that's the second time they've done this in a few weeks....
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1057899/Pictured-The-credit-crunch-spoofs-laughing-way-bank-there.html
which reminds me that I still haven't chased them up for that. The irony is also not lost on me that in an article referencing the finanacial crisis, they are quite keen on using 'free' content
(
The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 14:44,
Reply)
hmmmm
no copyright b3ta.com on the pics in the first feature.
Has a deal been done with B3TA ?
(
beaubodor blogless, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 14:49,
Reply)
hmm, first I've heard of it.
/and not all the b3ta pics in the second article have been tagged with the copyright thing either.
Still, we always have this...
www.b3ta.com/questions/imagechallenge/post274135
(
The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 14:53,
Reply)
slightly edited now to give better parameters
/and an example...
(
The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 14:58,
Reply)
there's no deal
first I've heard of it is this thread
I'm not even sure B3ta is something that can legally hold copyright anyway, it's not a person or a company.
EDIT: Bollocks. This is Rob posting from a friends laptop not realising it's the wrong account.
(
amygdala, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 16:52,
Reply)
welcome, noob ;)
and ta for the clarification :)
(
The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 18:23,
Reply)
thieving twats
The new Daily Mail Watch site should be ready shortly. Happy to promote any repeat of this ebaumesque nonsense.
(
Manic can teach you the secret of fire, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 18:49,
Reply)
b3ta does not own copyright
copyright subsists in the original item produced by the contributor (subject to their having used sufficient skill and effort in producing it- a magenta cock on an image probably won't cut it with a Judge I suspect), IRRESPECTIVE of wether the producer has the permission of the copyright holder whose work (if any) they have plagiarised.
And as such the b3tan themself should be credited with copyright as B3ta does not take an assignment of copyright (legal or equitable) when pictures are posted (food for thoiught there Robbo) as b3ta simply provides a method of artists showcasing their work.
Just because you have no ownership of the copyright it wouldn't stop b3ta being cited as a co-defendant IN a copyright infringement action against a b3tan given you allow the method for potentially copyright-infringing material to be shown to the public.
One of these days I will write a guide about the facts for b3tans, (as far as they can be determined, nothing's ever clear in law, which is a good thing or I wouldn't have a job).
Suffice to say, the Daily Mail has no right to take the images without the PERMISSION of the artist, and should not be crediting B3ta for others work. They do that because big fat corporations are cunts (yes you knew that) who like to think they can stamp on the little people because they most likely have an in-house IP lawyer or it's taken them 30 seconds of their advisors time to tell them that on the balance or risk if an internet-nerd complains they'll just tell you they're much bigger than you, so you'll believe what they say, and won't take it any further.
(, Thu 16 Oct 2008, 18:55, Reply)