anyone a member of traditional fishing forum?

[Mark Wintle]

The thing is anyone can lift an image off the internet and post it wherever they like. If you want to post images but retain some control one of the few options is to use a photo editing tool and write in translucent type a copyright notice. No owner/moderator on a website with forums can hope to check copyright on pictures posted on their forums.

[Andy_1984]

The thing is anyone can lift an image off the internet and post it wherever they like. If you want to post images but retain some control one of the few options is to use a photo editing tool and write in translucent type a copyright notice. No owner/moderator on a website with forums can hope to check copyright on pictures posted on their forums.

you are right to an extent depnding on where they lifted the photo from. There could be terms of use/copy/etc.

 

Its not unreasonable to ask an admin that said pic be removed though.

 

What i realy object.to is photos being used without permission for commercial gain.

 

Was maybe last year on the pit some guide took one our members.photos and used it as a background photo on his site. Bang out of order imo since said photo was nothing to.do with the guide.

[chesters1]

The thing is anyone can lift an image off the internet and post it wherever they like. If you want to post images but retain some control one of the few options is to use a photo editing tool and write in translucent type a copyright notice. No owner/moderator on a website with forums can hope to check copyright on pictures posted on their forums.

Your probably right ,i paid for the magazine then scanned the image for my use ,the magazine has long gone,the copyright to the image itself probably long expired but i had added some text to the image so to an extent as the 'writer' of the text theres an issue with copyright to my bit LOL

Having been officially given the morritt/gladding archives (along with a great number of images used in the advertising for intrepid both morritt and gladding and BFR) then i presume all rights pass to me ?

After some thought i cant be arsed to complain but wonder why in this day and age the fool didnt simply remove my text .

?

Its function was to identify where i got the artwork from giving some respect to the mag i got it from incase THEY (or their successor ) demanded i give them credit.

The biggest hold up to me doing this damn book is NOT simply pinching copyrighted pictures off websites DOH

If the image was taken from THIS website then the image origin is in plain sight so i would have expected them to ask i certainly would or rather in my case i wouldnt take it at all its less hassle

In essence i paid a fiver or so for the image (price of the mag plus postage)they got it for nothing .

Any pictures of reels i post will be MY pictures of my reels so be so kind to acknowledge it ,rant over

 

Anyone camping at folkestone should look in the washrooms for a stunning photo of a sunrise taken from the campsite ,did they ask me for permission to print and display it (pinched it off google earth i think) ,no but in this case i dont care

Edited December 30, 2016 by chesters1

[RUDD]

As I own a Shimano Triton bait runner can I claim to be a traditionalist bait runner user?

[chesters1]

As I own a Shimano Triton bait runner can I claim to be a traditionalist bait runner user?

Is it a wooden one?

[RUDD]

Is it a wooden one?

No, neither are some of the other traditional reels!

Does a jam jar and small hand net count?

[chesters1]

only if its a 1lb jamjar with hemp string and the net has a bamboo handle and knotted cotton net ,neither are truly traditional without woodbine stained fingers and brylcreemed hair

Edited January 13, 2017 by chesters1

[Mark Wintle]

Your probably right ,i paid for the magazine then scanned the image for my use ,the magazine has long gone,the copyright to the image itself probably long expired but i had added some text to the image so to an extent as the 'writer' of the text theres an issue with copyright to my bit LOL

Having been officially given the morritt/gladding archives (along with a great number of images used in the advertising for intrepid both morritt and gladding and BFR) then i presume all rights pass to me ?

After some thought i cant be arsed to complain but wonder why in this day and age the fool didnt simply remove my text .

?

Its function was to identify where i got the artwork from giving some respect to the mag i got it from incase THEY (or their successor ) demanded i give them credit.

The biggest hold up to me doing this damn book is NOT simply pinching copyrighted pictures off websites DOH

If the image was taken from THIS website then the image origin is in plain sight so i would have expected them to ask i certainly would or rather in my case i wouldnt take it at all its less hassle

In essence i paid a fiver or so for the image (price of the mag plus postage)they got it for nothing .

Any pictures of reels i post will be MY pictures of my reels so be so kind to acknowledge it ,rant over

 

Anyone camping at Folkstone should look in the washrooms for a stunning photo of a sunrise taken from the campsite, did they ask me for permission to print and display it (pinched it off google earth i think) ,no but in this case I don't care

 

Oh that copyright law should be so simple! In legal terms buying a magazine/book etc. gives you no rights whatsoever over its images or text, and copyright resides with the author/photographer/artist for 70 years after their death unless from before a certain date, 1946 from memory. What you do have to do is make extensive enquiries and see what you can find out to trace those copyright owners. For small run books most holders will happily give permission without fee provided due credit is given. It can be hard to trace copyright when book/magazine publishers have long vanished or been merged into other companies. A couple of authors/artists worth being careful with in the fishing world are works by Dick Walker and David Carl Forbes. In both cases ensure you have the appropriate permissions in place before publishing.

[philocalist]

Mark, the question of copyright is way muddier than you believe - and this is coming from someone who spent their life working as a pro photographer.

Copyright MAY indeed belong to the photographer ... or it may have nothing to do with the person who actually took the picture, and actually belong to who they were working for at the time as an employee. OR the person who commissioned the pictures. OR the person who actually paid for the commission. OR the person / company who instructed the person responsible for commisioning the work, etc. etc. OR the publisher - or anyone at all that they may have subsequently asigned copyright to ... and the assignation of any copyright may well only confer very specific usage....... I could go on.

 

That is the precise problem, copyright has the potential to be so bloody complicated, it's insane. In reality, the 'practice' of 'borrowing' and using a picture, even commercially, when copyright clearly does not belong to the new 'user' is widespread, even more so with the relatively recent phenomona of simple, easy access to an unlimited resource of high resolution images on the internet, generally available for download to any interested party.

Technically, it IS an offence, but the problem is then how far does the original copyright owner persue it ... it's not a criminal offence, which means a private prosecution etc, so in real life it rarely happens unless the picture is either very well known, producing something very lucrative (or defamatory etc) in its nerw format, or belongs to a very few high-profile photographers who get extremely twitchy about such stuff.

 

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen my pictures appear without my prior knowledge ... and not a few times on the walls of the offices / studios of other, competing photographers, claiming them as their own work ... and you would NOT believe the satisfaction gained by being able to point that out to them, face to face

Edited January 14, 2017 by philocalist

[Mark Wintle]

Mark, the question of copyright is way muddier than you believe - and this is coming from someone who spent their life working as a pro photographer.

Copyright MAY indeed belong to the photographer ... or it may have nothing to do with the person who actually took the picture, and actually belong to who they were working for at the time as an employee. OR the person who commissioned the pictures. OR the person who actually paid for the commission. OR the person / company who instructed the person responsible for commisioning the work, etc. etc. OR the publisher - or anyone at all that they may have subsequently asigned copyright to ... and the assignation of any copyright may well only confer very specific usage....... I could go on.

 

That is the precise problem, copyright has the potential to be so bloody complicated, it's insane. In reality, the 'practice' of 'borrowing' and using a picture, even commercially, when copyright clearly does not belong to the new 'user' is widespread, even more so with the relatively recent phenomona of simple, easy access to an unlimited resource of high resolution images on the internet, generally available for download to any interested party.

Technically, it IS an offence, but the problem is then how far does the original copyright owner pursue it ... it's not a criminal offence, which means a private prosecution etc, so in real life it rarely happens unless the picture is either very well known, producing something very lucrative (or defamatory etc) in its new format, or belongs to a very few high-profile photographers who get extremely twitchy about such stuff.

 

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen my pictures appear without my prior knowledge ... and not a few times on the walls of the offices / studios of other, competing photographers, claiming them as their own work ... and you would NOT believe the satisfaction gained by being able to point that out to them, face to face

I was trying to keep to the simple version! I've spent years attempting to trace copyright holders, not always with success. I found one person had lifted a series of articles I did elsewhere on the net and created an e-book, claiming authorship/copyright as well... When I worked for a large bank all of my work belonged to the bank, a bit like Bernard Venables' Daily Mirror output belonging to Mirror Group Newspapers.