Hi ! If you see an advert or picture on ebay and think " that's interesting ?? " The most obvious thing to do is just down load a pic for your own personal interest with out buying it !! and no one is ever going to know However ? if you download a pic from ebay and then add it to another site and claim you are the finder of this paperwork with out paying for it , is this acceptable ??? I some how doubt it ?
I recently added a watermark to photos I take and upload here for display. However, I also have recently been loading photos from old newspapers and adding them for display without my watermark as I'm not trying to claim them, just share with others. Is that acceptable? If not, I'll cease posting old newspaper ads/photos.
Yes, and I find it distracting and therefore highly irritating, It's not a watermark per se. Probably because they're thick buggers like me. That seems the most obvious explanation...
Matty I think you will find that reproduction of the "Trove" material, and many other government library services, is fine if the use is not for commercial purposes or private gain. This site would fit the bill. It's probably good manners to cite the source, though. Tony
If someone finds an advert in an old newspaper, the advert in all its incarnations does not become the property of the finder. Maybe that one copy of it belongs to the finder, but other copies belong to whoever have them. And a copy of one of those copies will not, in my opinion bear the right for adding copyright notices, watermarks etc., as the owner simply himself owns just a copy. I find it very difficult to understand the reasons for wanting to claim an ownership of a copy of something. Also the so-called ethics, from time to time mentioned in this and similar fora, saying that you cannot pass on a copy you got yourself from someone, to someone else, is misunderstood. If a copy will help, then give the copy. Whoever has the original still has it, only information is being passed on - to the benefit of the whole world, if you ask me. Weird, weird. It is, as I see it all, like an attempt to claim the north pole by trying putting a flag there. It will not belong to you, no matter how many flags you put on it. Apart from this all: for the sake of the historical interest that we all share (otherwise the advert would have no value) it all should be freely copied and shared. I share what I have - through my website - and even though some of it has costed me money, I find that if it will help others to help the community in finding answers to whatever mysteries are still left, then this is money well spent. The "original copy", of course I still have, and I do not mind if anyone else will get a copy of it from my website and use it for whatever purpose he likes. I have seen something similar in genealogy, which is another interest of mine, where some people believe that they own the information about their ancestors. In fact, these ancestors are also the ancestors of others, and the longer back in time they lived, the more people can today claim to be their relatives. And a lot of these "ancestors" are also some kind of historical persons, about whom all knowledge can be interesting to everybody having an interest in history. So nobody of today own these people, their birthdays, or whatever information is known about them.
Hey Tony, Thanks for your opinion. I kind of assumed that most on this forum would know where I'm getting bits and pieces of information from, in hindsight that probably was a bad assumption. Still, I reckon trove and I have a bit of a deal going. I get information from their site which is a government site, not a commercial or for profit site. While I haven't been crediting them for the bits I have posted on here I don't credit myself for fixing text on their site either. If anyone private messages me asking where they can find the article, I always give them the trove link, not just a copy like I belong to it. Anyway, I guess you are right, it's only manners to credit them. Mr Peterson, 3rd grade school, taught me about manners, he would be disappointed in me.
I like Matty's 'watermark' - very professional, although my own preference would be for some transparency. Paperwork can be an emotive subject, especially if money has been spent to optain it. My view is much the same as Jorgens. I'm happy to share it. I value the original paper as a collectable in it's own right. Copies - valubable info as they may be are just that - copies. Trade material by it's nature is public domain & I believe also reproducable online as fair use. I think credit is more a case of manners than law. Certainly between websites & individual collectors. Ebay & similer - images of material for sale? Who gets the credit? Is the seller the holder of the copyright? No. The image is there. If you don't value having the original in your possession, the info is there for free. Is the seller selling the vintage paper or the info it contains. I can appreciate the dilema there. Should such material be declared as being sourced from ebay? Personally I've paid for old adverts etc when the image tells me everything I need to know. To me it's a collectable & the value to me is often as much (sometimes more) as the item featured on the advert. I'm happy to share copies but would admit to being irked if copies were passed on without some acknowlegement where they came from. I'm pretty meticulous on recording any copies I get with the name of the person I got it from. If I passed it on to someone else or posted online I would make sure that person was credited. Again - manners, not legal requirement.
That's two public comments I've had on my watermark. The first was praiseworthy then your critical critique. I respect you both for your opinions. I at least don't splash the watermark over the pictures. Imagine how distracted you'd be if I did! I have wondered if they are not as thick as you may think David. Perhaps they are concerned if they do put a watermark on it, to stop someone downloading a clear script, Tilley themselves may come knocking on their door for infringing copyright?
Yes, exactly, Matty - sometimes there actually is a real copyright owner. Often these will not spend time and energy on old adverts, catalogues, etc., but if these things are still their property, they might feel infringed by others' claims to the rights and therefore feel a need to act.
I think now ebay have a requirement for such large images some sellers would be adviced to watermark their pictures if they are worthy of downloading & reproducing where the item is of general vintage & artistic appeal. If someone just wants a small print to frame the download would likely suffice.
My preference only (I use opacity of 30-50% on my ebay & shop images). Please don't take it as a hint or suggestion you should do the same. Keep the pics coming!
Sorry, I tend to speak about such matters in general terms - because it is something I have had the chance to think about at many different occasions. You are not a bad guy - at least not if you put copyright messages on your own material. Because, you do actually own your own photos and can present them anyway you like. The same counts for the photos sellers put on eBay - it is their decision what they should look like, as long as they are not infringing the copyright of someone else. Of course, I prefer to not see such messages in the pictures, for several reasons - one being that I would like to refer to them from my website, of course always with a proper description of where it comes from, and with a link. And I would do that in order to attract people to what you have yourself published, which I expect must be okay or even attractive for must publishers? But if the image has been distorted it might not be suitable for the purpose. I could then ask for permission and at the same time ask for a copy without the message, but then again - why would you give me such a copy if you didn't publish it this way in the first place, and if I should ask for permission each time, I would never get anywhere with my blog. Rather, I see such a use not as copying but as citing, just citing an image rather than a text, or sometimes both together.
My watermarks are somewhat or even a whole lot a contradiction of themselves. I like to take as a good a photo of as many parts of the lamps that I can. For members benefit. Well, members like myself that know little about lamps but a few good photos can help you understand things about the lamp. I am happy for members to see the photos but would rather the photos were not plucked and used elsewhere without my permission. I know it's a long shot that anyone would be interested in a lamp I own but one can only hope. The contradiction is, I decided to have a watermark to deter anyone from using the photos without my permission yet I can't bring myself to place the watermark over the photo's. I put the photo's there to aid members and don't want to spoil that.
Of course I respect that. Just be aware that, depending on where exactly the pictures are placed, they may be found through Google Image Search and similar services, so they could actually be seen out of context by some people. This is how the few images from CPL I did refer to (before I found out that there was a "please do not" message at the bottom of the page) appeared to me - and it is how I found out about the existence of CPL and could become a member here.
A side-track, I know, but I have noticed some problems on eBay in the UK and in Australia. When trying to do what the sellers of adverts ask for - to wait with paying until they have recalculated the shipping costs, when buying several items - eBay will not allow for this: the options are to buy it all with full shipping costs or to cancel the order. In France, just for comparison, it it possible to ask the seller to recalculate or it will sometimes even be done automatically in the shopping cart. But what to do in the UK and Australia versions of eBay? So far I have chosen to just buy one advert instead of the set I wanted (otherwise I would have to pay a lot for the shipping of a simple letter) - but maybe there is a trick that will allow for this "buy but wait with payment" idea to work? To address the original question: Economy is probably one of the reasons for some to be tempted to simply download the photo rather than buying the original copy - if the advert sells at an already high price and then another high price must be paid for shipping, perhaps even an extreme price due to the above mentioned problem, I guess that can effectively turn off the shopping-mood. Another reason, of course, is that some seller do not want to ship out of the country - then what to do else than download? A third reason: some old posters etc. are sold in huge sizes and if you need just a small picture of it, then what good would it do to buy the big poster? I do believe, however, that collectors prefer the original, and downloading just the photo of it is a second choice, mainly for those who were not real potential buyers anyway. Some people sell photocopied material on eBay or reprinted material (meaning: copies) - I can hardly feel sorry for them if others decide to copy their copies. Even if it is good that they offer the copies for sale, making it possible for others to get access to what otherwise just hide in some collections, they are themselves simply copying and should not blame others for doing the same. If they sell their copies in a good quality at appropriate prices, some will choose to buy the good quality rather than try to make their own copies. That mechanism of balance, I believe, counts for everything that can be copied. So to avoid copying: Make sure that it is more attractive to buy the real product, even if that is itself a copy.
Also a bit off track, Mick, good to see your name up in here again. I do miss your master classes and your knowledge.
That's absolutely true but surely that defeats the whole point of what you're trying to do. If I wanted to steal your images, I'd just clone part of the background over your text or simply crop it out. I could even replace it with some text of my own. Then what would you do? - sue me? To be honest, I'd be quite flattered if anyone found my images worthwhile enough to reproduce them on a website. The courtesy of acknowledging me somewhere would be nice but I wouldn't be losing sleep over it. Regarding Tilley enforcing copyright, I'd say that if they didn't enforce their rights after the war when Kopsen, Nettlefold et al were copying their designs willy-nilly, they're hardly going to be bothered by the odd non-commercial reproduction of decades old promotional material which almost certainly qualifies as 'fair dealing' with respect to copyright. And to answer Mick's original question, yes, I have been known to print off the odd thing I find on eBay or wherever. But it's strictly for my own personal use and never appears elsewhere...
I admitted in an earlier post that my watermark was a contradiction of what I'm trying to achieve or as you put it, I defeat the point of what I'm trying to do. David, I doubt I'd ever need to think of suing you as I doubt I would ever have anything of interest to you. You explained how you would/could defeat my watermark. I agree, yes you could. The idea of the watermark is to hope the person wanting the photo thinks it would be easier to move on and find another without the hassle of the watermark. After all, cars get stolen even with the best of alarm systems. Still, you would set your alarm and hope any scoundrel would move onto another car without an alarm set. Besides, my daughter created the watermark for me and I happen to like it, even more now I know it irks you.
We have the functionality to watermark all images on CPLv2 but I'm unlikely to use it. It would be in the same position in each picture & even with opacity could obscure detail - especially with paperwork. If the watermark is well done it can looks good but in our case detail trumps that. I notice ebay have dropped their watermarking of images - used to be a camera icon. Haven't seen that for a while.
To Mick's original question in post #55606, I would say it is unethical to copy anothers work and claim it as one's own. Copyright exists with the image taker, though if those images are passed on to some agency through fee or agreement, then that agency can mark them as copyright. Old advertising material may be copyright to the manufacturer of the goods or services, but once in the public domain such as on billboards or vehicles, anyone can take a picture of a bus or building and I don't see any copyright claims going very far in any court for that. As far as images for sale, many choose to watermark their displayed images such as here: http://tinyurl.com/ol84gg5 - you may not see the watermark at first, but hover over the image for zoom, and it is there. Others have watermarked the home page, but have left the sub-pages clear: http://tinyurl.com/2b76bk There are definitive lines already drawn regarding copyright, though the widespread availability of images over the internet does prove chasing infringements extremely difficult, and by and large it would appear to be left to the discretion of the poster to credit the source, even in many cases that 'source' may not be the original.
I have a (confirmed) feeling that most images used in blog posts etc. are in fact infringing the copyright of a third party. It is a well known phenomena - I will not even call it a problem. Quite many image owners give away their images for non-commercial use. I have tried to find out how to pay for some of the images I wanted to use on my websites and in some cases I had to give up - there was no way to get in touch with the owner, and since the image was already in widespread use around the internet, I decided to use it too. In other cases I did find the owner, who then didn't want to bother with asking for a payment from someone who would reach maybe a few hundred readers. A specific case is the Dilbert cartoon. I have used two of them by different occasions, and the first time I really wanted to pay for it. What I found was that the owner was well aware that there were millions of copies out there, but he didn't mind - only when a newspaper or the like wanted to print it, an agreement was necessary. I have seen my own original work being copied at times (usually text). Normally I do not mind, only when people claim it as their own. Some have asked and the answer is always - please use it, but remember to tell where it came from. To draw a conclusion: the internet is full if copies of images and some times text. Without it, there wouldn't be much of an internet, since most contributors are merely collectors and assemblers of information, rather than creators of it. Legally, it would be impossible to clean up by taking all copyists to court. In most cases there has been no damage from the copying, and even if there has, it is a very small one. As David was talking about earlier, actually most people feel flattered if others wish to use their work, link to it, or talk about it. For that reason, most people by themselves arrange for their work to be visible and downloadable, and they describe rules for when it can be used for free and when some (often small) payment must be made. For all the posters etc. being sold on eBay and elsewhere, the seller usually do not hold the copyright. Often it is public domain material, but I guess that often it is by definition unauthorised copying. In both cases, the ethical question should be turned around: it is unethical for the original copyist to claim ownership.
Copyright actions in a court are always about the money. In fact they are damages actions concerned with loss of income and such. For advertising these actions will always fail because there is no loss and in fact by copying an advert you are possibly increasing the revenue rather than causing distress. So there is no actionable copyright problem with adverts and catalogue images. However Copyright is about intelectual property so if, as I do, you take an image and work on it to correct imperfections and restore the image then the work done and the final corrected image is copyright. However since there is no loss of revenue again any action will fail. The written word is another matter of course and I take strong objection to having my work copied. This does happen from time to time and the Guild has several times taken action against illegal copies of Guild publications such as the 1st edition of the PLC and the Coleman edition. Not a prosecution because the offender paid up and eBay banned the perp. I have another case in progress with FaceBook where some pages of the PLC have been published without permnission. I am not bothered about the images but the text is mine and I have demanded removal at least. ::Neil::
I have seen your written words used in a number of ebay au listings. If you wish, if I see them again I can report them to you. In fact the following was in the description of a lamp I bought recently. This wall or bracket lantern was made for the South East Queensland Railway. For lack of a better model name they are referred to as SEQR lamps (McRae).
Well, atleast they stated the origin within the brackets, so not so bad. Is it the same Thai page Ross linked to here in the FaceBook topic?
