Online photo theft... again

[GarfieldLeChat]

Oi! You fucking stupid cunt.

I am not giving advice. I am NOT a legal professional.


I know what my rights are as an artist and photographer. I keep up to date with what changes and why.

Now please fuck off with your aggressive language and posting manner.

Buy yourself a penis enlargement instead.


FYI and for everyone else's, I am going to check the case history of the incident mentioned and report back here tomorrow if I'm told it's OK to report. If it's not, I'll PM someone and they can change names and dates etc before they post it.

Fuck. You're a tosser.

once again for everyones benifit


Copyright in Photographs of Works of Art

and why stanley edwards is not correct or even wildy or vaulge in the right ball park

once again

IGNORE STANLEY EDWARDS BOGUS ADVICE​

 

[Firky]

Shouting makes you look like a twat even if you're right.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

IGNORE STANLEY EDWARDS BOGUS ADVICE​

I am NOT giving advice

 

[equationgirl]

well, maybe, but garfield is pretty justified.

Stupidity and ignorance regarding IP law is woefully commonplace, and really does your head in if you have any proper grasp of the basics.

An article I was reading last week was reporting something as being preotected by 'copyrights' when they meant patents. Sends my blood pressure right through the roof.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Especially for Stanley:

(From the cavendish book quoted earlier)
Unfair uses:
1)reproduction without acknowledgement
2) to save time, labour and effort
3) merely reproducing
4) exploitation or profit without licence
5) malicious motive

And:

Is it a pure idea? - No = NO COPYRIGHT

Is work in material form - No - NO COPYRIGHT

What's a pure idea?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I am NOT giving advice

yes you are you are stating things as fact which are in reality your opinion...

 

[equationgirl]

Thought, concepts, ideas, anything really that you haven't EXPRESSED (drawn, taken a photo of, written about, recorded as a song etc).

i.e. something in the form of an idea or concept only.

For example, you could have an idea about light. But unless you express that idea, eg perhaps you took a photo of a reflection of light bouncing off water or buildings, or painted a picture capturing the effect of a sunset, then you have no copyright protection in your idea.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Shouting makes you look like a twat even if you're right.

hmm spoken as though you accutally have any credibility whatsoever ... you don't in case that was ever even slightly in doubt...

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Actually fuck it

for reffernce EQ girl works in law Laptop works in law Stanley Edwards paints for cash in hand in spain who'd you take copyright advice from...

Just for the record;

Stanley Edwards is John Haydn Colley. A professional artist and photographer for the past 5 years plus who works by contract and employs specialist professional legal experts when needed. They charge HUGE fees. That's why I have to also if I don't keep myself up to date with what's been happening.

For the past year I have been selling paintings for cash. I have also accepted various painting, design, photography and multimedia commissions to be completed this year. All clients have agreed contractual terms and agreed to pay 50% in advance. I am also negotiating book publishing crap that I know nothing about. I will be seeking professional advice for this also.

I am NOT giving advice. Simply putting another perspective on an internet board discussion. Nothing I read here is ever taken as a reference point of law. No one else should either.

It's simply an open discussion.


Now I'm off for a drink to try and agitate someone in Spanish.

 

[Firky]

I think that you will find most people will be in agreement that writing in oversized capitals to reinforce a fact or opinion - won't ever appear on the national curriculum. Although it works for the headlines of The Scum.

Its a bit cheeky of both parties. It is his photo and it was wrong for them to take it with out asking. He's also at fault for being so fuming that someone has taken his photo of someone elses' work. I have my designs ripped off and stuck on pixelgirlpresents and it pissed me off - but I put it online so there's the risk. Don't lose any sleep over it and am quite flattered in a way. Someone likes my work enough to make a wallpaper out of it for one of the biggest wallpaper design sites on the interweb.

edit to add: and I can't be arsed getting into an ad hominem debate about it. I have my toe nails to clip.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

yes you are you are stating things as fact which are in reality your opinion...

No I'm fucking well NOT. I am off to try and get facts now

Facts for why Copyright cases are lost and/or won. Not all are won you know. It's not a straightforward thing. The law rarely is!

 

[equationgirl]

Just for the record;

Stanley Edwards is John Haydn Colley. A professional artist and photographer for the past 5 years plus who works by contract and employs specialist professional legal experts when needed. They charge HUGE fees. That's why I have to also if I don't keep myself up to date with what's been happening.

For the past year I have been selling paintings for cash. I have also accepted various painting, design, photography and multimedia commissions to be completed this year. All clients have agreed contractual terms and agreed to pay 50% in advance. I am also negotiating book publishing crap that I know nothing about. I will be seeking professional advice for this also.

I am NOT giving advice. Simply putting another perspective on an internet board discussion. Nothing I read here is ever taken as a reference point of law. No one else should either.

It's simply an open discussion.


Now I'm off for a drink to try and agitate someone in Spanish.

Then, quite frankly Stanley, you should already know what copyright does and does not protect, and you should not need me to explain a 'pure idea'.

 

[untethered]

We do not believe that we have 'stolen' your images at all, but created a commentary (or visual essay) on how people's use of new media is changing the way we see and experience the world.

We believe that our use of the images on the cubes is covered by the 'fair use' exemption, and that the photographs of the assembled cubes on the blog (being documentary images of the cubes themselves) are also covered in this way.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email in which you acknowledged your use of my copyright work and asserted your belief that a "fair use exemption" (sic) in copyright law permits you to use my work without licence.

The Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 provides for "fair dealing" exemption from usual licencing for the following purposes:

- private study and research
- criticism and review
- news reporting

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv29

It is clear that your unlicenced use of my copyright work in a new work of your own falls outside these protected exemptions. I have not granted a licence to you for these uses and therefore you have and continue to infringe my copyright in these works.

Therefore I must ask that:

1. You cease to display the infringing works in public immediately.
2. You must remove all electronic copies of the infringing works from your computers (including removable media) within seven days.
3. You must deliver to me at (specify address) all tangible copies of the infringing works within seven days.
4. You must give a written undertaking that all infringing copies of my work have been destroyed or delivered up and that you will refrain from further infringing use of these works, within seven days.

Please also note that any place where you have exhibited my work without licence may be liable for a claim of secondary infringement under section 23 of the 1988 Act.

Regards,

 

[laptop]

You forgot breach of the moral right to be identified as the author under CPDA 1988 s. 80 (I think)




For the record, I don't work in law. I teach lawyers about authors rights and spend quite a lot of time in Brussels arguing about what it's going to do next

 

[equationgirl]

Are you *gasp* an MEP, laptop?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are you *gasp* an MEP, laptop?

Wow, that's one of the best cusses I've yet seen on Urban.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Thought, concepts, ideas, anything really that you haven't EXPRESSED (drawn, taken a photo of, written about, recorded as a song etc).

i.e. something in the form of an idea or concept only.

For example, you could have an idea about light. But unless you express that idea, eg perhaps you took a photo of a reflection of light bouncing off water or buildings, or painted a picture capturing the effect of a sunset, then you have no copyright protection in your idea.

Good to see you spotted the ambiguous bit.

Fucking know it all upstarts

 

[laptop]

Are you *gasp* an MEP, laptop?

No. I'm a fucking trade unionist

 

[laptop]

Good to see you spotted the ambiguous bit.

What's ambiguous?

Copyright does not protect ideas.

You've been arguing from the standpoint that it should. Then you've been making up what the law ought to be in Edwardsistan. Which has nothing to do with what it is in any known country.

If you want to protect an idea, you patent it.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

What's ambiguous?

Copyright does not protect ideas.

You've been arguing from the standpoint that it should. Then you've been making up what the law ought to be in Edwardsistan. Which has nothing to do with what it is in any known country.

If you want to protect an idea, you patent it.

No - I haven't

I argue that Copyright should be overhauled to protect ideas as much as images. I will always. Especially as ideas are becoming the more valuable 'commodity'.

I haven't 'made up' or, even proposed what a law should be in my own ideology.

The ambiguous bit in this case is the expressions of that idea/concept as recorded media.

If this case went to court, I strongly suspect that Giles and Alice would win. Arbitrary judges decisions aside, I can't see that he has a case to defend. Very, very difficult to prove even if you follow the law to the letter.

 

[untethered]

If this case went to court, I strongly suspect that Giles and Alice would win. Arbitrary judges decisions aside, I can't see that he has a case to defend. Very, very difficult to prove even if you follow the law to the letter.

On what grounds do you think they've got a defence?

They've acknowledged using the copyright work without licence on the spurious grounds of "fair use".

There don't seem to be any particularly complex matters of fact or law to determine.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

There don't seem to be any particularly complex matters of fact or law to determine.

Fucking hell. I keep trying to log off and switch off from this Bleedin internet!

There never are any 'complex matters of fact or, law to determine', merely technicalities or, summat.

People tend to forget that the law is simply there to guide. The world changes. The law that guides has to change also.

If we're going to follow this thread through to it's conclusion then I suggest we give Tricky Skills as much support as we can to see it through. Maybe Giles (and ALICE) will back down immediately. I suspect they won't.

Banksy has just given graffiti a huge new quota of public respect amongst the elite of the UK. This is just one factor of changing attitudes.

Can anyone point to a test case for a graffiti artist trying to protect their work under automatically assigned Copyright?

 

[Paul Russell]

Some little fucker has been nicking my photos once again. Not just mine, but all the other contributors to The Way We See It, and then pimping them out as his own piece of 'artistic value.'

Hey, you should be grateful to be regarded as the carrion for their "media scavenging philosophy.



From the blog:

"In line with our emerging media scavenging philosophy this model does not require massive investment"

 

[Tricky Skills]

Now I know why I decided not to go into law and simply become a carrion for media scavenging philosophers. The pay's not great, and some of the company can be quite testing as well.

I've pretty said all that I have to say here. Thanks for the advice, not so the missives.

The situation still exists that a number of orginal photographs had the copyright breached, for the purpose of an ego boost for some charlatans giving the world of art a bad name.

That's the facts.

 

[untethered]

Can anyone point to a test case for a graffiti artist trying to protect their work under automatically assigned Copyright?

Given that the kind of illegal graffiti you're referring to inherently implies infringing someone else's property rights (not to mention breaking the criminal law) then I doubt it.

I don't know what's so hard for these people to just withdraw the work, even if they can't bring themselves to say sorry.

There is a huge movement for rethinking laws and social customs regarding ownership and use of creative and intellectual works. However, that's based on the idea that people are looking to free up other people's uses of their own work, not appropriating other people's work for their own profit.

 

[Paul Russell]

It's pretty brazen what they have done. Just plundering the The Way We See It site. If I had contributed pics and they were used, I would be a bit pissed off.

I can only assume that Giles was so busy pondering the philosophical significance of his "work" that he forgot about the practicalities of copyright law.

The situation still exists that a number of orginal photographs had the copyright breached, for the purpose of an ego boost for some charlatans giving the world of art a bad name.

That's the facts.

 

[equationgirl]

What's ambiguous?

Copyright does not protect ideas.

You've been arguing from the standpoint that it should. Then you've been making up what the law ought to be in Edwardsistan. Which has nothing to do with what it is in any known country.

If you want to protect an idea, you patent it.

ACtually, strictly speaking, it's inventions that patents protect, and again, if you haven't reduced the idea to practice (industrial applicability) then you're unlikely to be granted a patent.

Stanley, I'm at a loss to see where the ambiguity lies. The law is quite clear, for once, on what is and is not proectable by copyright.

Ideas alone are not a valuable commodity. They have to be expressed into knowledge - the 'knowledge economy' appears to where we are heading. But knowledge still has to be managed and properly protected, whether through copyright, patents, trade secrets, confidential information, know-how or designs.

Anyone can have an idea.

But only a few people will express it, protect it and use it.

Thanks for calling me a know-it all upstart, I obviously know more than you in this area and it annoyed you!

 

[equationgirl]

It's pretty brazen what they have done. Just plundering the The Way We See It site. If I had contributed pics and they were used, I would be a bit pissed off.

I can only assume that Giles was so busy pondering the philosophical significance of his "work" that he forgot about the practicalities of copyright law.

Forgot, no.

Deliberately ignored, quite possibly.

In my very humble opinion.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Now I know why I decided not to go into law and simply become a carrion for media scavenging philosophers. The pay's not great, and some of the company can be quite testing as well.

I've pretty said all that I have to say here. Thanks for the advice, not so the missives.

The situation still exists that a number of orginal photographs had the copyright breached, for the purpose of an ego boost for some charlatans giving the world of art a bad name.

That's the facts.

So, you're not going to carry out the convictions of your words? If not - why not?

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Given that the kind of illegal graffiti you're referring to inherently implies infringing someone else's property rights (not to mention breaking the criminal law) then I doubt it...

But, when it's seen to sell for £100,000 then the law gets interested. And, in many circumstances it isn't illegal graffiti.