Modern image link

A great deal of material on YouTube is on dubious ground with regard to Copyright.  I believe many clips have been removed at the behest of Copyright holders but it takes time.

Entire series of TV shows have been recorded, segmented and uploaded as they were transmitted, for example, and well before they were networked to other countries.

i understand all of the above etc, and accept it,but after all the hype
why do people /company`s totally ignore requests for permission ?
not even an acknowledgement, i have tried umpteen times , ziltch.

lol::cool:

[user=15]owen69[/user] wrote:

i understand all of the above etc, and accept it,but after all the hype
why do people /company`s totally ignore requests for permission ?
not even an acknowledgement, i have tried umpteen times , ziltch.

lol::cool:

It is frustrating, isn't it? I am now reduced to writing a recorded delivery letter to the C.E.O. of a very large publishing house to see if it will generate some form of response.

Doug

well i wish you luck Doug, but don`t hold your breath….

:cool:

[user=15]owen69[/user] wrote:

i understand all of the above etc, and accept it,but after all the hype
why do people /company`s totally ignore requests for permission ?
not even an acknowledgement, i have tried umpteen times , ziltch.

lol::cool:

Hi Owen

You need to stand out from all of the other wannabies, a large publishing house will receive many hundreds of letters a week and yours may become lost amongst them.  Are you addressing them to a specific person?  It always helps to go straight to the person or department you need the info from.  Contacting the CEO or MD will get you know where as more than likely his/her secretary will be briefed to not waste his/her time with begging letters.   Ultimately you are just creating work for them, find out what you want, who's the best person to deal with it etc etc, they dont have the time.

Remember also that these companies are a business with a commoddity you have placed a value on by asking for it.  They are not likely to just hand it over without at least an admin charge.  That is if they have the right to give you what you are asking for anyway - ownership will probably rest with the author or originator of the piece.

Having said that I have never had a problem, if you take time to explain clearly and politely what you want and what its for most people are prepaired to help you.  Of course it helps if you have a reputation already that shows you will do what you say you will and are not just wasting their time. 

At all times be polite, dont be aggressive and DEFINATELY DO NOT antaganise them by sending recorded letters,  that will get you straight onto a PITA list for sure.

PM me with who you are trying to contact - I might be able to get you a bit further along.

Cheers

Jim

thanks Jim, i have tried  publishers as it seems they hold the copyright most of the time,
i might take you up on that offer.

lol::cool:

More information on obtaining copyright permissions etc can be found here

Intellectual Property Office - GOV.UK

Further reading, confirmed by this .gov site indicates that if you have…

a.  used considerable effort to trace a copyright holder, and

b.  have saved evidence of your efforts [letters, e-mails etc.] and

c.  in the case of  succession of rights holders that you have contacted the last known holder, informed them of your intention to use it,  retaining evidence that you have done so, i.e. Recorded letter or a letter from them if they are willing acknowledging receipt of such notice…. 

then it is considered reasonable to continue with the use of the material, but must give written attribution to the ORIGINAL holder and state that you have made efforts to trace their successor. You must be prepared to face any claimant should there be one.

Luckily in my current project, the C.E.O. has agreed to send me such a letter to save me the expense and trouble of an international recorded letter.

Doug

Doug, reading that site & Copyright, the following I think covers us if we make use for our own benefit, information from the internet


You are allowed to make single copies or take short extracts of works when the use is for research that you do not make any money from or for private study, for educational courses or even for use in connection with a hobby.

Sol's summary matches my understanding of the broad brush approach to Copyright Law.

It is a minefield, and for some it is a very lucrative minefield, but for most of us at the sharp end it is mostly a matter of common sense.

If the work is not your own original then it is someone else's and that person or body may have a right to be acknowledged when their work is reproduced or closely copied.

Purely private use without such attribution or fee is always acceptable.

[user=316]Gwiwer[/user] wrote:

Sol's summary matches my understanding of the broad brush approach to Copyright Law.

It is a minefield, and for some it is a very lucrative minefield, but for most of us at the sharp end it is mostly a matter of common sense.

If the work is not your own original then it is someone else's and that person or body may have a right to be acknowledged when their work is reproduced or closely copied.

Purely private use without such attribution or fee is always acceptable.

I'm sure that is the general thrust of things, but for my sins I have taken on the task of obtaining copyright permissions to publish an article in the modelling press to contain illustrations and quotes from a book first published in 1939 by the author who subsequently passed rights through at least 4 other publishers before it went out of print in late 70s/early 80s.

I have got as far as finding the penultimate publisher, and today learned that the publishers who bought multiple rights from them did not have my title bundled in those rights. The question is, was that title deliberately or inadvertently left out of the deal?


If the author re-asserted his copyright before his death, which may have happened, then the work is subject to copyright for 70 years from his death, if the rights were neglected and not re-assigned then the work is subject to copyright for only 70 years from first publication which is why, for a 1939 publication I am anxious to trace chapter, verse, phrase and sentence of it's disposal!

Vesti la giubba!

Doug

I can't help but think that if copyright laws were made both clear and simple, then the liklihood of infringements would disappear overnight.

It's exactly because they are so complicated and vague that many people don't bother and just "publish and be damned" (I think that's an infringement !!)

With photography, it's much more clear cut - or was in the days of "film".  You made the negative so it's yours. You can seel prints to whoever you like and, because you've got the original neg., you can control any re-prints.  With digital work and the internet, it's much more difficult because there's nothing "solid" - it's just a load of repeatable "information" - exposure is greater, the means of copying are greater and therefore, the risk is greater.  Try making a decent copy of a vinyl record compared with the ease of copying a CD.

If you use parts of someone elses speeches, is that an infringement ?  If so then Winston Churchill ought to have spent his life in court.  Every single one of his greatest wartime speeches were closely based on, if not actual verbatum copies of, other great speeches or prose.

I can fully understand the "commercial" aspect of protecting your work but to either make it so difficult to get permission for any use at all or to insist on charging for someone to run off a print at home to hang on their bedroom wall is just asking to be ripped off.

As I posted before, for me even to see an image/text on my PC. I have downloaded some data from a server somewhere in the world ( or is that not classed as a download? if not, what do you call getting info from the net to be able to see the image?)

Curly one for the experts to advise.

Not sure how curly, Sol.

Most computer systems require some sort of tool for you to be able to open and view files.  If you have to download that tool from the internet, and therefore from someone else's site, then it is their work and you are normally asked to Agree / Disagree to a Terms of Use Licence or similar document.

Tools (software, some call it) which allow you to perform a task are issued under appropriate licences which grant permission for you to do that task.  Alternatively there are the arenas of "Freeware" and "Shareware".  In the former case someone has written a piece of software which is not for commercial gain and is able to be freely downloaded and used by others.  In the case of Shareware you may freely download and trial the product but it is normally disabled after a set time if not then paid for.

I regard freeware and shareware with healthy suspicion.  They have not come from trusted commercial sources and might or might not do what they claim, with or without opening portals to attack your computer whether intentionally or not.

So when you download something like Adobe Reader to allow you to open and read .pdf files you are "purchasing" (usually at zero cost) their product and the permission to use it for its intended use.

That does not conflict in any way with Copyright and downloaded material so long as you keep to the terms of use.

Rick. perhaps I had not posed my question correctly.
For me to see your post above, I have "downloaded" from the server the data. That is how I also see "downloads".
So if I "download" a photo from your posts/webpage to see it on my PC, does it mean that if I want to keep a permanent copy, either electronically on my PC or a printed version, I should contact you for approval?

Certainly to download software, paid for or freely available to be able to do other downloads ,etc is a different kettle of fish.

I understand you now.

Yes you have downloaded data from the internet and from YMR's server.  But all you have downloaded is a packet of information called a cookie which remembers which site and which page you were looking at.  You have not downloaded the text or images themselves because when you navigate away or switch off they are gone.  You cannot go into your own files and retrieve them.   

You can go into your internet history record and regain access but what you are doing is reactivating the cookie which will link you back to the page requested.  If you have cleaned out your temporary internet files and have also erased cookies at the same time you will not be able to do even this.

In order to download and retain the data from the page you are viewing on your own computer you must make some definite action.  Either clicking "Save as" or something similar depending on your system, or taking a screen capture which for many users wil be "Control" + " Print Screen"

That is when you download another person's property.

There would by now be case Law in the major countries of the World to determine your rights to do that and to retain and re-view it.  So far as I am aware you are permitted to re-view the material as often as you wish so long as it is only for your personal use or research.

If you wish to use that data for any sort of gain such as by having it incorporated into a work of your own or, in the case of the street signs we began this thread with, by printing them off and then displaying them on a model which was exhibited to the public, then we are talking a need to obtain consent of the Copyright holder.  

That consent is sometimes available on the site in question in the form of a licence, statement or other permission which may or may not impose limitations on the extent of such use.  Some information-sharing sits such as Wikipedia operate a common-user policy which you may note Chris Trerise cites at times when he posts images taken by others who have uploaded them to that site.

In the case of simple quotation of text it is permissable to copy reasonable amounts for review or, in the case of these boards, to quote a previous post to place your reply in context.  Republishing an entire work is a no-no.

Although they entire subject is misted in shades of grey rather than clear black and white does that make it any easier to understand?

Yes, that does clear some of the mud - thanks Rick.

Another way to think of things would be that when you view a page of data on the internet you are peering into the web and actually looking at the page on the server which hosts it, where ever that might be.

It looks as though it is on your screen but just like a TV show as soon as you switch off you find it was never there in the first place.

And in a further analogy with the idiot box you also need to make a definite move to keep a permanent copy at your end, such as turning on the video / DVD.

If you print off something from a web page then so long as you only use that for personal use no breach of Copyright has occurred.  If for example I don't "Save as" when I look at the local bus timetable but instead print the document and keep a copy with me that's fine.  If I make multiple copies and try to sell them on to the general public I am in breach unless consent to do so already exists or I have gained it first.

[user=316]Gwiwer[/user] wrote:

If you print off something from a web page then so long as you only use that for personal use no breach of Copyright has occurred. If for example I don't "Save as" when I look at the local bus timetable but instead print the document and keep a copy with me that's fine. If I make multiple copies and try to sell them on to the general public I am in breach unless consent to do so already exists or I have gained it first.

That's not correct Rick

If you or anybody downloads and prints anything from my website, they are breaking the law, full stop. as I own the copyright to all my images, and to print from them breaks the copyright law, even if you only use them for yourself !

The Internet has caused loads of problems regarding this issue, because of the ease that images/files can be downloaded, and the only way to be safe, is to ask permission of the owner, or if it is marked as a free download, just because you can doesn't mean it's not breaking the law.

 

 

The safest way to stay within the law is if you did not take the picture, paint the picture, produce the text or record the music you have no right to do anything with it!  You would need permission to do so unless the web site you are at gives express permission for you to use, such as at Wikipedia, and even then you have to credit etc.

The problem with the internet is that even when you find something online so many people are breaching copyright you have no idea if they really own it in the first place.

Just because you have seen somebody else reproduce something and apparantly get away with it that does not mean that you also have a right to do so.  After all, I see people exceeding the speed limit every day but that does not make it legal and it would be no defence in court to say everyone else was doing it!

Hi All

As Alan says just because something isn't copyrighted or have ownership stated on it doesn't mean you can help yourself.  Does your car have such a notice on?  Does that mean someone can just take it then (for personal use of course)?  THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!

As a rule of thumb unless you have express permission to use an image on the internet you cant use it.  99 times out of a hundred if you bother to contact the owner and ask they will be more than happy to let you have usage.

Cheers

Jim