# Its amazing who is looking at photos



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Invertebrates | The Reptile Report

Found this and while i know if you post photos on here they go to google and they have credited them i cant help but be a bit annoyed that someone has taken photos off here and edited them for their site to then link to the post on here without asking the owners of the photos. I know the moderators wont really care because its bringing in more people to the forum on a personal note im a tad irritated. Have messaged the owner of the website explaining how i feel and how i would appreciate being asked before my photos were cropped and edited and how i didnt know this until my other half googled and found our images. I am aware that images off this forum goes to google and some of you will just shrug this off.


----------



## SamWest (Sep 11, 2012)

At least they _are_ crediting people 
imagine how many photos have essentially been stolen and nobody knows about it


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

SamWest said:


> At least they _are_ crediting people
> imagine how many photos have essentially been stolen and nobody knows about it


I get the crediting thing and yea suppose thats the good thing but its a bit annoying that this person has perhaps a large collection of photos off this forum on their computer they have edited to post on their website. I mean they could of at least messaged people saying do u mind if i do this. Its only courtesy isnt it?


----------



## SamWest (Sep 11, 2012)

selina20 said:


> I get the crediting thing and yea suppose thats the good thing but its a bit annoying that this person has perhaps a large collection of photos off this forum on their computer they have edited to post on their website. I mean they could of at least messaged people saying do u mind if i do this. Its only courtesy isnt it?


You would have thought! 
I've never been sure if the reptile report is a for profit thing
if it is, then your photos are earning them money, right ? :/


----------



## gambitgareth (Sep 18, 2011)

they seem to be chock full of advertising...


----------



## Mrchancellor87 (Jan 10, 2012)

I'm annoyed cos he spelt my name 'Mrchancelor87'... Two l's you thieving bastad ;D


----------



## Tarantulaguy01 (Mar 31, 2012)

who cares :bash:


----------



## corny girl (Aug 30, 2009)

Mrchancellor87 said:


> I'm annoyed cos he spelt my name 'Mrchancelor87'... Two l's you thieving bastad ;D



I did see they had some of your pics Mrchancellor87. I know they have nicked some of my spider pics, will look later & see if they've also taken any of my Snake or Lizard pics :devil:.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2013)

Seriously what's the problem? They have credited people for their photos, not tried saying they are theirs. 

What is it you're after from this? A gold medal and £300,000,000 image rights? If you're sharing it in a public forum then it's made public. Be thankful they have still given you credit for this.


----------



## Colosseum (Aug 8, 2008)

What a load of pap, if you don't want photos published on other sites don't post them here in the first place its the internet no one cares, if it is bothering you so much put a watermark on you image.

In other word who gives a toss.


----------



## Smudge375 (Dec 22, 2012)

You can water msrk your pics as people have already said. You can also not name your pics correctly so they don't show up correctly in google images ie use numbers & not names


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

I for one dont want my photos being used on a page full of american advertising


----------



## Colosseum (Aug 8, 2008)

selina20 said:


> I for one dont want my photos being used on a page full of american advertising


I posted a picture of my knob on a forum once and that made its way onto a site.


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Colosseum said:


> I posted a picture of my knob on a forum once and that made its way onto a site.


I dread to think what the name of that site was :lol2:


----------



## bbav (Oct 17, 2007)

Smudge375 said:


> You can water msrk your pics as people have already said. You can also not name your pics correctly so they don't show up correctly in google images ie use numbers & not names


 This^^^
There are many programs that will watermark images..It also stops people using your images for fake classified adds.


----------



## AilsaM (May 18, 2011)

Smudge375 said:


> You can water msrk your pics as people have already said. You can also not name your pics correctly so they don't show up correctly in google images ie use numbers & not names





bbav said:


> This^^^
> There are many programs that will watermark images..It also stops people using your images for fake classified adds.


Think I'll be doing this with the pics I post from now on, last thing I want is for people pinching my pics for the purpose of fake classified adds.


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

bbav said:


> This^^^
> There are many programs that will watermark images..It also stops people using your images for fake classified adds.


Watermarks can be edited out. The only way to prove the pic belongs to you is to keep RAW files of it which we have of all of our photos. I would not of minded if i had been asked. It was the sheer principle of not being asked that has irritated me


----------



## pcharlton (Mar 23, 2012)

selina20 said:


> I dread to think what the name of that site was :lol2:


fishing weekly :lol2::lol2:


----------



## AilsaM (May 18, 2011)

selina20 said:


> Watermarks can be edited out. The only way to prove the pic belongs to you is to keep RAW files of it which we have of all of our photos. I would not of minded if i had been asked. It was the sheer principle of not being asked that has irritated me


How easy is it to edit out watermarks if you add it to pics then? I'm going to download the software so I can use this with future pics I post but if it's easily edited out by someone determind to use the image, is it really worth it? Just asking.


----------



## Theevilreddevil (Oct 30, 2008)

just post bad photos like i do and they won't use them :2thumb:


----------



## mattykyuss (Oct 12, 2009)

*re*

i get your point selina ,they should ask first if you mind them using your pictures,do you come across some of yours just by browsing on google ,would like to see if any of mine are on there ?


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

mattykyuss said:


> i get your point selina ,they should ask first if you mind them using your pictures,do you come across some of yours just by browsing on google ,would like to see if any of mine are on there ?


I think so and presume so when posting on this forum. Another thing iv noticed is a lot of my pics have my name on now and they have cropped them to remove them. I know there are a few people who arent happy that have messaged him


----------



## snowgoose (May 5, 2009)

A proper watermark is much harder to edit out.

Fair enough, some can distort the picture somewhat, but they still allow you to view the image as a whole. You're pictures are easily edited Selina. It;s just a case of cropping and playing for 5 mins


----------



## pcharlton (Mar 23, 2012)

Theevilreddevil said:


> just post bad photos like i do and they won't use them :2thumb:


Thats why i post bad pics:whistling2::whistling2::lol2:


----------



## Theevilreddevil (Oct 30, 2008)

pcharlton said:


> Thats why i post bad pics:whistling2::whistling2::lol2:


Invertebrates | The Reptile Report :2thumb:


----------



## Mark75 (Jan 21, 2007)

Basically they've used our photos to intentionally direct people to their site which is loaded with advertising. In effect they are increasing their audience to view the adverts which are probably paid for.


----------



## Colosseum (Aug 8, 2008)

Mark75 said:


> Basically they've used our photos to intentionally direct people to their site which is loaded with advertising. In effect they are increasing their audience to view the adverts which are probably paid for.


Who cares its the internet and life's to short to worry about stuff like measly Spider pictures, people getting a boner over this need therapy.


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Colosseum said:


> Who cares its the internet and life's to short to worry about stuff like measly Spider pictures, people getting a boner over this need therapy.


Im so keeping this for next time you chuck your toys out your pram :Na_Na_Na_Na:. I actually posted this to make people aware of what went on.


----------



## pcharlton (Mar 23, 2012)

I must copy right my pics so knowone can use them:Na_Na_Na_Na::Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## AilsaM (May 18, 2011)

pcharlton said:


> I must copy right my pics so knowone can use them:Na_Na_Na_Na::Na_Na_Na_Na:


Why, has your photography skills improved suddenly :whistling2:


----------



## pcharlton (Mar 23, 2012)

AilsaM said:


> Why, has your photography skills improved suddenly :whistling2:


they have always been good:2thumb:


----------



## AilsaM (May 18, 2011)

pcharlton said:


> they have always been good:2thumb:


You sure about that :Na_Na_Na_Na::lol2:


----------



## Colosseum (Aug 8, 2008)

selina20 said:


> Im so keeping this for next time you chuck your toys out your pram :Na_Na_Na_Na:. I actually posted this to make people aware of what went on.


Oh goodie! People know what goes on they aren't thick.


----------



## Theevilreddevil (Oct 30, 2008)

I'm quite upset none of mine were good enough to steal :sad::sad::sad:


----------



## AilsaM (May 18, 2011)

Theevilreddevil said:


> I'm quite upset none of mine were good enough to steal :sad::sad::sad:


I wouldn't worry, none of mine were good enough to steal either :lol2:


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Colosseum said:


> Oh goodie! People know what goes on they aren't *thick*.


That could be debatable XD


----------



## Veyron (Mar 29, 2011)

And the lesson is... ...Never post any pictures on the internet that you don't want certain people to see or use.

It's not as if they're you bank details that have been posted, it's only invert pics and if you seen one, you've seen 'em all.

I think in this instance, people should message the guy and thank _him_ for taking the time to actually credit the pictures, rather than just posting them.


----------



## Colosseum (Aug 8, 2008)

If you input species into google it draws them from all websites, maybe Selina20 should write to google as well lmfao!


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

Well, I have to say I don't see the point in painting a picture no one looks at so photos pretty much the same. 

You weren't using them for publications or research, or to make money, so I don't really see what the fuss is about - or have I missed something?


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

GRB said:


> Well, I have to say I don't see the point in painting a picture no one looks at so photos pretty much the same.
> 
> You weren't using them for publications or research, or to make money, so I don't really see what the fuss is about - or have I missed something?


I suppose there is a line though *if* another party uses an image in a way resulting in financial gain from it's use. That's happened plenty of times over the years and just look how many companies are in the business of looking for unauthorised use and stamping on it with legal action. 
About 14-15 years back I had an entire website of mine pulled for having a couple of images of Barney (yes, the purple dinosaur) on, nice letter from the lawyers went to the hosting service and bam that was that. (It was an anti-barney website so basically they didn't like it mocking their product and looked for a reason to get it shot down, the hosts panicked at the threat of being sued and so kicked me off).


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

GRB said:


> Well, I have to say I don't see the point in painting a picture no one looks at so photos pretty much the same.
> 
> You weren't using them for publications or research, or to make money, so I don't really see what the fuss is about - or have I missed something?


Some of them are being used in a publication :whistling2:


----------



## Gratenkutzombie (Dec 28, 2012)

Once a photo is in the public domain - i.e. posted here, then people can do what they wish. Copyright doesn't mean diddly squat on the internet.


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

Gratenkutzombie said:


> Once a photo is in the public domain - i.e. posted here, then people can do what they wish. Copyright doesn't mean diddly squat on the internet.


But was there copyright statement even attached?

I don't think any of it holds up unless you have a statement of limitations of use? Wikipedia for example, each image has a statement showing what you can and can not do with the image. I could see the issue if such was given then ignored. 

@Selina: If it was for use in a publication then I would not have posted it on a public forum, facebook, imageshack, etc, if I were you.


----------



## angelgirls29 (Jul 10, 2010)

snowgoose said:


> A proper watermark is much harder to edit out.
> 
> Fair enough, some can distort the picture somewhat, but they still allow you to view the image as a whole. You're pictures are easily edited Selina. It;s just a case of cropping and playing for 5 mins


Jake, you did the watermarks on my images and they cannot be more obvious, do you agree?
My photos are on there.


----------



## snowgoose (May 5, 2009)

angelgirls29 said:


> Jake, you did the watermarks on my images and they cannot be more obvious, do you agree?
> My photos are on there.


I did do your watermark.

They have cropped the face and just used that. If anyone clicks the link to see the image in full, they see it's yours


----------



## Colosseum (Aug 8, 2008)

All this over pictures of bloody Spiders


----------



## AilsaM (May 18, 2011)

Colosseum said:


> All this over pictures of bloody Spiders


Just what I was thinking, such a fuss because someone did a search on Google, pulled a few pics of the internet and used them in a publication, granted in an ideal world then permission would have been sought BUT this is not an ideal world, far from it.

@ Selina, if your really that bothered and annoyed then why don't you just contact the people who used your pictures directly, if your really _that bothered_ about it !!


----------



## Theevilreddevil (Oct 30, 2008)

i heard a rumor shes got herself a lawyer:gasp:


----------



## Colosseum (Aug 8, 2008)

Theevilreddevil said:


> i heard a rumor shes got herself a lawyer:gasp:


Free legal aid


----------



## AilsaM (May 18, 2011)

Theevilreddevil said:


> i heard a rumor shes got herself a lawyer:gasp:


:roll2::roll2:


----------



## Veyron (Mar 29, 2011)

boxofsorrows said:


> I suppose there is a line though *if* another party uses an image in a way resulting in financial gain from it's use. That's happened plenty of times over the years and just look how many companies are in the business of looking for unauthorised use and stamping on it with legal action.
> About 14-15 years back I had an entire website of mine pulled for having a couple of images of Barney (yes, the purple dinosaur) on, nice letter from the lawyers went to the hosting service and bam that was that. (It was an anti-barney website so basically they didn't like it mocking their product and looked for a reason to get it shot down, the hosts panicked at the threat of being sued and so kicked me off).


That is totally irrelevant. You're talking about taking photos of a companies iconic product/brand, which they invented. Plus as yours was 'anti Barney', then obviously they would look for an excuse to get rid it, because it could damage their business and profit.

These are random spiders that are identical to millions of others in that species, that none of us created.


----------



## EffyDaydream (Jan 29, 2012)

I just think it's a little strange to be credited but not asked lol. Woulda thought they would have not even bothered the credit to be fair... Just look at it as a compliment; they like your photography.


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

Veyron said:


> That is totally irrelevant. You're talking about taking photos of a companies iconic product/brand, which they invented. Plus as yours was 'anti Barney', then obviously they would look for an excuse to get rid it, because it could damage their business and profit.
> 
> These are random spiders that are identical to millions of others in that species, that none of us created.


I guess if you're not familiar with the whole "anti-barney" thing from back then, then you wouldn't get it. But it was all quite humorous and was doing quite well in promoting their product if anything. But yes, I was off on a bit of a tangent. 
However the point is, regardless of whether the spiders are the same as millions of other spiders the world over, these are still photographs that the photographer has ownership of, it's not so much the content of the photo but the time taken to compose it that matters. 

There have been loads of places selling "art" photo prints, the kind of thing you find in offices etc but the photo's they were using had been ganked off Flikr, Deviantart etc, some were nothing more than flowers, landscapes and such that the seller could have went out and photographed themselves but instead chose to use someone elses time/effort to make a profit from.

So yeah, anyone can go out and take a photo of a B smithi and it'll be a B smithi the same as any other B smithi - the point is the photographer has taken the time, their time, to take probably a whole bunch of pic's, then sort through them maybe crop/adjust them so they look good - why then should that time and effort be seen as free for someone else to profit from? 

If you want a shiny car but don't want to take the time to polish it yourself then you have to pay someone else to do it!


----------



## Veyron (Mar 29, 2011)

boxofsorrows said:


> So yeah, anyone can go out and take a photo of a B smithi and it'll be a B smithi the same as any other B smithi - the point is the photographer has taken the time, their time, to take probably a whole bunch of pic's, then sort through them maybe crop/adjust them so they look good - *why then should that time and effort be seen as free for someone else to profit from?*


That last point is why some people feel aggrieved, but you should be asking, "why not ?".

I bet half the people on here have thumbnail pics that are 'stolen' from the internet. I just don't see this being any different to cutting pictures out of a newspaper or magazine.

If it wasn't legally stated that the owner had the copyrights, then surely it's taken for granted that they're 'free game'.


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

Like I said, it's drawing the line as to where the difference lies between reasonable use such as a background on an individuals laptop versus using the image to make a profit. Some people are quite happy to see their time and effort put to use without them being financially rewarded - there are photo's of one of my old cars in a book, I asked for nothing in return since i was just chuffed that the car would be in there (a lot of other owners did the same), but the guy's made a nice little profit from the book and the only work he did was to gather up photo's and get some written permission to use them. But people and companies can not just go around assuming that they have the right to simply take something "just because it's there" - it's akin to someone going around cutting all the flowers from a Council flower bed and then selling them on the local market - they're out there just sitting in the public domain but I don't recall having ever seen a sign up along the lines of "these flowers are owned by Northumberland County Council, no picking, no cutting, no selling..." but I'm damned sure I'd be in Court pretty quick if I tried it!


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

Pete informed me that copyright is assumed, so you don't need to state limitations of use as I suggested. 

Saying that however, it's is on the owner of the image to do something about it if they are unhappy. 

Like I said before though, why put it up if you don't want people to see it and use it? It'd be like getting angry that you gave someone advice here and they used it without crediting you everytime they spoke it. 

If you don't want people to use your images, then best to keep them offline. There's no use blaming the hosting site or us - iirc, we do not make any allusions to the idea that these are private galleries or that we would protect your imagery. It's a public forum that guests can access - so sensitive material is best not posted, whatever the media, unless you are happy with randoms being able to see it.


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

It comes down to "fair use" GRB, taking a photo with the intent to share with (show to) people freely is quite different to taking a photo intended for commercial use. As soon as any commercial aspect comes into play then it is a change in intended use - there would be no encouragement for anyone to place images online for the enjoyment of others if there was a mass commercial free-for-all consumption of them and I think rather a lot of professional photographers/publishers/artists/models would be none too happy at being out of work if it was fair-game to just "collect" images willy-nilly online at nada cost and re-publish them at pure profit.


----------



## Veyron (Mar 29, 2011)

boxofsorrows said:


> Like I said, it's drawing the line as to where the difference lies between reasonable use such as a background on an individuals laptop versus using the image to make a profit. Some people are quite happy to see their time and effort put to use without them being financially rewarded - there are photo's of one of my old cars in a book, I asked for nothing in return since i was just chuffed that the car would be in there (a lot of other owners did the same), but the guy's made a nice little profit from the book and the only work he did was to gather up photo's and get some written permission to use them. But people and companies can not just go around assuming that they have the right to simply take something "just because it's there" - it's akin to someone going around cutting all the flowers from a Council flower bed and then selling them on the local market - they're out there just sitting in the public domain but I don't recall having ever seen a sign up along the lines of "these flowers are owned by Northumberland County Council, no picking, no cutting, no selling..." but I'm damned sure I'd be in Court pretty quick if I tried it!



Again that's totally different. That is taking/stealing and/or destroying the original. 

What's happened here, is someone copying something...so it's more along the lines of an artist making a painting of Northumberlands County Councils flowerbeds and then selling the painting. ...Which people do..


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

People seem to believe certain stances when it comes to their pictures and copyright. Unfortunately, those stances are often wrong or misguided.

Copyright is applied to your photographs by default. You don't have to add copyright or watermarks etc, however, doing so helps protect your images. Nor can you forgo such rights by putting your photos on the internet, despite what company policy might say, it does not overrule the law. Public domain is often used as an argument, but again it does not overrule your ownership. However, nobody else is going to enforce the law for you (unless you pay them), so its something you need to enforce if you feel necessary.

If someone has decided to take your photos and display them elsewhere you have every right to ask them not to do so and they should comply with that. But, unless there's a legal or negative threat most people won't bother, and you could argue that the cost of such action isn't worth it, you would be talking in £0000's. However, if someone is using your photos for financial gain you could argue for a percentage of that money. Of course figuring whether it was your photograph or someone elses, and to what extent isn't going to be easy. But, collectively a group of people could act to have their photos removed. There is obviously the argument that the images are already visible to the public, and the links go back to the original source, so it could be easy for the owner of the site to suggest no financial gain is made until someone decides to click on the adverts. And, considering publication if the images were already on the net then the person who has done so (Selina) can't really argue against it. As far as crediting someone for photographs I'm fairly sure this needs to be in a searchable medium ie not a graphic (which is the case here).

Taking the legal route, although often claimed, is an expensive route. Despite all of the above other legal arguments will come into play so unless you're willing to spend money merely to have the ads removed I'd personally put it down to the wonders of the internet. If you really don't want to share your images or text then don't! If you have put your pictures in a forum and FB but you are arguing against someone else doing the same you really need to evaluate how much you want to argue the point.


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

Veyron said:


> Again that's totally different. That is taking/stealing and/or destroying the original.
> 
> What's happened here, is someone copying something...so it's more along the lines of an artist making a painting of Northumberlands County Councils flowerbeds and then selling the painting. ...Which people do..


But they've been placed in a public domain, there are no warrants of ownership or restrictions of use to be found anywhere around them, there are no fences, barriers or locks - they are just there like the air around us that we breathe.

Okay though, so say an artist makes that painting of the flowers, if I then go and make an exact duplicate copy of the painting he/she made and I sell the duplicates in a way where he/she gets nothing out of it not even so much as a nod to say "this is an exact duplicate copy of a painting by xxxxx" - is what I've just done right or wrong (legally or morally)? 
If you're going to say that it's quite right, legal and just for me to make money out of someone else's work, time and effort simply because it's placed in public then I'm going to jack in my day job right now and start selling copies of peoples stuff!


----------



## pcharlton (Mar 23, 2012)

If someone used a photo of mine id be made up they have chosen my photo. Also its not cost me anything i don't understand what the fuss is about also they named the forum not just coppied the photo.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

I don't mind people using my photos with permission and credit. I would mind them using them without permission for profit. I don't often come to RFUK any more and this thread reminds me why, the way some people have posted in attack of Selina.


----------



## pcharlton (Mar 23, 2012)

KathyM said:


> I don't mind people using my photos with permission and credit. I would mind them using them without permission for profit. I don't often come to RFUK any more and this thread reminds me why, the way some people have posted in attack of Selina.


Its bang out of order selina is only having her say its a forum that is here for people to put there point accross end of.


----------



## Veyron (Mar 29, 2011)

boxofsorrows said:


> But they've been placed in a public domain, there are no warrants of ownership or restrictions of use to be found anywhere around them, there are no fences, barriers or locks - they are just there like the air around us that we breathe.


Are you talking about the online photos or the flowers, cos that description applies to both : victory:



boxofsorrows said:


> Okay though, so say an artist makes that painting of the flowers, if I then go and make an exact duplicate copy of the painting he/she made and I sell the duplicates in a way where he/she gets nothing out of it not even so much as a nod to say "this is an exact duplicate copy of a painting by xxxxx" - is what I've just done right or wrong (legally or morally)?
> If you're going to say that it's quite right, legal and just for me to make money out of someone else's work, time and effort simply because it's placed in public then I'm going to jack in my day job right now and start selling copies of peoples stuff!


Back to the topic at hand, the guy's not selling them though, is he ? They might be posted in an attempt to direct traffic or get attention, much like people - I'm sure you must have done the same - do on Facebook, posting random funny photo's without asking the owners permission.


----------



## Paul112 (Apr 6, 2007)

Veyron said:


> Back to the topic at hand, the guy's not selling them though, is he ? They might be posted in an attempt to direct traffic or get attention, much like people - I'm sure you must have done the same - do on Facebook, posting random funny photo's without asking the owners permission.


He's making money from advertising on the site, so there is financial gain arising from people's free pictures.

I can see both sides of the coin, and understand that some people would not want their photography being collected on another website which is making money from them. However, take a little look closer to home - you've posted the photos on this forum, which also has its fair share of advertising revenue...

Best,
Paul


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

It's gone kinda off from the original topic though and got into the rights and wrongs of re-use and the questions over not-for-gain vs for-profit rather than the specifics of the site in question.

The site in question, well I've tried the ad-banner/click thing and what you make is a pittance if you're a small site with a limited number of viewers. But I'd say the The Reptile Report is pretty well known and covers a range of hobbyists. The sites using OIO publisher's ad manager, which is a paid-for product that the website owner uses to sell advertising space specific to the target interest of his site (rather than a generalised random ad service) and so they're selling the ad space based on quite targeted potential customers. The revenue could be anything from next to nothing to quite impressive, moreover it's growing the website as a business which could have potential interest to other companies - and that is also based on the content. 

Actually as I'm typing this I went for a closer look at the site, there's a list of their prices and sales pitch as to why a business should advertise with them here: Advertise on The Reptile Report | The Reptile Report

Their terms of service/user agreement is here: User Agreement | The Reptile Report which is interesting as it states that everything on their site is copyright to them (part 2) but also has a cop-out (2.c) that they're not responsible for anything an individual submits.

So the big question at the end of all that, given that this is clearly a commercial use of the images, is whether for example the owners of the pictures which are actually hosted on the reptile reports servers (which are thereby copies) have permission to use them?
eg
http://thereptilereport.com/assets/rfuk-06feb-hairybeasts-Mrchancellor87.jpg
http://thereptilereport.com/assets/rfuk-04feb-awesomets-vivalabam.jpg
http://thereptilereport.com/assets/rfuk-22jan-invertsofindia-forever_20one.jpg
(note they are even held in a folder labelled "assets")
These are hosted on the website itself (not hot-linked), implying that the website has been given the rights to full commercial use of them to publish, sell and redistribute as it sees fit.
Section 4 of their user agreement even goes on to define the limits and boundaries of other people using their content, quite specific on their ownershipt copyrights and including "fair use" of their content limitations.


----------



## Colosseum (Aug 8, 2008)

KathyM said:


> I don't mind people using my photos with permission and credit. I would mind them using them without permission for profit. I don't often come to RFUK any more and this thread reminds me why, the way some people have posted in attack of Selina.


Like where?


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Colosseum said:


> Like where?


If you can't see it, considering who wrote it, it says more about you than me. Anyway, back off into the ether for me. I don't know why this place brings out the worst (in?) people.....


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

It brings out the worst because some people claim there is an issue merely because someone else has replied or injected a little humour.
Selina has reported the issue and tbh I see nothing to chastise anyone for. Its a forum! It therefore invites different opinions! And if the opinions you see are different to your own then perhaps its worth considering.
Now please lets put the drama queen to bed!


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Crikey, hit a nerve did I? Lol you need to chill a bit, it was only a passing comment, no need for the overuse of exclamation marks. :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

Actually Kathy, I think you're part of the problem. IMO there isnt an issue, nobody including yourself has highlighted or reported anything that warrants action. So, I have to ask what are you bringing to the topic other than more drama?


----------



## SamWest (Sep 11, 2012)

Poxicator said:


> Actually Kathy, I think you're part of the problem. IMO there isnt an issue, nobody including yourself has highlighted or reported anything that warrants action. So, I have to ask what are you bringing to the topic other than more drama?


A fresh face


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

Paul112 said:


> *He's making money from advertising on the site, so there is financial gain arising from people's free pictures.
> *
> I can see both sides of the coin, and understand that some people would not want their photography being collected on another website which is making money from them. However, take a little look closer to home - you've posted the photos on this forum, which also has its fair share of advertising revenue...
> 
> ...


Thanks - this is exactly what I'm getting at.

As for posting funny or any other photo's etc on facebook or wherever without laying any claim to ownership of them - there's no intent or attempt to make financial gain, as such I think it falls under the terms for fair use for comment, criticism or parody, but the bottom line is there isn't any gain made from it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2013)

selina20 said:


> I for one dont want my photos being used on a page full of american advertising


Why not? Why post these pictures in a public forum then throw a childish tantrum when someone likes them enough to show the world? AND credit you for them! 

You just seem like someone who likes making an issue out of something that shouldn't be an issue. If it were me I'd be happy someone thought my pictures were good enough to go on their site. Not use it as an excuse to whinge.


----------



## SamWest (Sep 11, 2012)

I think the issue is, now, that they are making money from y/our photographs


----------



## 34531 (May 27, 2009)

I am unhappy with this. I was sent this last night and my photos are on there.
I put them up here for you lot to enjoy, NOT for someone to use them for financial gain.
Minus that, I simply would have liked to have been asked. And use my real name if you're using my pictures, not my nickname. 

I see the people asking what the problem is, are the people not having their photos used.

I haven't looked through all the pages of this thread as Im on my phone. Who's website is it?


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

I can't help but think ImBatman has this covered. Unless you are willing to put your hand in your pocket or persue it you really need to sit back and ask what harm is it doing.

It could very easily be argued that the posting of your pictures is increasing visitors to your photos. The revenue is not likely to reach significant levels unless you click on the ads.


----------



## Colosseum (Aug 8, 2008)

Why don't you lock this rubbish off


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

Because its a subject that people need to talk about, because it is a little invasive and because its going to happen more. I don't see any reason for it to be locked, just because you think the subject has been answered, even you are curious enough to visit and post


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

ImBatman said:


> Why not? Why post these pictures in a public forum then throw a childish tantrum when someone likes them enough to show the world? AND credit you for them!
> 
> You just seem like someone who likes making an issue out of something that shouldn't be an issue. *If it were me I'd be happy someone thought my pictures were good enough to go on their site. Not use it as an excuse to whinge*.


Or you could take the viewpoint that someone thinks you're pictures are good enough to make them money without them actually doing any work. The word there would be 'freeloading'.

Like I've said, I'm happy for photo's I've taken to have been used for things in the past as long as I've been asked and especially that I've been asked where the person wants to use them so that they can make money. One of the biggest problems with the internet is how easy it is now to freeload or blatantly steal things, it's giving society the "why should I pay/work if I can get it for nothing" attitude.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

What seems to be the situation? 

You took some photos's and posted them in an open domain, someone else in the open domain liked them, posted them on their site giving you credit for them. 

Whats the actual problem? 

Making money off your photo's? I think not.


----------



## Nemesis027 (Jan 11, 2008)

I think this needs re posting as it points out the problem quite clearly and also shows that people have every right to be annoyed. 




boxofsorrows said:


> It's gone kinda off from the original topic though and got into the rights and wrongs of re-use and the questions over not-for-gain vs for-profit rather than the specifics of the site in question.
> 
> The site in question, well I've tried the ad-banner/click thing and what you make is a pittance if you're a small site with a limited number of viewers. But I'd say the The Reptile Report is pretty well known and covers a range of hobbyists. The sites using OIO publisher's ad manager, which is a paid-for product that the website owner uses to sell advertising space specific to the target interest of his site (rather than a generalised random ad service) and so they're selling the ad space based on quite targeted potential customers. The revenue could be anything from next to nothing to quite impressive, moreover it's growing the website as a business which could have potential interest to other companies - and that is also based on the content.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colosseum (Aug 8, 2008)

Nemesis027 said:


> I think this needs re posting as it points out the problem quite clearly and also shows that people have every right to be annoyed.


:whistling2:


----------



## Nemesis027 (Jan 11, 2008)

:hmm:


Colosseum said:


> :whistling2:


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2013)

Be honest now, but how many of us have downloaded films and music from the Internet? I have many times. Have I written to the artist/directors? No, because what I've done is kinda stealing. I don't pay for the music or films, so they don't make quite as much as they should. 

Now that's music and films which many of us are guilty of in some way or another. We have all watched pirate films or downloaded music. Now none of us paid. What this site has done is taken some pictures they found in a public forum and thought they were good enough to grace their site. That's a compliment. I could fully understand your grievance if they were selling prints of these pictures and making profit direct from these photos, but that's not the case. Each photo has a name of the person responsible for it. 

So rather than be annoyed they have used these pictures be pleased that they found them to be good examples of the spiders/inverts they wish to show. I'd treat it as my fame is spreading .


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 26, 2011)

Hey everybody, the site in question is The Reptile Report. We post links to the best news and discussion from around the web. We are also an advertiser here at RFUK.

We don't take the content, but rather link back to it at the original source or forum.

RFUK is the biggest reptile forum in the world, there is a TON of great discussion going on here every day. 

When an RFUK (or any) link is pulled, we post a short summary about it, here is a recent example:

"*Reptile Forums UK - * Check out these excellent pictures featuring a few handsome tarantulas chowing down on some tasty crickets."

There is a link to RFUK, to that particular thread, that says "Check it out @RFUK".

When the thread has cool or interesting pics, we take a screenshot of the pic, but only a very close crop, not an entire pic, and we attribute the name of the forum member to the pic. 

In order for a reader to see/read the thread, or even see the actual pic, they have to follow the link to RFUK and consume it there. We don't take any of the content, or any of the traffic. In fact we have sent tens of thousands of eyeballs to RFUK.

I am a fan of the invert stuff in particular. As a snake and lizard breeder of 20 years (as Pro Exotics) I have lots of snake and lizard experience. But zero in the invert world. Without The Reptile Report, it would still be zero. 

But using TRR to follow the best invert stuff from around the world is awesome. I get to see a ton of great spider, centipede and mantid stuff. Invert folks in particular seem to take GREAT pics.

I also get to keep up with chameleon, boa and lizard stuff, as well as all the reptile radio and video shows. Before TRR, I had the time to keep up with just 2-3 forums, and not RFUK at all.

Now I follow 45+ forums each week, including RFUK, and in less time than weeding through the 2 or 3 on my own.

It bums me out that Selina doesn't like the site, it really does. But we are not "stealing her content" or anything else. We are sending more folks to see it at the place she posted it. I thought her pics were cool, and I saw them here at RFUK.


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

Please note, none of my comments were a dig at TRR, I was just using it as the example since it was the topic of this thread. I would agree that TRR does a very good job of directing traffic to other sites by linking the articles, but there is still the point that TRR's revenue would appear to come from the advertising which of course relies quite a lot on the imagery promoting the links. 
As I say, it's not a dig, there are many other sites the same all over the internet.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2013)

I wouldn't take to much offence to it TRR. Some people are just born to moan. They would find fault even if they won the lottery.


----------



## SamWest (Sep 11, 2012)

ImBatman said:


> I wouldn't take to much offence to it TRR. Some people are just born to moan. They would find fault even if they won the lottery.


Well i did win the lottery once
...never again


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 26, 2011)

SamWest said:


> Well i did win the lottery once
> ...never again


:lol2:


----------



## Gregg M (Jul 19, 2006)

To the OP,
Simply put, you have issues. All the reptile report does is link people to a thread you obviously wanted everyone to see anyway. Now, instead of just RFUK members seeing your thread, everyone can see it. They are not making money on your photo. Get over yourself and your photography "skills".


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

Gregg M said:


> "They are not making money on your photo."


Technically they are though, that's the point.
The site revenue is from advertising, the draw to the site and thereby the selling point of the advertising space is the content shown/linked on it.

Here's an analogy - say you have a house/flat that you've put time and effort into but decide to let a relative live in it for free out of the kindness of you're heart. However, without your knowledge he sub-lets the house out and keeps all the rental income. You'd be a bit Pee'd off, no? Where's the difference?


----------



## 34531 (May 27, 2009)

Gregg M said:


> To the OP,
> Simply put, you have issues. All the reptile report does is link people to a thread you obviously wanted everyone to see anyway. Now, instead of just RFUK members seeing your thread, everyone can see it. They are not making money on your photo. Get over yourself and your photography "skills".



Somebody is a little silly, themselves....


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

*less of the insults plz
If we cannot discuss the issue without insults and showing a lack of respect for posters then I'll lock the thread. Various opinions is healthy, attacks is not!
Your points are not strengthened by insults but weakened by them.*


----------



## Gregg M (Jul 19, 2006)

boxofsorrows said:


> Technically they are though, that's the point.
> The site revenue is from advertising, the draw to the site and thereby the selling point of the advertising space is the content shown/linked on it.
> 
> Here's an analogy - say you have a house/flat that you've put time and effort into but decide to let a relative live in it for free out of the kindness of you're heart. However, without your knowledge he sub-lets the house out and keeps all the rental income. You'd be a bit Pee'd off, no? Where's the difference?


Your analogy is not even close to what is happening here.
My posts and photos have been featured on TRR at least 25 times already. Like I said, it is a photo that is used to link back to the post that the photo was originally posted. The credit is given and there is no permission needed to link a thread with its contence.

It creates traffic for the forums and gives your thread much more exposure.


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

Gregg M said:


> Your analogy is not even close to what is happening here.
> My posts and photos have been featured on TRR at least 25 times already. Like I said, it is a photo that is used to link back to the post that the photo was originally posted. The credit is given and there is no permission needed to link a thread with its contence.
> 
> It creates traffic for the forums and gives your thread much more exposure.


Really, what's the difference? Someone has something and gives use of it to another party non-gratis and then a third party makes use of it in a way that directly helps them make money. I used the word "directly" there because, lets face it, people are drawn by imagery/photo's more than by plain text links.

It's a subjective opinion though. Give the same site (TRR) concept a whirl with the likes of Disney and they'll most likely take a very different view to yours the moment they find a copy of an image hosted on the sites servers even if it does link to the...

I'm not denying that the site generates positive traffic for other sites. That's not what this thread is discussing.


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

As Pete said, it's also down to the owner to chase it up, so if you don't want them there ask for them to be taken down.

I'll be brutally honest and say these photos for the most part are hobby photographs - they didn't require exceptional effort, gear or multiple takes over 2 weeks to get right, they weren't intended for financial gain and none of you (that I know of) are professional photographers or visual artists who might otherwise want to see such material controlled lest it damage business interests. They could be replicated quite easily with the most basic android/iphone/point and shoot camera in many instances. 

Scale it back people, TRR isn't making millions from these images (except if you want to express the monetary gain in millions of pico-pennies per image:Na_Na_Na_Na. They were images that you farted out and stuck on RFUK precisely because you didn't think they were worth charging for. 

Now you have your images circulated wider than they would be otherwise and who knows, maybe someone will contact you on the back of them for other photos which you will be paid for - you going to then send back cash to TRR for advertising? Haha, yeah right. 

I'm not writing this to criticise anyone's photos (although I suppose I have, but I mean it in a playful, matey mate way - I'm not going to lie to you, they are not the next Mapplethorpe's), just to try to get some perspective on this "issue". People are sitting here invoking all sorts of ideals and laws, etc. It's pointless, a mountain from a molehill. 

Those who don't want images shared like this, don't post them openly on public servers, those who do, continue doing as you have done. If you want an image removed, email TRR. If you think you should charge for images, stick them on istockphoto or something. 

There's not much else to say really about it...


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

One thing I forgot to add, before everyone flames me for the previous posts -

How many of you own the images in your sig and avatars here? 

Yeah. Not even credited in the most part I'd bet. Shows up on every post too, so that's thousands of uncredited image uses without asking for permission either. 

I can't criticise, I fall into the same category - I didn't own the image nor do I own the rights to use the likeness of Conan as depicted in the films...

The point I wanted to make was to tone it down. We can either all be chilled about this sort of paperwork nonsense, or we should by rights be anal about it all the time.


----------



## Colosseum (Aug 8, 2008)

GRB said:


> One thing I forgot to add, before everyone flames me for the previous posts -
> 
> *How many of you own the images in your sig and avatars here?
> *
> ...



Yes that thought had occurred to me as well.


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

Avatars etc - I could play Devil's advocate and point out that I can't locate anything along the lines of a disclaimer in RFUK's terms & conditions stating that anything uploaded/posted by a member is not the responsibility of the site owners... which would mean RFUK would have to take responsibility for any copyright infringement (with the exception of advertising counterfeit/copyright good which is in there). :whistling2:
Just sayin like.

This makes interesting reading: Blogger Beware: You CAN Get Sued For Using Photos You Don't Own on Your Blog | BlogHer


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

boxofsorrows said:


> Avatars etc - I could play Devil's advocate and point out that I can't locate anything along the lines of a disclaimer in RFUK's terms & conditions stating that anything uploaded/posted by a member is not the responsibility of the site owners... which would mean RFUK would have to take responsibility for any copyright infringement (with the exception of advertising counterfeit/copyright good which is in there). :whistling2:
> Just sayin like.
> 
> This makes interesting reading: Blogger Beware: You CAN Get Sued For Using Photos You Don't Own on Your Blog | BlogHer



Like I said earlier, it's better for everyone if everyone chills out - if the internet actually was enforced the same way the law is out on the street we'd all be facing prosecution on an almost daily basis just for swearing or insulting someone (breach of the peace, lol), let alone the fines from copy-pasting a meme into a response.


----------



## Colosseum (Aug 8, 2008)

The trouble is I can't believe there has been this much discussion over a heap of stupid pictures of Spiders unbelievable.


----------



## Lord Vetinari (Mar 4, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Hey everybody, the site in question is The Reptile Report. We post links to the best news and discussion from around the web. We are also an advertiser here at RFUK.
> 
> We don't take the content, but rather link back to it at the original source or forum.
> 
> ...


If you want to use any photos I have posted feel free. 

Especially the pics from the malagasy giant hognose thread I wrote. : victory:


----------



## AilsaM (May 18, 2011)

My photography skills are not good enough for anyone to want to use my pics, I really must practice :lol2:


----------



## Harbinger (Dec 20, 2008)

Colosseum said:


> The trouble is I can't believe there has been this much discussion over a heap of stupid pictures of Spiders unbelievable.


Whoever took the effort to take the photo's of them probably dont think they are just stupid pictures of spiders :whistling2:


----------



## jojobeans123 (Feb 5, 2011)

boxofsorrows said:


> Avatars etc - I could play Devil's advocate and point out that I can't locate anything along the lines of a disclaimer in RFUK's terms & conditions stating that anything uploaded/posted by a member is not the responsibility of the site owners... which would mean RFUK would have to take responsibility for any copyright infringement (with the exception of advertising counterfeit/copyright good which is in there). :whistling2:
> Just sayin like.
> 
> This makes interesting reading: Blogger Beware: You CAN Get Sued For Using Photos You Don't Own on Your Blog | BlogHer


That links not entirely relevant over here though (although I believe the UK government and EU are looking to introduce similar rules over here). This was part of the 'protect IP' initiative over in America.

I fully understad where the OP is coming from but the flaw in your analogy is that anything that is posted onto a public forum is in the public domain, if you don't want people to use it without consent water mark it - renting a private house is quite different!


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

jojobeans123 said:


> That links not entirely relevant over here though (although I believe the UK government and EU are looking to introduce similar rules over here). This was part of the 'protect IP' initiative over in America.
> 
> I fully understad where the OP is coming from but flaw in your analogy is that anything that is posted onto a public forum is in the public domain - renting a private house is quite different!


Not really, if that was the case there wouldn't be lawyers the world over feverishly rubbing their hands. At the end of the day be it a house or be it a photograph there is still the issue of ownership. Which ties right in back to by analogy of the flower beds in a public place, they're there and they're in public, they're not ring-fenced and there's no signage telling you not to take them, but still you simply wouldn't help yourself to them. It's no different.

Anyway, this topic is becoming circular now. My stance and viewpoint is that any photo's a person wishes to retain full ownership of go in a private non-searchable folders and sites that the owner places the link to a photo on it have permission to use them within that site, if other sites/organisations/individuals wish to use them it is expected they ask permission first. Any photo's a person wishes to share freely with the world for people to do with as they please go in public folders, which removes all the debate over whether or not something is "in the public domain". You'll find most of the photo-hosting services state something along those lines already.


----------



## jojobeans123 (Feb 5, 2011)

boxofsorrows said:


> Not really, if that was the case there wouldn't be lawyers the world over feverishly rubbing their hands. At the end of the day be it a house or be it a photograph there is still the issue of ownership. Which ties right in back to by analogy of the flower beds in a public place, they're there and they're in public, they're not ring-fenced and there's no signage telling you not to take them, but still you simply wouldn't help yourself to them. It's no different.
> 
> Anyway, this topic is becoming circular now. My stance and viewpoint is that any photo's a person wishes to retain full ownership of go in a private non-searchable folders and sites that the owner places the link to a photo on it have permission to use them within that site, if other sites/organisations/individuals wish to use them it is expected they ask permission first. Any photo's a person wishes to share freely with the world for people to do with as they please go in public folders, which removes all the debate over whether or not something is "in the public domain". You'll find most of the photo-hosting services state something along those lines already.


The protect IP act gives US Government and copyright holders more ability to sue anyone (foreign & domestic) using their photos etc - we have no similar act over here yet. You can only be a copy right holder if your photos are watermarked otherwise how are people to know they are copyright, therefore the link you posted isn't relevant. If your photos are not marked as copyright and are posted on a public forum they are in the public domain and most likely going to be used by others.

If you don't want that to happen then use a watermark. If someone uses your photo which has been watermarked then sue the mofo's! No need for a seperate section imo... : victory:


----------



## gambitgareth (Sep 18, 2011)

i once gave my ex mrs a nudey pic of me for valentines day, since splitting up i have been keeping our friendship sweet knowing that she has the power to upload said image onto the interweb for all you pediatricians to look at,, should that happen and i find out I would be fiercely miffed about it... 

its not totally relevant because my ex girlfriend isnt the world, but that I might be upset about it later on in life, is justifiable... 

like pornography in general - what about if someone comes off drugs or turns to religion or for whatever reason reconsiders,, that individual will never be able to recall or control their image AND anyone could make money from it.

seems a bit unfair... would be a nice gesture for the interweb site to remove the links of those that have subsequently objected.


----------



## Theevilreddevil (Oct 30, 2008)

Would everyone be kind enough to send me all the pictures they have straight to my email, it will save me a lot of time, hassle and effort.
And will be greatly appreciated thank you very much :2thumb:


----------



## SamWest (Sep 11, 2012)

So if the spider shop took your photos without asking, credited you, but then used them as advertisement for their stock, you'd be perfectly happy ?


----------



## Veyron (Mar 29, 2011)

SamWest said:


> So if the spider shop took your photos without asking, credited you, but then used them as advertisement for their stock, you'd be perfectly happy ?


Personally, I'd be pleased to have my picture on there, so, yes


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

Veyron said:


> Personally, I'd be pleased to have my picture on there, so, yes


What if you'd been on a holiday from hell, the holiday company were shockingly bad, the hotel was a nightmare and the only time you smiled was on the way out when you were glad it was over - your partner took a load of photo's to show how bad things were and you post them online saying "Holiday hell" etc and joke how the only pic of you happy was when you finally got out of there. You go through an equally nightmare compensation claim to try and scrape a little back from an otherwise wasted holiday.
Okay, got all that? 
So a couple of months later you're idly looking around the web and bam there's the photo of you smiling at the end of that nightmare and it's right there on the holiday companies website which claims the place is wonderful and the photo is another "happy holidaymaker". You go an pick up the latest printed brochure and again there's you're smiling face clearly emphasizing what a brilliant company and hotel it is - So now are you still happy to have your picture used?

I know, it's going to the extremes, but as I recall on an episode of Watchdog that sort of thing did and does happen. Okay, in this instance it's going in the direction of something you wouldn't want to be associated with but therein lies the problem of people trying to say that once you post a picture that's the end of you having any say in how it's used.


----------



## pcharlton (Mar 23, 2012)

:crazy::crazy::blah::blah::zzz::zzz: say no more:lol2::lol2:


----------



## Theevilreddevil (Oct 30, 2008)

pcharlton said:


> :crazy::crazy::blah::blah::zzz::zzz: say no more:lol2::lol2:


are you not liking these examples????


----------



## Veyron (Mar 29, 2011)

boxofsorrows said:


> What if you'd been on a holiday from hell, the holiday company were shockingly bad, the hotel was a nightmare and the only time you smiled was on the way out when you were glad it was over - your partner took a load of photo's to show how bad things were and you post them online saying "Holiday hell" etc and joke how the only pic of you happy was when you finally got out of there. You go through an equally nightmare compensation claim to try and scrape a little back from an otherwise wasted holiday.
> Okay, got all that?
> So a couple of months later you're idly looking around the web and bam there's the photo of you smiling at the end of that nightmare and it's right there on the holiday companies website which claims the place is wonderful and the photo is another "happy holidaymaker". You go an pick up the latest printed brochure and again there's you're smiling face clearly emphasizing what a brilliant company and hotel it is - So now are you still happy to have your picture used?
> 
> I know, it's going to the extremes, but as I recall on an episode of Watchdog that sort of thing did and does happen. Okay, in this instance it's going in the direction of something you wouldn't want to be associated with but therein lies the problem of people trying to say that once you post a picture that's the end of you having any say in how it's used.


Same answer again, I wouldn't give a crap, makes no difference to me. People are far too easily annoyed and upset at little things which have no effect on their lives at all. It's basically people getting annoyed because they've chosen to be 'annoyed' at it, even though it doesn't effect them.
Don't use an undiagnosed illness in response, as that does/will effect a persons life.

If people hadn't seen the pictures on that site, no one would care as they'd never have known.


----------



## AilsaM (May 18, 2011)

SamWest said:


> So if the spider shop took your photos without asking, credited you, but then used them as advertisement for their stock, you'd be perfectly happy ?





Veyron said:


> Personally, I'd be pleased to have my picture on there, so, yes


I agree with Veyron.

I'd be more than happy if The Spider Shop used my spider pics without asking, all my spiders came from them anyway


----------



## Mrchancellor87 (Jan 10, 2012)

Never ending thread, naoooooo.

One persons opinion VS the other persons opinion.

I like the posts which provide interesting opinions, ideas and facts but other than that, we're dooooooooooomed


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

Veyron said:


> Same answer again, I wouldn't give a crap, makes no difference to me. People are far too easily annoyed and upset at little things which have no effect on their lives at all. It's basically people getting annoyed because they've chosen to be 'annoyed' at it, even though it doesn't effect them.
> Don't use an undiagnosed illness in response, as that does/will effect a persons life.
> 
> If people hadn't seen the pictures on that site, no one would care as they'd never have known.


But if you're going to take it to the extent of the "so what" attitude, what about when the "so what" becomes a real time issue? What about when, for whatever reason, a picture ends up in a place or used in a way that has a real impact on your life or the life of others around you? I'm not just getting at the old home porn snaps/video that end up in the wrong hands. You know what the masses are like, how often has someone been persecuted as a result of mistaken identity.


----------



## pcharlton (Mar 23, 2012)

close this post :notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:


----------



## SamWest (Sep 11, 2012)

pcharlton said:


> close this post :notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:


Manners go miles, miss. charlton
it's not even your thread


----------



## Theevilreddevil (Oct 30, 2008)

just a guess but i'm quite sure using someones tarantula pictures wont wreck anyone's life. But you never know:gasp:


----------



## bothrops (Jan 7, 2007)

Mark75 said:


> Basically they've used our photos to intentionally direct people to their site which is loaded with advertising. In effect they are increasing their audience to view the adverts which are probably paid for.





boxofsorrows said:


> It comes down to "fair use" GRB, taking a photo with the intent to share with (show to) people freely is quite different to taking a photo intended for commercial use. As soon as any commercial aspect comes into play then it is a change in intended use - there would be no encouragement for anyone to place images online for the enjoyment of others if there was a mass commercial free-for-all consumption of them and I think rather a lot of professional photographers/publishers/artists/models would be none too happy at being out of work if it was fair-game to just "collect" images willy-nilly online at nada cost and re-publish them at pure profit.





SamWest said:


> So if the spider shop took your photos without asking, credited you, but then used them as advertisement for their stock, you'd be perfectly happy ?






Google's revenue for 2012 was £50 *billion* US Dollars.

If you did a Google search and found your pic with a link back to the thread, would this be a problem (or even something you'd make a thread about?).


Would you consider Google as 'making money from your photo's'?



No, thought not.


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

Theevilreddevil said:


> just a guess but i'm quite sure using someones tarantula pictures wont wreck anyone's life. But you never know:gasp:


But then you're either narrowing the scope of the discussion back down from the wider issue or you're saying that it's okay to take something as long as there's minimal or rather that there's no detected impact.


----------



## pcharlton (Mar 23, 2012)

SamWest said:


> Manners go miles, miss. charlton
> it's not even your thread


 miss fred west i dont have any


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

bothrops said:


> Google's revenue for 2012 was £50 *billion* US Dollars.
> 
> If you did a Google search and found your pic with a link back to the thread, would this be a problem (or even something you'd make a thread about?).
> 
> ...


Google fined for gang-linked images | News | HumanIPO (there's others, just using this as an example). This highlights what I was getting at.

Weren't google also sued over their street view images in quite a few places?


----------



## Veyron (Mar 29, 2011)

boxofsorrows said:


> But if you're going to take it to the extent of the "so what" attitude, what about when the "so what" becomes a real time issue? What about when, for whatever reason, a picture ends up in a place or used in a way that has a real impact on your life or the life of others around you? I'm not just getting at the old home porn snaps/video that end up in the wrong hands. You know what the masses are like, how often has someone been persecuted as a result of mistaken identity.


I doubt anyone on here looks like an invert. :whistling2: So that's not even a issue.

If you're stupid enough to put things on the net for the whole world to see and use against you, then you deserve what you get IMO. They don't "_end up in the wrong hands_", people put them in other peoples hands.


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

You know what I see? I see a point in time when enough test cases go through and some lawyer sitting and finally being happy that he's got enough bases covered to be sure of a high enough success rate on cases to start up yet another kind of claim company.
I'm 42, when I was a kid and tripped over a paving stone my mum would tell me that I was stupid for not watching where I walked, to look where I'm going and pick my feet up in future. The same thing mums everywhere said at that time. But now, trip over a kerb and there's an accident claim company waiting to make sure they and you get money out of it. It's not that people couldn't make a claim when I was a kid, just that there wasn't people making it easy and practical to do so.


----------



## Veyron (Mar 29, 2011)

boxofsorrows said:


> You know what I see? I see a point in time when enough test cases go through and some lawyer sitting and finally being happy that he's got enough bases covered to be sure of a high enough success rate on cases to start up yet another kind of claim company.
> I'm 42, when I was a kid and tripped over a paving stone my mum would tell me that I was stupid for not watching where I walked, to look where I'm going and pick my feet up in future. The same thing mums everywhere said at that time. But now, trip over a kerb and there's an accident claim company waiting to make sure they and you get money out of it. It's not that people couldn't make a claim when I was a kid, just that there wasn't people making it easy and practical to do so.


So some photos are used, deal with it, don't moan, bitch or seek compensation, poop happens is what you're saying. : victory:


----------



## SamWest (Sep 11, 2012)

Veyron said:


> So some photos are used, deal with it, don't moan, bitch or seek compensation, poop happens is what you're saying. : victory:


Wait.... so if somebody steals your possessions, that's ruled as ":censor: happens"?


----------



## Harbinger (Dec 20, 2008)

One side of this arguement is just asking for the common courtesy of the manners to ASK to use their property, a photograph they took using their equipment and their subjects.

And the other side seems to be going apeshit claiming why should anyone care?


----------



## Veyron (Mar 29, 2011)

dEsSiCaTa_UK said:


> One side of this arguement is just asking for the common courtesy of the manners to ASK to use their property, a photograph they took using their equipment and their subjects.
> 
> And the other side seems to be going apeshit claiming why should anyone care?



And we can guess which side you're on :lol2:

Although, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, as I haven't spent the last couple of days trawling the internet for links, quotes, laws, examples etc to prove my point.

I'm far from going "apeshit". I just think people should chill out and take it on the chin. There's no need for apeshit, I really do not give a monkies (lol) and it hasn't ruined my day, nor would it, if it were me in-question.


----------



## pcharlton (Mar 23, 2012)

Veyron said:


> So some photos are used, deal with it, don't moan, bitch or seek compensation, poop happens is what you're saying. : victory:


So veyron is it ok I go round your photo :lol2::lol2:


----------



## Veyron (Mar 29, 2011)

pcharlton said:


> So veyron is it ok I go round your photo :lol2::lol2:
> image


This was taken in OUR bedroom and that is where it should've stayed !


----------



## Theevilreddevil (Oct 30, 2008)

:hmm::hmm::hmm:


----------



## pcharlton (Mar 23, 2012)

Veyron said:


> This was taken in OUR bedroom and that is where it should've stayed !


i just dont know you simple:no1:


----------



## Gregg M (Jul 19, 2006)

The photos are not stolen nor are they used to sell anything. They are simply used to link people to your thread that YOU posted. There is no laws being broken or any underhanded activity going on. Just be happy that someone found your thread interesting enough to link it on their page. A page that is seen by hundreds, maybe thousands daily.

Just a side note.
TRR has generated business for me by posting my threads. People that might not have known about my projects found them on TRR. Personally, I think it is a great tool for the entire herp community. Dont screw up a good thing people.


----------



## SamWest (Sep 11, 2012)

Gregg M said:


> The photos are not stolen



they are


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

SamWest said:


> Wait.... so if somebody steals your possessions, that's ruled as ":censor: happens"?



Wait....so if you leave your possessions unattended, unsecured and without anything saying people can't use them, they will go missing?

Shock horror. 

Try that with your bike or car and see what happens dude. 

Christ, do we still live on earth or is this thread transcending space time?


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

Gregg M said:


> The photos are not stolen nor are they used to sell anything. They are simply used to link people to your thread that YOU posted. There is no laws being broken or any underhanded activity going on. Just be happy that someone found your thread interesting enough to link it on their page. A page that is seen by hundreds, maybe thousands daily.
> 
> Just a side note.
> TRR has generated business for me by posting my threads. People that might not have known about my projects found them on TRR. Personally, I think it is a great tool for the entire herp community. Dont screw up a good thing people.


Something suggests to me that your line of defence suggests you may be involved in this, which isnt a problem, it just explains things.
I'm interested to know how would you measure whether it was RFUK or TRR that brought that business? What is there in place to notify you of such?

The obvious fact, and the one most people are alarmed at, is the images are taken from RFUK so that the owner's name can be placed into the image and then hosted elsewhere, as an example today's front page has "Hungry Hairy Ts" linked to RFUK and the image shown is that of mickoh which is named within the image. That image is hosted here: src=http://thereptilereport.com/assets/rfuk-11feb-hungryhairyts-mickoh.jpg
Thefore the pictures are copies and hosted without the owners permission.
Nobody is doubting the extra traffic, and nobody is doubting how effective it is. What people are concerned about is the images are being copied, altered and included on another site without their permission. Personally it doesnt bother me, but it obviously bothers others.

Coincidentally another issue with internet images came by way of my daughter. Her friend hosted images on Instagram. They recently changed their policy to suggest all the images hosted there could be used without permission. Her friend now finds her face on garments created for Republic. No permission was sought, no financial gain, and yet this obviously impacts on her and any bad publicity on Republic might also reflect on her. I fully understand this is a different issue, but its issues like this that makes people a little paranoid, or quite rightly so seek a request to use. Its not good enough to answer it with "just be happy" and rather arrogant to reply "Dont screw up a good thing people".


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

dEsSiCaTa_UK said:


> One side of this arguement is just asking for the common courtesy of the manners to ASK to use their property, a photograph they took using their equipment and their subjects.
> 
> And the other side seems to be going apeshit claiming why should anyone care?


So that daft punk image in your sig, you were really there and filmed that video right?

Or did you pay royalties for use of that image? Or did you contact whoever holds the copyright on the video to ASK _their _permission? Also, you seem to be using their likeness to imply endorsement - I assume they were in agreement of this and have been compensated?

Everyone seems to be taking it to extremes whilst ignoring their own violations. Is it one rule for one and another for everyone else? 

The message I am getting is that the forum will need to crack down on mis-use of images since people seem to feel so strongly about it. Avatars, signatures, re-posting of memes or gifs. In fact, any image not created solely by themselves or with express written consent of use. I suppose we'll need to hire another 200 moderators for that specific task....


----------



## OniExpress (Sep 11, 2010)

ImBatman said:


> Seriously what's the problem? They have credited people for their photos, not tried saying they are theirs.
> 
> What is it you're after from this? A gold medal and £300,000,000 image rights? If you're sharing it in a public forum then it's made public. Be thankful they have still given you credit for this.


Technically, there's not much of a thing as a "public forum". Either the poster retains rights, or the board retains rights, and _legally_ this does come into play when the images are being used commercially. Not that I think people should get fussed beyond sending a "please remove my images" letter (and if they say "no", I don't think that anyne here has any commercial/professional motivations to make legal recourse a sane action), but that doesn't really change the base legalities.

The guy's given credit, but when there is a for-profit influence (the ads) that isn't actually enough to cover it.


----------



## Carl6688 (Jan 18, 2011)




----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

GRB said:


> So that daft punk image in your sig, you were really there and filmed that video right?
> 
> Or did you pay royalties for use of that image? Or did you contact whoever holds the copyright on the video to ASK _their _permission? Also, you seem to be using their likeness to imply endorsement - I assume they were in agreement of this and have been compensated?
> 
> ...


I think it's more the case that the site needs to cover it's ass a bit and get a disclaimer worded and uploaded to cover it's back *if* someone ever does object to an image being used. Okay it's highly unlikely, but in this day and age things have a habit of biting people on the butt.


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

OniExpress said:


> Technically, there's not much of a thing as a "public forum". Either the poster retains rights, or the board retains rights, and _legally_ this does come into play when the images are being used commercially. Not that I think people should get fussed beyond sending a "please remove my images" letter (and if they say "no", I don't think that anyne here has any commercial/professional motivations to make legal recourse a sane action), but that doesn't really change the base legalities.
> 
> The guy's given credit, but when there is a for-profit influence (the ads) that isn't actually enough to cover it.


Thank God for a voice of sanity! :notworthy:


----------



## Kamike (Aug 3, 2009)

There's 15 pages I CBA to read but I think if I had to sum it up the following would be accurate?

Something happened
It wasn't that bad
People made a mountain
In place of the mole hill
Explanation was given
People still argued
There's an amazing amount of legal experts in the hobby
People used 1000 words to get a point across that only required 100


I bet I'm right


----------



## SamWest (Sep 11, 2012)

GRB said:


> So that daft punk image in your sig, you were really there and filmed that video right?
> 
> Or did you pay royalties for use of that image? Or did you contact whoever holds the copyright on the video to ASK _their _permission? Also, you seem to be using their likeness to imply endorsement - I assume they were in agreement of this and have been compensated?
> 
> ...


Surely as rfuk hosts signatures, it's their problem to deal with that ? 
For a moderator, you seem incredibly... well, I don't want to say.


----------



## Amy2310 (Feb 28, 2011)

I'd actually be happy for The Reptile Report to link to my images.
They post some wonderful articles from a variety of sites for like minded people to read all in one place.

They always state who the photos/thread is from and the name of the site the original thread/article was started on.
And if I remember correctly, users can submit links as well, so it's not just one person who runs it all.


----------



## Nemesis027 (Jan 11, 2008)

SamWest said:


> Surely as rfuk hosts signatures, it's their problem to deal with that ?
> For a moderator, you seem incredibly... well, I don't want to say.


...stupid....there, finished it for you.


----------



## 34531 (May 27, 2009)

Nemesis027 said:


> ...stupid....there, finished it for you.



I can think of a lot of other words to use. But that's another story...


----------



## SamWest (Sep 11, 2012)

You too are on another line as me 
I was going to say friendly and helpful, unbiased and respectful


----------



## EffyDaydream (Jan 29, 2012)

I just think people should be grateful of recognition. They're being credited for the images and all of them link back to the original articles, so more lovers and collectors can be appreciating your photos. I'm sure most of you have shared images from the Internet on Facebook or something. It's just the same, but you're being recognised and getting a wider audience for your post so I don't see the problem. The moderators can't control who wants to share your posts or take interest in them, so leave them be! :2thumb:


----------



## EffyDaydream (Jan 29, 2012)

Kamike said:


> There's 15 pages I CBA to read but I think if I had to sum it up the following would be accurate?
> 
> Something happened
> It wasn't that bad
> ...


You are sooooo right!


----------



## SamWest (Sep 11, 2012)

EffyDaydream said:


> I just think people should be grateful of recognition. They're being credited for the images and all of them link back to the original articles, so more lovers and collectors can be appreciating your photos. I'm sure most of you have shared images from the Internet on Facebook or something. It's just the same, but you're being recognised and getting a wider audience for your post so I don't see the problem. The moderators can't control who wants to share your posts or take interest in them, so leave them be! :2thumb:


That's another thing... facebook
They upload your photo to facebook and then it belongs to facebook


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

Kamike said:


> There's 15 pages I CBA to read but I think if I had to sum it up the following would be accurate?
> 
> Something happened
> It wasn't that bad
> ...


For the original subject posted, most of that would be accurate, but then the debate led into the wider ramifications of the topic (which however got a little muddied by being drawn back to the circumstances of the original post rather than the bigger picture).

I think I'm right in saying opinion remains divided. One camp adamantly rooted in a rather blasé viewpoint that if something is on the internet that makes it a free buffet for one and all. The other view is that just because it's there to see doesn't mean it's there to take.


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

Sod it, I'll delete this as I am for some reason ultra grumpty today and you didn't deserve me taking that out on you specifically. Apologies. 


-G


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

boxofsorrows said:


> I think I'm right in saying opinion remains divided. One camp adamantly rooted in a rather blasé viewpoint that if something is on the internet that makes it a free buffet for one and all. The other view is that just because it's there to see doesn't mean it's there to take.


I can see both sides, but what I find odd is that those against the free buffet idea don't seem to also accept that they can also reduce the risk of such theft or 'borrowing' happening with some commonsense. 

I don't anyone is going to convince the other, but what I don't get is why then the message isn't simply "play it safe". Ideals and reality are often 2 different things, and ultimately you have to look out for yourself.


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

So common sense would be (if you want to avoid any questions over copyright and usage limitations) to watermark a link to a "terms of use" sort of thing onto any photo's. If you want to that is. The link being a static document/image stating quite clearly what uses you're happy to be made of your image and any uses you don't want it put to. 
That way there's no questions left over who owns the original and to what purpose they're allowing it to be put, moreover it means there is no doubts in mind when and if a third party thinks about using the image.

There you go, problem solved.


----------



## gambitgareth (Sep 18, 2011)

i think if something positive were to come out of this it is that perhaps if mods would be happy to delete pics that are put up here that people no longer want on there- for whatever reason. 

Then whatever action they want to take against a 3rd party they can - without others suggesting hyposcrisy - people should be able to change their mind. 

for instance - the nudey photos in over 18s section - those people might want the decision to post those erased from history at some point - and we should let them.

ready,, steady,, PHOTOSHOP! (that was a joke, entirely juvenile - i apologise (but im not sorry enough to delete it, so am i really sorry then? if anyone really knows then if you can send your answers in on a postcard - provided that postcard is not of my avatar or as I will sue you into smithereens))

love


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

gambitgareth said:


> i think if something positive were to come out of this it is that perhaps if mods would be happy to delete pics that are put up here that people no longer want on there- for whatever reason.


I thought this had to be at TRR's end? 

Oddly, despite this talk, I don't recall if anyone except Selina asked for the photos to be taken down - has anyone asked? Was it denied? 

I could see us doing that if needed in that instance, but you'll forgive me if I don't immediately volunteer the mods for deletion of potentially thousands of images, lol.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2013)

Is this argument still ongoing? 

Zzzzz


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

gambitgareth said:


> i think if something positive were to come out of this it is that perhaps if mods would be happy to delete pics that are put up here that people no longer want on there- for whatever reason.
> 
> Then whatever action they want to take against a 3rd party they can - without others suggesting hyposcrisy - people should be able to change their mind.
> 
> ...


Unless the images are actually uploaded to this site, then the removal is down to the image owner just going and deleting/renaming the file on wherever they've hosted it - at that point it will break all the paths/links and after hitting refresh it'll no longer appear. 
Where that falls down is if another person downloads the image and re-uploads it to a different host (ie their own website). At that point it's upto the original owner to request its removal if they're not happy about it being used.


----------



## gambitgareth (Sep 18, 2011)

GRB said:


> I thought this had to be at TRR's end?
> 
> Oddly, despite this talk, I don't recall if anyone except Selina asked for the photos to be taken down - has anyone asked? Was it denied?
> 
> I could see us doing that if needed in that instance, but you'll forgive me if I don't immediately volunteer the mods for deletion of potentially thousands of images, lol.


Para.

1. they have aired their view and it implies that they are reluctant to.

2. only you can know of course!!

3. This implied that I called for pics to be removed without requesting it - not my intention.


----------



## gambitgareth (Sep 18, 2011)

boxofsorrows said:


> Unless the images are actually uploaded to this site, then the removal is down to the image owner just going and deleting/renaming the file on wherever they've hosted it - at that point it will break all the paths/links and after hitting refresh it'll no longer appear.
> Where that falls down is if another person downloads the image and re-uploads it to a different host (ie their own website). At that point it's upto the original owner to request its removal if they're not happy about it being used.


 
indeed, but if you go to a court and say they have my pictures - they will say well you placed them for everyone to see.. this is for cases where viewers are simply directed here. if they crop the picture - well you've covered that - no need for me to chime in


----------



## gambitgareth (Sep 18, 2011)

a lot of the time - these clients only succeed in getting injunctive relief - which arent issued if they can be viewed by everyone anyway


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

This might help clear up a lot of questions/views



> UK COPYRIGHT:
> Copyright gives the creators of a wide range of material, such as literature (any text), art (any images), music, (any sounds), films (any movies - amateur or otherwise) and broadcasts (radio, tv, mobile phone or anything else), economic rights enabling them to control use of their material in a number of ways, such as (but not limited to) making copies, issuing copies to the public, performing in public, broadcasting and the usage on the internet. It also gives the moral rights to be identified as the creator and owner of certain kinds of material, and to object to distortion or mutilation of it.
> 
> The main purpose of copyright is to allow original creators to gain economic rewards for their efforts and so encourage continued creativity and inspire the development of new material to benefit us all. Copyright material is usually the result of creative skill and significant labour or investment, and without protection, it would often be very easy for others to exploit material without paying the creator.
> Usage of copyright material therefore require permission from the copyright owner.




And particularly: 


> MYTH: "If it's posted to the internet it's in the public domain."
> This is incorrect. Nothing is in the public domain unless the copyright owner explicitly puts it in the public domain (PD). This means, just because the copyright owner places an image on the internet it does not become a 'free for all'. If the legal owner places anything into the public domain they must also give specific instructions i.e. "I grant this to the public domain.".
> The granting of something PD is a complete abandonment of all rights, and if the work is PD, then other people can modify one pixel or sound byte and then copyright it in their own name. For this reason you will rarely if ever find PD.
> One of the modern day infringements of internet copyright is logos and images for mobile phones. As soon as a new images was created and placed on the internet for sale, thousands of copies would suddenly appear on other websites being offered for sale without payment being offered to the originator. Many of these copyright thefts ended up in court.




All the legal bumf behind copyright is on the IPO website: *http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy.htm *which also goes into detail about copyrights in one country applying in others under the Berne Convention (Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works).


----------



## Lord Vetinari (Mar 4, 2011)

boxofsorrows said:


> This might help clear up a lot of questions/views
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's also worth people reading the end user agreements of hosting sites like photobucket....


----------



## gambitgareth (Sep 18, 2011)

just to clarify - when i say everyone - i mean everyone = worldwide - i.e other jurisdictions - which the english legal sytem cannot suppose to supercede. sometimes it is impossible to prevent all of the offenders.


----------



## boxofsorrows (Nov 7, 2011)

gambitgareth said:


> just to clarify - when i say everyone - i mean everyone = worldwide - i.e other jurisdictions - which the english legal sytem cannot suppose to supercede. sometimes it is impossible to prevent all of the offenders.


This is where the likes of the Berne convention come in:


> Copyright abroad
> 
> Usually your copyright work will be protected abroad automatically in the same way that it is protected in the UK.
> 
> ...


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

Boxofsorrows, that's exactly what I was trying to say back in post 59. However quoting the acts that protects people gives for a much more credible read. Well done.


----------



## gambitgareth (Sep 18, 2011)

boxofsorrows said:


> This is where the likes of the Berne convention come in:


yes but lets not believe that countries would cease trading billion dollar contracts over the publication / replication of photographs contrary to this convention.

The Berne convention for example is flaunted regularly - recently of the new nudey royal catherine being printed in france then the pictures were used elsewhere. (We wouldnt trade embargo france and italy etc - that would be contrary to the EU. In Privacy law judges have been more inclined to say that it is not justiciable - rightly or wrongly.) In fact the convention gives fair use of quotes and articles - in the case ot TRR - they could argue this it seems given the informative rationale that they claim. But critically there are exceptions to the reproduction rights of the author - i.e that they do not unreasonably prejudice the the legitimate interests of the author. So in publishing on RFUK a claimant couldnt easily argue that at that point they intended to make money from the pictures. 

Its not so simple.


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

So, what is the end result of this topic then? 

Because I feel for the amount of effort and strong opinion on it, it seems like something needs doing. I'll be dammed if I know what the main suggestion is however, short of adding a disclaimer to RFUK about hosting, and passing the buck.


----------



## gambitgareth (Sep 18, 2011)

If I was you - I would do nothing.. people arent charging their rights against you - you've already said you'd be willingto delete photos if ever requested - your members volunteer their photos here.

If members want their right to have their photos withdrawn when copyright or ownership rights are contravened then they should simply request them to be withdrawn (if from here or anywhere else for that matter) - if they are denied then they would need to look to a legal mainframe in order to get their rights enforced.

Most of this post has been people offering free legal advice regarding ownership of posted photos and privacy etc.


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

GRB said:


> So, what is the end result of this topic then?
> 
> Because I feel for the amount of effort and strong opinion on it, it seems like something needs doing. I'll be dammed if I know what the main suggestion is however, short of adding a disclaimer to RFUK about hosting, and passing the buck.


The end result is the same as it ever was. The responsibility is clearly with the owner of the images to protect them. Its nobody elses. If they wish to persue the matter they can do so, and the law supports that, unfortunately individually their wallets probably do not, but collectively they may wish to.
To put it simply, protect your own images and if you feel you wish to take it further put your money where your mouth is. That's exactly what I suggested in FB before the topic reached RFUK.


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

Poxicator said:


> To put it simply, protect your own images and if you feel you wish to take it further put your money where your mouth is. That's exactly what I suggested in FB before the topic reached RFUK.


I think I need to lie down, assumed this had been covered about 4 times in this thread and I was simply missing some other vital point that was driving the conversation...

Strange, strange thread.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2013)

What's strange is it hasn't been locked yet.


----------



## EffyDaydream (Jan 29, 2012)

ImBatman said:


> What's strange is it hasn't been locked yet.


That's what I thought.


----------



## gambitgareth (Sep 18, 2011)

Why should threads that you are not interested in be locked? - as far as i can see no rule breaches have occurred - there has been a discussion on a relevant subject. be fair..


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2013)

gambitgareth said:


> Why should threads that you are not interested in be locked? - as far as i can see no rule breaches have occurred - there has been a discussion on a relevant subject. be fair..



Well that's just bull:censor: stright away. If you took the time to read the whole thread instead of trying to look clever you would see that I posted a few times in here. 

And as far as I can see the threads just going round in circles. It's a case of a few people will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## OniExpress (Sep 11, 2010)

GRB said:


> So, what is the end result of this topic then?
> 
> Because I feel for the amount of effort and strong opinion on it, it seems like something needs doing. I'll be dammed if I know what the main suggestion is however, short of adding a disclaimer to RFUK about hosting, and passing the buck.


Without looking at the forum's terms of service (because I really, really can't be bothered to dig through it on the matter; this is all outside of my personal concern), presumably nothing. As I mentioned in my original post in the thread, I presume that the TOS (like pretty much every image-uploading TOS) it either states that images uploaded to the forum have ownership retained by the uploader, or the ownership is gained by the forum/owners (and in that case, there is usually a statement as to whether this is commercial or non-commercial ownership; the difference being that non-commercial ownership basically means that the image is legally allowed to remain on the forum regardless of what anyone but the owner wants, but the image cannot be sold, transferred, or used commercially by the forum owner).

If the individual users retain the ownership of the image, then legally they are allowed to request it's removal at any point and are granted legal recourse in the case that this is not granted.

Anything linked from another hosting company is subject to whatever the TOS is for that place.

As a by-the-by, I do get a kick out of the "whole lotta lawyers here" comments. I know from personal experience that a lot of people here are likely to have had to look up this stuff in the past, since the copyright/ownership of material posted to the internet is far from new territory. It's really not that overly complicated, either, aside from the fact that any "wronged parties" rarely have the option (due to finances) to take any effective action.

TLDR: Posters should waterwark their images, read the TOS of wherever they are hosting them, and be prepared for disappointment if anyone decides to be a meany poo-poo head.


----------



## pj25 (Feb 6, 2013)

*solicitors opinion*

I know law/legalese like I do breathing.. im sorry but your waisting your time. You wish to protect your property that's fine, but do it with legal standing. Which there is none. You have not put forward a disclaimer nor did you copyright your image. And im afraid to say, a judge, has better things to do with his time. So should you. And if you are worried about the site making profit, dont. Google makes more from you just by simply clicking and searching, are you going to copyright what you just searched now. May I make a suggestion or 2. Put money forward on principle grounds. Oh by the way do you have savings ? Because your going to need it. Believe me you pursue this, you will regret that. Its not realistic. And some examples used here are obscene.. Its not a house, a record, a nude model, ect ect, its a picture of a spider. So remember that.

Id suggest you not pursue this on principle, because principle will leave you in a very sticky situation, for example, you can't afford to switch on a light switch never mind put food on the table. If you do decide to pursue, no win no fee, I charge £450 an hour, which is cheap for my track record of cases won.


----------



## Shellsfeathers&fur (Jan 18, 2009)

pj25 said:


> I know law/legalese like I do breathing.. im sorry but your waisting your time. You wish to protect your property that's fine, but do it with legal standing. Which there is none. You have not put forward a disclaimer nor did you copyright your image. And im afraid to say, a judge, has better things to do with his time. So should you. And if you are worried about the site making profit, dont. Google makes more from you just by simply clicking and searching, are you going to copyright what you just searched now. May I make a suggestion or 2. Put money forward on principle grounds. Oh by the way do you have savings ? Because your going to need it. Believe me you pursue this, you will regret that. Its not realistic. And some examples used here are obscene.. Its not a house, a record, a nude model, ect ect, its a picture of a spider. So remember that.
> 
> Id suggest you not pursue this on principle, because principle will leave you in a very sticky situation, for example, you can't afford to switch on a light switch never mind put food on the table. If you do decide to pursue, no win no fee, I charge £450 an hour, which is cheap for my track record of cases won.



Um sure you do! Perhaps if you used punctuation/grammar correctly someone might possibly believe you?


----------



## gambitgareth (Sep 18, 2011)

i have a law degree and masters in human rights - my mrs is a lawyer - i have friends that are lawyers and barristers - i also have a legal (tragic)background - but i think these people already know their rights by the sounds of things - they dont need lawyers at all. Why would they without even engaging trr? This is an invert forum - people cherish their inverts - and photography is very much apart of their habit. They would be entitled to an injunction jsut as much as anyone else - as you should know :-/ (strokey beard moment)


----------

