland Times articles. When clicked these headlines brought up the relevant Shetland Times article in a frame, with no surrounding context to indicate that you were looking at part of another website.

Re. using other peoples' images and paying the price - a friend who has a web design company on the East coast had to pay several hundred pounds to a honeytrapping photographer for a (very small) picture that was on a client's website. The site had been up for over a year and the client had provided the images, assuring the web designer that there were no copyright issues. He had no sensible way of getting the money back frm the client. I am always amazed at the cavalier attitude of ordinary people to the use of other peoples' images online. Many really believe that everything on the web is simply up for grabs.


- W

 

[jwilson]

I am always amazed at the cavalier attitude of ordinary people to the use of other peoples' images online. Many really believe that everything on the web is simply up for grabs

My website images ( on yachtsnet.co.uk ) quite often get copied and re-used.

If it is a clear not-for-profit usage such as posting pics here on YBW I have no objection at all. Similarly I have given permission to several owners associations to use my photos FOC.

Not infrequently other brokers use my photos, usually cropping out my "photos www.yachtsnet.co" imprint. When I spot this I tell them to take down the pictures immediately, or I will send them an invoice. No-one has yet chosen to be invoiced.

Several sailing magazines have also used my photos, more than once without informing me. On spotting this I ask them to send the photo fee to the RNLI, as I do if they ask me first.

There is one outfit doing aeriel photos, posting them online, and then hunting down usage, and then threatening litigation unless a large fee is paid. This appears to be a definite "honeytrap", the firm's very dubious practices having long ago been reported in national newspapers.

There is no technical way to stop copying and still display clear images online. All we can do is be aware, and be reasonable.