Reproduction of pictures.
 

Sorry about this but I am so incensed about this I just had to post to vent my anger!!!

Have been viewing wezzie's ( She is the mod on .net for those who dont know her ) myspace page and was really p****d off to see that she has the cross stitch pics that Ali (Firefly) and Chris ( Clpmss ) have worked so hard on displayed on her page.

This really annoyed me because I know that she has not asked permission to use the pics, neither has she credited Ali or Chris as the people responsible for creating these works. Anyone viewing this page could easily think that wezzie is responsible for the pics the way they are displayed.

Are there no rules about using pics in this way?

Not unless they can prove they are their copyright, and they are the original owners of said material. I think that is how it works. :D

Please excuse my limited knowledge but I think that if you don't actually say not to reproduce a picture then it's open to all to use, check out how AndyK shows his pictures on this site with a watermark.

Minor point I know but in the interest of harmony should the thread not read "dodgy dealings on Myspace"?

Saying that, I know how much work went into those cross stitch pics and how long they took and I agree that it's not fair for someone else to display pics of them without a credit for the sore fingered Ali andChris!!!!!!!!

Out of politeness she should have asked and I'd be annoyed if any of my artwork pics ended up on a MySpace without permission, but as Michael says if they're not watermarked in anyway and at no point it's been requested that they're not used elsewhere then they're free to be used...

I absolutely agree that someone should have been asked if nothing but for the sake of politeness, but in terms of breaking rules etc there really isn't anything wrong

If anyone has an issue with their pictures being posted on another site then they should take it up with the person who has posted them directly and not here.

It is common practise to ask the "owner" of the pictures for permission before you reproduce them elsewhere, but to come on here and kick off about a site that isn't even involved directly is out of order. This issue is nothing at all to do with .net.

Thread title changed to reflect the true topic of the discussion.

from experience with meatloaf unofficial website, as some of you may know.... If your using pics on any iste that aren't yours then you need permission. When I first started the site, I din't know much about copyright but I do now - believe me! and got told of by a few people for using their pics without their permission.

One thing also, I think if you don't ask permisson you could at least give them credit for it, don't you think?

I don't see what the big deal is to be honest. Most of the times the pictures that are posted on the net have been resized making it virtually impossible to make nice prints of the pictures. And so what if someone else uses your picture? Giving credit I agree is morally correct but you cannot expect to be able to teach everybody on the internet what is right and what is wrong.
Working years on a movie / music album and then seeing a free download link I would have thought is a lot more frustrating than a couple of pictures you've probably spent 5 seconds on to make. If people are so worried about their pictures getting used elsewhere you should not post them. Posting them here is already preventing a lot of reuse as you can only get to them by being a member of mlukfc anyway, so I guess if people were still to do it the mods could ban them and they are right to that as it's their site.

I posted a picture of Meat Loaf on stage from Glasgow 04 (taken on stage) here without the photographer's permission tbut I tried several times to get in touch and ask him if it was okay and if I could get/buy a full size picture from him. He never replied. So does that mean I am not allowed to post it and thus prevent several (eventually) delighted fans of Meat Loaf to never see that?

Moved. The "cross stitch" thread is in here as well.

That is not the case.

In the case of a photo for example, whoever takes the photo owns the copyright. It doesn't matter whether or not you add a watermark or say that it can not be reproduced, the legal position is that a photo and the photo's copyright belongs to the person who took the photo.

Of course it's not so easy to prove a photo is yours if you do not have a copyright mark on it but the legal position is that you do not have to have one to establish copyright.

Like I said, limited knowledge lol

but what if the owner of the photo posts the picture on an open forum, with no instructions not to use said photo elsewhere? just a thought

Here's an official website that might help - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/whatis.htm and the page about automatic protection is at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-claim/c-auto.htm

It doesn't matter. The person who took the photo legally owns the copyright and has the right to say where and if it can be posted elsewhere.

What if someone took a photo at a concert but the concert organisers clearly states no photography? In that case, wouldn't the organisers have copyright on all photo's taken not the person taking the photo?

Pud :twisted:

A few of my drawnings are on a few photo sites but the people who run the sites have asked me if they could post them. If you drawn something, created something, or taken a picture you own the copyrights to it. It is yours unless you read the copyright laws on youtube. BTW she should at least give credit to those who have made the cross stitch pictures since they are not hers but others.

No, the owner of the photo (the person who took the photo) has the copyright.

Otherwise all the paparazzi photos which are taken without permission wouldn't belong to them and they do.

Of course at a concert they can remove you if you take a photo and probably have the right to get you to remove the photo from your camera but that's something else and not copyright law.

So, if I was invited into your house for dinner and took a picture of you naked peeling potatoes, the copyright of the pictures taken are mine and you couldn't do a thing about it, even though you may have strictly requested me not to? And the next day, I could sell those pictures on Ebay and you still couldn't do a thing about it because I had the copyright, is that correct?

Pud :twisted:

:))

limited knowlegde about this, but:
isnt there something like the right of the own picture? That you can demand what to happen with any picture taken of you. (There was a pretty big lawsuit about some european queen (princess? I dont know who exactly it was about) going on a few years ago) So as long as youre not a person of public interest you can demand the pictures not being sold on ebay BUT the copyright would still be yours.

Am I right here?

I'd say that peeling potatoes naked could be much more dangerous than just an implied threat of your picture taken like that...

:bleh: You been round my house again, Pud?

:pics:

Now darling, you know they're private between us two, and not for posting on a public forum...

You checked ebay recently? :p

Leaving aside the fact that touching potatoes makes me ill so that would never happen(!), you are confusing the laws of privacy and the laws of copyright.

You would own the copyright to the photo but I'm pretty sure (although I haven't checked) that I could prevent you from publishing and profiting from the photos under privacy laws.