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

[Deleted member 36384]

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

The allegation is that the image owner keeps tracks of the image knowing that they will be used illegally and then at some stage makes a demand for payment and a statement that they will sue for damages if payment is not made. All legal from their perspective.

I once came across a person who rented accommodation and then defaulted on payments. He and his family received free accommodation for 9 months which is the time it takes after due consideration to remove someone legally and then only if they agree to it. This person repeats the same activity over and over again. It is not illegal.

So, if using sailing pictures from another site on your own e.g. a club web site, use them legally.

Read the story in the link to put this into the correct context and perspective.

 

[Scillypete]

A very interesting tale, especially from our perspective where we are always trying to protect the copyright on a collection of photographs going back to 1860 which has been nothing short of a nightmare since the digital age as anyone with a scanner digital camera and computer feels that there is absolutely nothing that can stop them from doing as they wish with the images. Frustrating times for photographers everywhere that see their pictures being ripped off and quite frankly solicitors and the courts can be extremely costly and not a lot of use.

 

[fireball]

There is a lot you can do to protect images on a website these days ...
you can prevent Hotlinking
you can prevent right click save as/download

About the only thing you can't prevent is a screengrab ..

 

[prv]

All legal from their perspective.

All legal from any perspective. What makes people think that they can blithely copy anything they find on the Web and use it as their own?

I can't promise that I've never borrowed a picture for a quick ad-hoc thing, but for any proper web page (including pages visible only on my employer's intranet, not the Web at large) I always ask for permission (or, more likely these days, use things which the creator has licensed in the first place under the excellent Creative Commons scheme).

Pete

 

[Boo2]

A very interesting tale, especially from our perspective where we are always trying to protect the copyright on a collection of photographs going back to 1860

Surely after 150 years those pix are out of copyright anyway ?

Boo2

 

[Joker]

Kudos to ClydeSailing. What a wonderful narrative - written, presumably, with a lawyer standing over his shoulder.

 

[prv]

There is a lot you can do to protect images on a website these days ...
you can prevent Hotlinking
you can prevent right click save as/download

If you want your image to display on someone's screen, you have to allow their computer to download it. There's no getting round that, and I'm afraid that pathetic obfuscations like using Javascript to ask the browser not to show the right-click menu (a request which I suspect sensible browsers ignore anyway) are nothing more than a minor speed-bump.

Checking the Referrer header so that images are only served along with a page from your own server ("preventing hotlinking") is a valid defence against people using your bandwidth to include your pictures in a page elsewhere on the Web, but I can't see how it stops someone downloading a copy.

Pete

 

[KevB]

There was a long thread about this recently. Not sure who won the argument but google get away with linking to copy right images in their millions and have won a land mark court case which agreed linking to an image doesn't remove the copyright because the owner is still in control of the image as it still resides on their server.

 

[Scillypete]

Surely after 150 years those pix are out of copyright anyway ?

Boo2

Not strictly so as they are still in copyright for 75 years after the photographers death . . . . . . this helps greatly when the earlier photographers in question lived into their late eighties and their first pictures were taken when they were in their teens

 

[fireball]

google have won a land mark court case which agreed linking to an image doesn't remove the copyright because the owner is still in control of the image as it still resides on their server.

In the US .... not in the UK ...

iirc in the US you have to actively assert your copyright - in the UK it is a given ... or supposed to be.

 

[fireball]

If you want your image to display on someone's screen, you have to allow their computer to download it. There's no getting round that, and I'm afraid that pathetic obfuscations like using Javascript to ask the browser not to show the right-click menu (a request which I suspect sensible browsers ignore anyway) are nothing more than a minor speed-bump.

Checking the Referrer header so that images are only served along with a page from your own server ("preventing hotlinking") is a valid defence against people using your bandwidth to include your pictures in a page elsewhere on the Web, but I can't see how it stops someone downloading a copy.

Pete

You're right in that it is impossible to prevent someone taking a copy of what is presented on their screen. The very nature of it appearing on their screen is a "copy" of the original - that's how the web works. The only thing I can suggest to people who what to keep a tight reign on their images is to watermark them and only upload what you're willing to loose.

 

[dylanwinter]

copyright

Last year I had a minor discussion on here about copyright

and it all got a bit heated

so unwilling to wade in again

- not too deep anyway

copyright is all but dead as far as I can see

certainly when it comes to things that can be digitised and once 3d printers are everywhere then that will really knock the whole thing on the head

musicians now accept that that they earn money from performaing rather than flogging disks

ditto most cameramen and journslists

- they get paid by the day and kiss away all rights

I have some starlings footage I put on the web

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH-groCeKbE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakKfY5aHmY

my attitude is that it is on the web - so if people want to lift it then they can as long as they are not re-selling it

it has been lifted and used in several "mash-ups"

in fact the second version is a mash-up using music from the LSO

without permission - but you will notice that the film often has a link for the music

youtube employs crawlers that troll sound tracks for music - most music publishers have an agreement with youtube that allows the films to stay up

so if yiou want to post your lovely sailing films on the web and fancy using your favourite track then there is a good chance google has already stistched up a deal for its use

the second starling films has a re-roll advert on it

no idea who gets the profit from the advert - google I assume

although possibly they give money to the LSO -



Incidentally

I have sold the HD rushes from the starlings films several times over

I shot them about four years ago and since then the rushes have probably earned me around £3,000

british, Japanense, Germans and South Koreans have all paid me money via paypal for using the films

I have sent two sets of rushes to French TV companies - they used the film and never stumped up

I don't bother persueing people for infringement

let he who is without sin....

If I stumbled across some ktl films that had been lifted - re-digitised and sold for a profit I might send them an email mentioning that it is not cricket

would I threaten court action...

never

if anyone wants to make copies of my films and give them to friends...no problems with that at all

but long term copyright is dead

and when it comes to deciding if it would be a good thing

then I think on balance copyright is not a good a thing

I myself have a great idea for improving boat performance

it involves having a pointy front end

and making sails in an aerofoil shape

those ideas would be worth patenting I think

Dylan

 

[prv]

iirc in the US you have to actively assert your copyright

No longer the case, I believe.

Pete

 

[Neil_Y]

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

I own a set of printed magazines (called something like the pictorial history of great britain) hundreds of b&w images of landmarks and views from across the british isles. Several years ago I looked at getting them scanned to re publish them in book format and contacted publishers with the question about copyright and was told it was OK to use them as the copyright was out of date. They were'nt considering the age of the photographer just the date of first publication. I guess the rules are different as this was publication and not a single image?

On the net I've also had some interesting legal threats and after some research found they were unfounded or mis informed. If I write a trade name here some companies will say I need their permission.

I've also often wondered about adding links to images from websites on this forum? is that OK as the original page address remains the same but it will appear in the forum? should you only provide links to whole pages? does anyone know. As an example I have permission to use this image but using a link it then doesn't show who it is credited to?

So I guess i should add this...
Christensen photos courtesy of Christensen Yachts, photographer Stephen Cridland.

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

 

[ukmctc]

All legal from any perspective. What makes people think that they can blithely copy anything they find on the Web and use it as their own?

I can't promise that I've never borrowed a picture for a quick ad-hoc thing, but for any proper web page (including pages visible only on my employer's intranet, not the Web at large) I always ask for permission (or, more likely these days, use things which the creator has licensed in the first place under the excellent Creative Commons scheme).

Pete

I was told by a solicitor friend, that the best way to get a picture is to google it (images) its in the public domain, use it freely.

If the owner wished it not tobe used then it should/could/would be unable to copy or download.

 

[Lakesailor]

Your solicitor is giving duff information.
Photodog will be along soon to explain why.

 

[fireball]

I've also often wondered about adding links to images from websites on this forum? is that OK as the original page address remains the same but it will appear in the forum? <snip>
Sounds like a legal can of worms....so I'll just be cautious.

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.

 

[Capt Popeye]

thanksfor that info BOBoots

I cannot follow it all at the mo, but it looks like a can of worms to me

 

[fireball]

I was told by a solicitor friend, that the best way to get a picture is to google it (images) its in the public domain, use it freely.

If the owner wished it not tobe used then it should/could/would be unable to copy or download.

Yup - that's duff information.
Hotlinking is (IMHO) a grey area - although PD views this in the same way as downloading/republishing ...

But copy/download/possibily alter and republish without permission is breach of copyright - certainly within the UK anyway.

 

[yesod]

I was told by a solicitor friend, that the best way to get a picture is to google it (images) its in the public domain, use it freely.

If the owner wished it not tobe used then it should/could/would be unable to copy or download.

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?