
nice one.
i'm in a pickle now, zoo have asked to use this image.

CFB
on one hand they can go fuck themselves, but on the other it does have the wank spanner in it.
i think i need a ruling from waspy.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 12:58,
archived)
i'm in a pickle now, zoo have asked to use this image.

CFB
on one hand they can go fuck themselves, but on the other it does have the wank spanner in it.
i think i need a ruling from waspy.

are you sure you want to be responsible for that?!
/edit/ I'm not going to ninja that, I quite like 'excapes'
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 12:59,
archived)
/edit/ I'm not going to ninja that, I quite like 'excapes'

It seems like they don't want to pay for anything but also want full rights to something. Which is a bit hard to sign away if you don't own copyright on some of the source material.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:02,
archived)

...anything for it, given that he doesn't own the copyright for the poster image? I don't know copyright law except to know that all those mp3s I don't download are totally illegal! :)
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:06,
archived)

involves signing rights for the original source image as used doesn't it?
From what I understand (admittedly not all that much) you might be safe agreeing to single use rights for your derivative image but not full rights unless you have permission from the original source image owners.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:18,
archived)
From what I understand (admittedly not all that much) you might be safe agreeing to single use rights for your derivative image but not full rights unless you have permission from the original source image owners.

You should always make sure there are no sell on rights or transfer of intellectual property rights.
You can say to zoo ' publish this with credit in the one issue you have asked for and I retain all IP rights' and I'm sure they will agree.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:26,
archived)
You can say to zoo ' publish this with credit in the one issue you have asked for and I retain all IP rights' and I'm sure they will agree.

I jjust got the impression that they were trying to get people to agree to passing on all rights, which is pretty normal behaviour for journalists.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:34,
archived)

'small print' regarding user submitted works and is the same for most publications. These are not submitted but solicited and if you read the GAZ they send there is no implication that they are asking for rights to be given up.
Some people are just confusing those points.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:39,
archived)
Some people are just confusing those points.

ignore. People are not quite correct in saying that you give up copyright in these cases. They are nut user submitted images ( as mentioned in their terms ) but solicited content. My personal view is that if they could give expensive prizes to 'readers' for submitting our work then why can't they offer the same to us when they solicit it?
It's up to you but the more b3tans cave to seeing their name in zoo then the less likely zoo will ever realize that they don't get fuck all for fuck all.
It's the principle.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:12,
archived)
It's up to you but the more b3tans cave to seeing their name in zoo then the less likely zoo will ever realize that they don't get fuck all for fuck all.
It's the principle.

i think a fuck off was on the cards anyway, but i just wanted a quick gauge of opinion.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:24,
archived)

TGA, ghosty, toasty and basically the usual suspects who got thieved a lot with the idea of a e-meet to discuss writing a collaborative letter on behalf of b3ta explaining that this idea of theirs is never going to take off but if emap want to enter into discussion that we at b3ta might consider contributing to their mags with due credit, retention of IP rights and some agreeable form of compensatory offer.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:31,
archived)

You know, someone that knows what they're doing with that kind of thing.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:33,
archived)

But I'd only consider that something worth doing if we were at a point where they were at least open to discussion about it. You need to get a discourse going first. And contrary to the impression we give myself, GA and a fair few others here are quite business and legal savvy.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:41,
archived)

That's why I suggest the lawyer. You don't get any negotiation points by writing angry, idealistic letters.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:44,
archived)

as I think 'angry and idealistic' would be the last place to start. ;)
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:46,
archived)

is submit the image to them.
The email address they give is the one for spam submissions. Therefore, if you email them saying it's OK to print, they treat that as a normal "spam" submission.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:36,
archived)
The email address they give is the one for spam submissions. Therefore, if you email them saying it's OK to print, they treat that as a normal "spam" submission.

Are you assuming that? All it takes is the correct wording to ensure that's not the case.
They are soliciting work via the GAZ, they can't deny otherwise.
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:44,
archived)
They are soliciting work via the GAZ, they can't deny otherwise.

aw what a little sweety you are!!!
now gaz me a picture of your face hahah
( ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:12,
archived)
now gaz me a picture of your face hahah