Using copyright images on CC

[jefmcg]

Following a post in another thread, I got called a criminal for posting this ....

The original post was about the London Duathlon, which is a race. The cost of cleaning should be included in the entry fee.

Does the Mail have articles in April about "litter lout runners"?

I defended myself thusly

You sir - and please don't take this the wrong way - are an idiot. I'd say well under half the images posted on this site are being shared by the copyright holder, or with the copyright holders permission yet as far as I can see, you have decided to single me out - you don't routinely harange people here for copyright infringement. As @mjr points out, I have not copied the image, but have hotlinked* it. That means

1. Alamy know I am doing this
2. Alamy could stop me doing it if they wanted. This is a trivial bit of code server side to only display images on their site.

But they don't want to stop me sharing their images, and I can guess why. Time for another short list!

1. They know anyone who is satisfied with a watermarked image is not about to buy an image and will not be using it commercially, so they are not losing a sale
2. They are getting free advertising! If anyone in the market for a stock image of a marathon drinks station finds this thread, and wants to license that image, it has all the information for them to buy the image. If you to alamy.com, and type in the code the search box, it takes you straight to http://www.alamy.com/search.html?qt=ekm4tc. @Shaun should be charging them.

Appendix
*Hotlink - if you don't know what I mean, either right click with your mouse on that image, or press and hold on it if you are using tablet/phone. When the menu pops up, choose "Open image in new tab" (or similar). Go to the new tab, check the address of the image. It is on alamy.com. I haven't copied or stolen anything, except bandwidth

Further, I googled the criminal copyright law in the UK, and as I am not selling, leasing or making money in another way out of this, nor prejudicially affecting the copyright holder then it is not a criminal act. And under civil law, they can only sue for damages if they have been damaged.

That doesn't mean that posting copyright images here is ok morally, it just means we aren't very exposed to legal action. The copyright holder could ask or demand Shaun remove an image and I'm sure Shaun would jump to it.

(I have no legal training so the above does not constitute legal advice and might indeed be wrong. If in doubt contact a local solicitor or read below where someone will probably correct every mistake in the above)

 

[Crackle]

We all do it. I do it even though I'm also someone who has images logged and selling with Alamy. People nicking your images for promotional or commercial stuff is a bit different to someone using it in a forum but it is a blurry line and if I saw an image of mine being used I might well ask for it to be removed or just send a bill. Actually I'd send a bill. I want the money not the fame.

 

[raleighnut]

I thought that once something had been posted on t'internet it was in the public domain, I know that a lot of the photos I've uploaded to here come up if I google my username (mind you I'm not the only 'raleighnut', there is another one who posts photos on 'Flikr', some are nice bikes and others are of a Brompton )
I know these photos come from here cos I don't post anything anywhere else (Farcebook, Twatter and the like) but it doesn't bother me, those images were posted so that others could see them.

I did once have a very strange thing happen though, I'd given a photograph I'd taken to Jackie Leven (it was an 8x10 B&W of a bar interior in Perth, Scotland) and he loved it. Anyway a couple of years later I'd bought one of his new CDs and was listening to it whilst reading the liner notes and there was my name credited with the image that he'd used as part of the 'artwork' on the album cover, nearly fell off my chair when I read my name on one of his albums. (never got any money for it but he did give me a 'pre-release' copy of a live album that never got released commercially )

BTW if anyone wants to find out my real name then the CD is "When The Bridegroom Comes (Songs For Women)" by Sir Vincent Lone (one of Jackie's 'alter ego' names)

View: https://youtu.be/ZVfkaebdkbU

 

[coffeejo]

I thought that once something had been posted on t'internet it was in the public domain

No, they remain the property of the photographer (unless the rights have been sold). One can licence images for public use (not for profit) but it's a minefield.

 

[raleighnut]

No, they remain the property of the photographer (unless the rights have been sold). One can licence images for public use (not for profit) but it's a minefield.

Maybe I should get an 'Agent' then.

 

[winjim]

Have we established whether embedding / linking to copyrighted material is even breach of copyright?

@jefmcg I think your accuser mentioned they were acquainted with the copyright holder of the image you linked to. In which case it should be a simple matter to get in touch with them, ask their opinion, remove the image if they politely request it, and invite them to sue you if they are not so polite. Aren't you posting from a foreign country at the moment? I wonder how that affects things.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Linking is OK.

 

[MontyVeda]

About ten years ago i built a website and stuck some of my photographs on it to highlight the local area. One photo, of Hornby Castle, was 'stolen' and used by some muppet of a historian on his website, and by (or on behalf of) Lancashire County Council on their city, coast & countryside website. I was happy that my photo was being used but not happy with the response when i contacted them and asked for them to provide a link to the website that the photo had been 'stolen' from.

LCC ignored my correspondence for a couple of years, then claimed it was a 3rd party that sourced the photo. All i wanted was a link... but since they were being arsey, it was either a link or the image removed from their website. It took about 18 months for them to finally remove it.

The muppet of a historian used the same image and i politely asked him for link to the website where he'd taken the image from. He claimed public domain and told me that if don't want my photos to be used, then i shouldn't put them online. I told him it's not public domain and that I'm happy for him to use it, so long as he provides a link (failing that, remove the image). He told me where to go and refused to remove the image. It was only when i pointed out to him that his page is about Hornby Castle in Yorkshire and that the image is of Hornby Castle in Lancashire that he removed it. (bellend!)

Anyhow, that was yonks ago, but out of curiosity had a quick google and found this... http://poplingenealogy.blogspot.co.uk/ ...different 'historian' but same mistake. This castle...

...is not the one you're talking about.

 

[outlash]

Personally, I'm not that precious about any original material I've posted on t'web, unless someone's making money out of it then enjoy it. Unless you have been contacted by the copyright holder then I'd let it go and revel in the knowledge that whoever called you a criminal is indeed an idiot.

 

[winjim]

About ten years ago i built a website and stuck some of my photographs on it to highlight the local area. One photo, of Hornby Castle, was 'stolen' and used by some muppet of a historian on his website, and by (or on behalf of) Lancashire County Council on their city, coast & countryside website. I was happy that my photo was being used but not happy with the response when i contacted them and asked for them to provide a link to the website that the photo had been 'stolen' from.

LCC ignored my correspondence for a couple of years, then claimed it was a 3rd party that sourced the photo. All i wanted was a link... but since they were being arsey, it was either a link or the image removed from their website. It took about 18 months for them to finally remove it.

The muppet of a historian used the same image and i politely asked him for link to the website where he'd taken the image from. He claimed public domain and told me that if don't want my photos to be used, then i shouldn't put them online. I told him it's not public domain and that I'm happy for him to use it, so long as he provides a link (failing that, remove the image). He told me where to go and refused to remove the image. It was only when i pointed out to him that his page is about Hornby Castle in Yorkshire and that the image is of Hornby Castle in Lancashire that he removed it. (bellend!)

Anyhow, this was yonks ago, but out of curiosity had a quick google and found this... http://poplingenealogy.blogspot.co.uk/ ...different 'historian' but same mistake. This castle...

...is not the one you're talking about.

You should upload loads of castle pictures, mislabel them all and see where they end up.

 

[MontyVeda]

You should upload loads of castle pictures, mislabel them all and see where they end up.

don't even have to mislabel them when people don't know what they're talking about.

 

[mjr]

Have we established whether embedding / linking to copyrighted material is even breach of copyright?

It's been established in Europe that it's not by various rulings, such as those described in https://torrentfreak.com/embedding-copyright-infringement-eu-court-rules-141025/

I think I remember someone getting in trouble for linking to stuff that they knew was copied illegally in a way that they profited from, but it was a corner case, not likely to occur by accident.

Personally, I'm paid to create, so much of my stuff is licensed under things like the Creative Commons with Attribution licences, so you can take it as long as you credit me, which I hope will encourage more people to pay me to write software or explanatory articles.

 

[Brandane]

Personally, I'm paid to create, so much of my stuff is licensed under things like the Creative Commons with Attribution licences, so you can take it as long as you credit me, which I hope will encourage more people to pay me to write software or explanatory articles.

Quote reproduced with many thanks and the kind permission of @mjr .

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Actually I'd send a bill. I want the money not the fame.

I gave up with the photography business several years ago now. But I can't stop hearing "It will be good exposure for you" when I go to sleep. And it was always by companies who certainly had the cash to pay. But exposure doesn't buy my dinner.

 

[mjr]

Oh and there's a big difference between something being "in the public domain" (as in known to the public) and being "public domain" in copyright terms. The latter is generally only true in the UK for works by long dead creators that aren't Peter Pan (the bloody thing has a special section in the copyright act).