b3ta.com board

Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 7165069 (Thread)

Well this is the grey area as I keep saying.

As we didn't own the copyright of the original they say it's fine for them to take.

(

riverghost servicing your mum since, Tue 8 May 2007, 10:57, archived)

That's not entirely true

Some people (like me) use their own pics to shop occasionally

Just so you know

(

mediocre ha ha ha, you're reading this, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:01, archived)

aye

http://www.b3ta.com/board/7165079

(horrid, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:02, archived)

I also like the fact that they call it 'Reader winner'

although the winner probably doesn't read the magazine at all

(

mediocre ha ha ha, you're reading this, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:03, archived)

and...

are any photos I take automatically owned by me? ie can't be reproduced without my permission?

(horrid, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:06, archived)

as far as I'm aware

if you take a photo

you own that photo

(

discomeats This canoe, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:17, archived)

yeah thought that was the case

cheers

(horrid, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:18, archived)

I'm not a lawyer tho, just an idiot on the net

but I'm convinced that's the case

in the uk

I get the impression in the us you can be forced to get clearance for images that you take of folks but I bet that only applies to rich and important folks, I do remember someone telling me over there they needed permission to sell a drawing they made of someone

(

discomeats This canoe, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:22, archived)

think it's same here actually

my photos aren't that great but I did look into photo-libraries in case I start taking some good ones! Apparently if your photo is clearly 'of someone' as it were you're supposed to get a release form signed by them.

I don't know if this is just to cover the library's back, but it does make me wonder - what about news photos and generally unflattering photos of people you see every day? Because if I could I'd quite fancy going and taking photos the subjects won't like :-)

(horrid, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:29, archived)

I think

(at the risk of sounding like a scratched bastard :D)

that it requires looking at the approprite law and getting a complete understanding of exactly what's what

(

discomeats This canoe, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:35, archived)

alright clever-arse

but what's the point in doing research yourself when you can get people on web forums to look it up for you? ;-)

(horrid, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:46, archived)

like an army of slaves?

crawling all over the internet

bringing you news and information, all the time, building up your power

till you find your moment, and become a throbbing king of the world!

and all tremble at your feets!

(

discomeats This canoe, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:51, archived)

was throbbing the right word there?

and yeah, I could do that, but I'll probably forget and fall asleep

(horrid, Tue 8 May 2007, 12:07, archived)

yes

the grreater the vigour of throb the better

(

discomeats This canoe, Tue 8 May 2007, 12:18, archived)

depends

if you took it during work time
then your firm owns it

(

The King of Hats Cone of shame, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:22, archived)

the "legally defined party that took the photograph owns it"

how about that?

(

discomeats This canoe, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:26, archived)

work owns everything you do in work time

*hides sketch book, archives and deletes B3ta folder from hard drive*

(

The King of Hats Cone of shame, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:30, archived)

unless you have some arrangement to the contrary

of course if you have one of those crap contracts where "everything" you create while you are an employee (and not just on work hours) belongs to the employer that's a different kettle of shit

and yes, some folk sign such unreasonable shit :D

(

discomeats This canoe, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:38, archived)

some of those "reader" names are a tad suspicious....

HELLO FRED!!
and Danni T!!

oh, they don't really exist? .....ahhh!

(

The King of Hats Cone of shame, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:08, archived)

maybe they should be taken to task on that

gmtv were caught out weren't they

(horrid, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:14, archived)

And if they use those

That's a direct copyright infringement. Can you Gaz me with any examples they have used?

(

riverghost servicing your mum since, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:04, archived)

also

if you change/shop an image by 25% (i think)
then it is no longer held by it's original copyright

although it's got to be tricky figuring what exactly is 25%
i think it was brought in to stop peeps suing each other
over images/logos etc that coincidentally look a little alike

(

The King of Hats Cone of shame, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:05, archived)

I believe the law states

that it can't be distinguishable from the original.

(

riverghost servicing your mum since, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:07, archived)

In terms of music, it's more about whether or not the song would still be a song without the sample.

If that helps at all.

For example, "Ice Ice Baby" would not still be a song if it didn't have that sample from "Under Pressure".

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:27, archived)

that sounds very hard

maybe we need a lawyer chappy, or chappess to explain it all

or maybe a "munters guide to the legalities of images" as it's own faq?

(

discomeats This canoe, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:19, archived)

yeah, sorry

i only deal with copyright in relation to printed words
i'm a little hazey on the image side of things

(

The King of Hats Cone of shame, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:24, archived)

I think 'Fair Usage'

And the fact that something new and unique has been made out of images posted here mitigates the fact they're 'nicked' images.

The fact that Zoo/Nuts just crop the images to avoid crediting whoever made them makes what they do, I believe, technically intellectual property theft.

If I found any of my work in their crappy mag I'd take them to the fucking cleaners. But as I'm not good enough, I doubt that's a situation I'll ever find myself in.

(Woodgie is back, but for how long?, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:01, archived)

uk law doesn't have 'fair usage'

so that argument doesn't hold up

(

mictoboy shitting in your cunt since, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:02, archived)

you could argue it's satire

but I bet it would be wobbly in court :D

(

discomeats This canoe, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:23, archived)

Don't we?

Bollocks, then in that case I'll go with the right of every Englishman to have a laugh by putting text on a picture...

...and shopping a kitten

(Woodgie is back, but for how long?, Tue 8 May 2007, 11:39, archived)