Modern image link

Have we seen these, Bob?

http://www.free-stock-images.co.uk/acatalog/Road_Signs.html


Doug

No it's a new one on me Doug but it's a real cracker. It's not just signs either there are a lot of other subjects that can be downloaded and used by modellers. They can all be resized too for various scales. A great find and yet another for the Index.

Great Stuff Doug

Its worth noting that the signs have changed over the years and some are subtly different.  For example the man at work sign not features a bloke with a straight back as he was bent over before.  If you are a bit anal about these things (as I am) its worth getting a highway code for the year you are modelling.

Another one is the temporary traffic lights sign has recently changed from 'when red light shows wait here' to 'wait here unless green light shows'  I assume a set had a failure resulting in a crash as the red light wasn't showing.

Cheers

Jim

Sorry, Doug.  I'm a bit confused.  Free signs for 45 pounds?  What am I missing?  :???:

[user=269]MaxSouthOz[/user] wrote:

 Free signs for 45 pounds?  What am I missing?  :???:

I was wondering that also.  If the images are downloaded and saved to your own computer then reappear with an "Equity Photographic" banner across them.

Perhaps the link-back is free.  As indeed it should be to the host site!

They images are great for modelling reference though for download and re-use note that the majority is not photographed exactly head-on so the images generated will be distorted.

changed from 'when red light shows wait here' to 'wait here unless green light shows'

As anyone with a knowledge of the Highway Code ought to be able to tell you all colours mean stop with the exception of green when you may proceed if your way is clear and it is safe to do so.  The previous wording of the sign gave free reign to anyone to pass it while an amber or red / amber light was showing which could indeed lead to a head-on smash.  It is only permissable to pass the amber if it appears to you when you are so close that to stop would be more likely to cause an accident than to continue.

Temporary lights are often unreliable so Jim's explanation is perfectly plausible as well.  If no light is shown you should stop, wait a couple of minutes and if nothing happens then proceed with extreme caution. It might only be one lamp not working and the rest will show normally.

The wording of the sign has been focussed on safety first.

Sorry if you are confusled! I tend to use a screen capture whenever I take something like this from the web  [for my own use only, of course…] as you can often trim away a great deal of extraneous detail that akes for a huge file.

The system I use is 'Faststone', a free download that gives the choice of free-hand or rectangular selection of screen-shot saves. I recommend it as it's editing facilities are useful and it will search your system for all GIFS, JPEGS etc and put them into files for you.

I should have explained, but I understand Bob uses the same system as me.

Apologetic Doofer

[user=312]dooferdog[/user] wrote:

Sorry if you are confusled! I tend to use a screen capture whenever I take something like this from the web  [for my own use only, of course…] as you can often trim away a great deal of extraneous detail that akes for a huge file.

The system I use is 'Faststone', a free download that gives the choice of free-hand or rectangular selection of screen-shot saves. I recommend it as it's editing facilities are useful and it will search your system for all GIFS, JPEGS etc and put them into files for you.

I should have explained, but I understand Bob uses the same system as me.

Apologetic Doofer

'For my own use' makes no difference its still copyright theft.  We post our images on the internet for all sorts of clients but that doesnt mean they can just download them.  If we had evidence that they did then legal action would follow.  If someone steals your car does it make it ok if they dont sell it on and claim 'its for their own use'?

These images are only free if you break the law and steal them.  The forum is on dodgy ground here if I am honest.

Why its on a site called 'free stock images' i dont know!

Cheers

Jim

I think you are over the top on this matter, I understand you are entitled to your opinion but I do not think anyone with an I.Q. measurably above that of pond-life would consider the reproduction of an everyday object in a 4x5 mm format on a privately owned railway model in the corner bedroom of my bungalow is an actionable malfeasance.

Should someone believe that their images are so desirable as to prevent their reproduction from a small format web browser format the option is there to disable 'right-clicking'.

I provided a link, what other people do with it is a matter for their own conscience.

PACE

Doug

Thanks for insulting my IQ Doug.

I work in the photography industry an people thinking they have free reign to images is driving the industry down and affecting my job and wage.  Yes you are right to say that its not something worth their time but at the same account I dont think its right that you are encoraging criminal activity only to turn around and say what people do is up to them.  We all need to take responsibility for the things we post - you obviously saw that the images had a value attached to them before you posted so I suggest you think a little bit before putting people in the position of becoming thieves.  If you think its no big deal then I suggest you go out at personally archive a similar amount of material to see just how much time and effort it takes.

If by PACE you mean the Police and Criminal Evidence act that is completly irrelevant - you need to look at FACT

You have no rights to download anything regardless of what it is and what you use it for.  Saying that the poster is somehow responsible because they 'should have enabled right click protection' is just ridiculous.  If you think it OK why not email the owner of the image and explain why you want the images and what for, they might let you have them - we wouldn't!

Just to be clear I have no problem with the OP as I think its great and a good resource.  I do have a problem with the suggestion that its OK to download images that are clearly listed as having a cash value.

Jim

The whole site is very ambiguous if you look here you will see advertised 'FREE' pictures for £45.

http://www.free-stock-images.co.uk/acatalog/Free-photos-Boats-and-Aircraft.html

These are on the FREE page.

Jim,

Don't feel personally insulted

Thanks for insulting my IQ Doug.

I insulted people who thought an action under those circumstances was viable, the law of 'de minimus'  applies in all things.

  I suggest you think a little bit before putting people in the position of becoming thieves.

 I dont think its right that you are encoraging criminal activity

I wasn't encouraging anything, they are as free as I am to ask permission to use other peoples images, as I do.

I'll say no more on the subject save that should someone visit either of the the two gallery sites at which my watercolour illustrations are shown and screen-save a low-res 15x12 cm image I wouldn't give it much thought, however, should they buy a legal A3 download and call it their own work or start producing A3 or even A4 copies, then I would get reasonably het-up.

Doug

If by PACE you mean the Police and Criminal Evidence act that is completly irrelevant - you need to look at FACT

PACE is a fairly common literary epithet which means, in essence, that you are fully entitled to your opinions and though I do not necessarily agree with you I am willing to let both our viewpoints stand without any antagonism.

[The other P.A.C.E. ,with full stops, is something that I was a practitioner of since it's inception in 1984 until my retirement on 2002]

I think the situation of copyright is a vexed problem.
To my knowledge, especially with printed material, a certain amount is allowed to be copied for personal use only. I stand to be corrected.
IMO, if people post to the Internet & do not want people to download images, etc so they can be looked at later without incurring any more internet time & cost, then prevent "right clicking" or have across the image, a watermark.

Hi Doug

we produce images - if you want them you buy them, if you download them you have stolen them.  Its black and white - we dont care why you want them, you took them without permission.

I guess I am one of those people you are trying to insult after all.

You admit trying to insult people but at the same time you mention holding viewpoints without antagonimsm.  Thats like me saying 'you are a ####### idiot - no offence!

Jim

[user=350]jim s-w[/user] wrote:

Hi Doug

we produce images - if you want them you buy them, if you download them you have stolen them. Its black and white - we dont care why you want them, you took them without permission.

I guess I am one of those people you are trying to insult after all.

Jim

Jim, now I am lost- would not images for sales be protected so they could not be downloaded/copied?

Does the fact that I can see them on my PC screen mean that I have already downloaded them electronically from the internet in the first place? IMO, I have downloaded the data to make the picture for me to see.

 

[user=350]jim s-w[/user] wrote:

Hi Doug

we produce images - if you want them you buy them, if you download them you have stolen them.  Its black and white - we dont care why you want them, you took them without permission.

I guess I am one of those people you are trying to insult after all.

You admit trying to insult people but at the same time you mention holding viewpoints without antagonimsm.  Thats like me saying 'you are a ####### idiot - no offence!

Jim

No, no, no……..they are in the FREE section of the site, and where have I insulted anyone? Stop it now, we don't have this on YMR.

Doug

While I go shopping, I will leave you two to sort out my posts #12 & 14 that had statements/questions.

[user=95]Sol[/user] wrote:

Jim, now I am lost- would not images for sales be protected so they could not be downloaded/copied?

Does the fact that I can see them on my PC screen mean that I have already downloaded them electronically from the internet in the first place? IMO, I have downloaded the data to make the picture for me to see.

 

They are Ron.  They are water marked and have right click disabled - doesnt mean you cant screen grab them as Doug suggests though.  Similarily my images on my personal site have a copyright notice and right click disabled.  Again doesn't stop anyone though does it? 

As I mentioned earlier the lack of any protection does not give free reign to all and sundry to use the images though.  There is no water mark through the pictures in a book but you cant scan and upload them to the internet - regardless of the reason.

Doug can do what he wants but I feel it vital that YMR is seen to distance itself from encoraging such activities.

Yes the images on the site are in a free area but they clearly have a value attributed to them.  That doesn't make it OK in my book.

Cheers

Jim

I can't answer your question 14, but your question 12 is only correct in certain circumstances and only for something called 'fair use'. After about an hour of reading 'fair use' yesterday I'm not much wiser, but do recall that even if your use falls within the guidelines, full attribution must be given, prominently, and does not apply to commercial use.

There are circumstances where 'copyright' may have been deemed to be abandoned but they are very rare, the simplest for artistic [drawings, diagrams, plans, works of art] and literary is that copyright protection runs for 70 years from the death of the issuer or author if unpublished, or 70 years from the date of first publication of the body of the work. Further, other study shows that by adding, say, another 2-3 pictures and a chapter or two to a book does not cause the copyright to re-commence, whereas re-printing an book originally illustrated in black and white in a colour version may do so.

This is the site that I have been consulting over another matter, where I am trying to obtain copyright from the trustees of a defunct publishing house for material to feature in a magazine article.

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law


Doug


See below,


7. I can legally copy 10% without it being infringement This is not the case. Unless it is explicitly allowed under fair use or fair dealing rules, any unauthorised use of copyright work can potentially lead to legal action.
When using quotes or extracts, there is no magic figure or percentage that can be applied as each case must be viewed on its own merit. In cases that have come to trial what is clear is that it is the perceived importance of the copied content rather than simply the quantity that counts.
Our advice would always be to seek permission before you use the work of others.

8. It’s OK to use copy or publish other peoples work if I don't make any money out of it No, except in specific circumstances permitted under fair dealing/fair use rules, any copying or publication without the consent of the copyright owner is an infringement, and you could face legal action.
If the use has a financial impact on the copyright owner, (i.e. lost sales), then you could also face a claim for damages to reclaim lost revenue and royalties.




and the above reproduced under, arguably 'Fair use ' terms, i.e.


What does fair use allow?Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:

• The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.
• That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included.
• That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.

 

Now I know for a fact that Doug has spent effort, time and money contacting people all over the world to get permission for us to use content on here and would not encourage anyone to do anything wrong. Whatever he does as a private individual is his business and rightly so.
I have been to this particular site and I do not understand it at all. I cannot find any way of buying a photograph, even if I wanted to,the checkout gives errors, the log in gives errors so I'm not even sure the site is still in use commercially.
The photographs as shown are very low resolution and cannot be enlarged. If you click on the larger picture then you will see that there is a heavy watermark. So I have come to the conclusion that this means that the small pictures are free to use because nobody is going to pay £45 for the pictures as presented on the web page but if you want a high resolution copy then you must pay for it. How you are going to pay for it is another matter as the system doesn't work, not for me anyway.

PS. I have also tried their Contact page but again I just get errors.

On my post #12, the comment I made

To my knowledge, especially with printed material, a certain amount is allowed to be copied for personal use only

really refered to the fact for my personal use only as a reference item- not passing it onto others & if I posted the same info, then certainly, give the attribution required or obtain approval in the first place.

Jim's comment about screen capture, I tried to do that with the PrtScr keyboard button but no luck& I have not got software downloaded but then I have already downloaded the image onto my PC via looking at it on screen. Where is the ruling that says, yes you can look at it on screen but not allowed to save it into the PC to look at later?  What is the difference?

You-tube as one example, is one place where images are freely available to download  - (hey even have a Downloader package ) & many of the movies are taken from either live concerts or off DVDs' - how come they stay there?

A real hornets nest.