Stolen & Copyrighted

[evileye_wrx]

So what happens if you take a photo of a photo? Then is it your original work?   s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:

[Anonymous]

The copyright belongs to the creator  the work

Yeah, I don't think that I have a problem with this but what I did was upload your crap  image, manipulated it, make it really worth a lot of money and now you'r trying to cash in on my expertise??
(I promise I didn't actually do this  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  )

[Peter Wright]

Well I sent them a very nice email telling them I thought it wrong and this is the email I received back   s:roll: :roll: s:roll:  

Dear ukmrspete.
 
Thank you for a such warm letter.
We are very appreciate.
Do not worry we will clean floor by our self.
 
Thank you.
BDTrims group.

Make your own deductions but I will let the matter drop
Love
Pete

[kentsmudger]

the only time the subject really matters is when you are on
private property where you are supposed to ask for permission
(even shopping centres often stop people although more if you
have pro looking gear)

or more importantly pictures of people
if the person is the main subject their permission is needed

This has nothing to do with your copyright, which you still own as the artist,  but will affect any sale or commercial use of the image for profit.
Commercial use of a person's image is fine if taken in a public place where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

[kentsmudger]

The copyright belongs to the creator  the work

Yeah, I don't think that I have a problem with this but what I did was upload your crap  image, manipulated it, make it really worth a lot of money and now you'r trying to cash in on my expertise??
(I promise I didn't actually do this  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  )

This is again down to permission from the copyright holder

You take my picture and 'improve' it then it is your creation but it is still derived from my original work and you cannot do that without my permission.

Think of it like a 're-mix' of a classic pop song - Yes you made it, so you have copyright, but if James Brown (or whoever) did not give you the rights to do it then record company lawyers are coming after you. This was a big issue some years back when rappers discovered what samplers could do for them.

[Anonymous]

I just love this (sad person)
At least two people on here have copied what I have written without asking my permission as copyright holder. (lets say £500 and I'll call it quits)
Surely, if you want copyright then you have to claim it before, not after, the event?
Still too early to say happy Christmas  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

[evileye_wrx]

I just love this (sad person)
At least two people on here have copied what I have written without asking my permission as copyright holder. (lets say £500 and I'll call it quits)
Surely, if you want copyright then you have to claim it before, not after, the event?
Still too early to say happy Christmas  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

I wonder if I can copyright the phrase 'happy Christmas'? Then you'll owe me money   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

[kentsmudger]

At least two people on here have copied what I have written without asking my permission as copyright holder.

1: Every page on this forum has these words at the bottom
          'Copyright © 2002-2006 MR2 Roadster Owners' Club'

2: Fair Use - to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed.

Surely, if you want copyright then you have to claim it before, not after, the event?

"the photographer automatically owns the copyright

Note 'automatically' - You create it, it's yours. Copyright does not have to be claimed, it exists.  All Peter Wright is doing is pointing this out to someone who is marking his work as their own

[Anonymous]

or more importantly pictures of people
if the person is the main subject their permission is needed

Not true, in the UK it is perfectly legal to photograph anybody in a public place, with or without their permission.

[Liz]

or more importantly pictures of people
if the person is the main subject their permission is needed

Not true, in the UK it is perfectly legal to photograph anybody in a public place, with or without their permission.

I am sure parents of small children wouldn't agree with that and indeed I remember a job on Southend seafront years ago at the airshow - we followed him on cctv and saw him blatently taking pictures of children without the parents knowledge - he got arrested for his trouble.

[Anonymous]

just 'googled' copyright and changed my mind about all of this (thanks kentsmudger  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  )

[kentsmudger]

....blatently taking pictures of children without the parents knowledge - he got arrested for his trouble.

I don't condone this guy's actions at all, and the parents would understandably object,  but what was the actual offence?

(I know, this is getting a bit off-topic)

[Liz]

....blatently taking pictures of children without the parents knowledge - he got arrested for his trouble.

I don't condone this guy's actions at all, and the parents would understandably object,  but what was the actual offence?

(I know, this is getting a bit off-topic)

It was a long time ago - it would of been a public order offence (causing harrasement, alarm or distress), he was weird to say the least.  Don't know what happened in the end - I had been sent down to local control for the day to do the airshow control and went back to HQ the next.

[Anonymous]

just 'googled' copyright and changed my mind about all of this (thanks kentsmudger  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  )

You missed the link on the first page of posts then?

[Anonymous]

yeah, was on the third Carlsberg  s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

And having just read it, then I guess it's thanks to you as well; I've no desire to infringe copyright   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

[Anonymous]

....blatently taking pictures of children without the parents knowledge - he got arrested for his trouble.

I don't condone this guy's actions at all, and the parents would understandably object,  but what was the actual offence?

(I know, this is getting a bit off-topic)

It was a long time ago - it would of been a public order offence (causing harrasement, alarm or distress), he was weird to say the least.  Don't know what happened in the end - I had been sent down to local control for the day to do the airshow control and went back to HQ the next.

Won't somebody think of the children!!!!!

But seriously, unless he was poking the lens up kiddies skirts what's the offence? If he's not 'In the face' it's not harassment but I'm sure it's neither the first or last time the Police will imagine up an offence just to get somebody out of the way.

[Anonymous]

... and the parents would understandably object ...

Why? The media seem to have turned this country into one where everybody imagines paedophiles lurk around every corner. Far more children are abused by family members than random photographers.

[kentsmudger]

... and the parents would understandably object ...

Why? The media seem to have turned this country into one where everybody imagines paedophiles lurk around every corner. Far more children are abused by family members than random photographers.

I never mentioned child abuse. I have the right to control usage of my image, and the image of any children in my care.

If you take photos of me and mine and I will only want a conversation with you, I am a photographer myself.

Do it from a hiding place and get evasive and I will object.

[Anonymous]

I have the right to control usage of my image, and the image of any children in my care.

If you take photos of me and mine and I will only want a conversation with you, I am a photographer myself.

Then you should know that, in law, you have no such right where that image is taken in a public place.

Do it from a hiding place and get evasive and I will object.

Object all you like, unless you are being photographed where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy eg. in your own home, or harassed, then no law is being broken. Depending on how strenuously you object it may be seen as an assault.

[kentsmudger]

I have the right to control usage of my image, and the image of any children in my care.

If you take photos of me and mine and I will only want a conversation with you, I am a photographer myself.

Then you should know that, in law, you have no such right where that image is taken in a public place.

Do it from a hiding place and get evasive and I will object.

Object all you like, unless you are being photographed where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy eg. in your own home, or harassed, then no law is being broken. Depending on how strenuously you object it may be seen as an assault.

Read my post again. Note the bold added.

I know I cannot stop you taking my picture, but I would like to know what you want it for and where it will end up. I am aware that CCTV will take my picture all over town but I also know that there are controls over what happens to that image.


Right to privacy, usage and copyright are all different things.

(I know Mods, way, way off topic now!)