Source of photos

[Dénes]

For the sake of keeping this forum as serious and professional as possible, I would like to reiterate my earlier call to mention the actual source of ALL photos, scans of which are posted here. This would also reduce the possibility of copyright infringement and the possible problems triggered thereby.

[Indrid]

RIGHT!! there is a picture in which i appear in the general disc area that Alexandru had put there without my accord. i want 100 million $ as damages.

:keep:

[Alexandru H.]

15 bucks little man / Put that shit in my hand
If that money doesn't show / I'll owe you, owe you, owe
My jungle love.... I think I want to know you, know you, yea!

Oh, that was my answer,btw :keep:

[dead-cat]

once upon a time, someone with common sense posted a message about certain legal implication, a source of concern for quite a few.

but woe to him, look what he reaped ...

can't you keep the chit chat for yourselves on PM? or on a separate thread?

[Victor]

I second Denes on his request, especially since I asked the same thing some while ago.

[dead-cat]

my question is, does mentioning the source solve the legal issue?

i'm not sure about the copyright of WW1 photos for example. even by US law the copyright should expire after 80 years IIRC, but does this apply to the original picture only or does it protect every reprint (in a book for example)?

[Dénes]

The issue of copyright is a very complex and wide problem, which has no clear definition. Basically, it boils down to who owns the original negative. Next in line is who owns the original print, taken from the original negative in those times (assuming that the negative is long since destroyed).

The year restriction is also a bit fuzzy, I've also read 30, or 50 years, etc.

As for official IIIrd Reich propaganda, all materials are now in public domain, i.e. there is no copyright on them. However, the official German archives still ask for publication fees (not copyright fees!) for the photos they own. Tricky.

By posting the source, at least the good intention is shown, as well as seriousity and credibility.

[Dénes]

QUOTE

RIGHT!! there is a picture in which i appear in the general disc area that Alexandru had put there without my accord. i want 100 million $ as damages.

If you want a serious opinion, the mere fact that you appear on the photo does not entitle you to claim copyright (which is the topic of this thread) and any fees associated with it.

The copyright of that particular photo goes to the person who took the photo and owns the negative, Alexandru in our case.

[Alexandru H.]

QUOTE

once upon a time, someone with common sense posted a message about certain legal implication, a source of concern for quite a few.   but woe to him, look what he reaped ...   can't you keep the chit chat for yourselves on PM? or on a separate thread?

That is all I wanted to hear. Maybe there is still chance for this forum... right now, it's a dead idea, held together by the mods and a couple of people who, sometimes, post a piece of info. I like the site, I like the presentations, but the current state of the forum (there are maybe about 20 people who talk and participate...) is unfortunate...

Second of all, we should talk about the implications of spam. Spam costs bandwidth (and, ultimately, money), is useless by most standards and gives no actual intelectual profit to the users. That is true. But also spam plays a key role in the founding of such a forum (which is more tehnical than most OT forums) because:

a) it brings more people ==> more participants. I know that most of them won't be able to compete with some gifted individuals in their own domains, but (in my not so humble opinion) it's better to hope for a 10% rate of participation from among 1000 people than from 100...
it creates bondings ==> people often react positively when speaking with persons they know. Making sure that each of our character quirks is shown to other often is the difference between a thread war and a thread discussion
c) spammers have a conscience, too...Maybe, through personal example, those gifted individuals could lead their young minds to the real truths of the IIWorldWar. I learned a lot about the romanian army these past months and, hopefully, I will continue to do this....
d) it's ultimately good, harmless fun... What Indrid did is called "trolling" (yea, I know some stuff about forums) and, usually, moderators don't encourage this practice. But this also goes for the people who respond to such "trolls", like you, dead-cat. If this discussion would have been kept serious, all the participants should have kept quiet about Indrid's post and, instead, take care of Denes' request. The mods would have sent a warning private message and that would have been all. Victor's decision was ultimately good because it followed the above reasoning and not the normal forum policy, thinking more about the advantages rather than the faults of spamming.

Last, this is another example of spam (no actual mentioning of Denes and his request in my reply), yet it looks professional and most people would consider it a valuable post, which is not. Just another crap, in a nice package...Helpful or not, this is for the mods to decide... :keep:

[Dénes]

Alexandru, shouldn't this be the topic of a new thread? It's an interesting perspective, which deserves a separate life.

[Indrid]

QUOTE

The copyright of that particular photo goes to the person who took the photo and owns the negative, Alexandru in our case.

it is a digital photo. so , no negative. furthermore, the photo is no longer present in the phone memory. how about this one? who owns the picture now, considering that several people have it on their hard drives. and i am serious now. not about claims or anything, i was just wondering if there are legal reglementations about the case.

[Alexandru H.]

Well, "good intention" might seem like a good policy, but, unfortunately, if you were going to be sued, you will be sued in spite of any nice "disclaimers" you might conjure in your defense. My proposal: forbid them officially, in the forums, and leave the poor soul who had the courage of showing them to deal with the legal implications. Also, you should also forbid the "direct linking" practice (inserting full images on the forums), because you might have trouble with the sites who lose bandwidth (thus money) because of them. Maybe help people to find good, free web providers, for storing the images (like villagephotos or lycos)...

[Dénes]

QUOTE

Well, \"good intention\" might seem like a good policy, but, unfortunately, if you were going to be sued, you will be sued in spite of any nice \"disclaimers\" you might conjure in your defense.

I agree. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, at least try to show your good intentions and hope that no legal action will happen.

[Dénes]

QUOTE

it is a digital photo. so , no negative. furthermore, the photo is no longer present in the phone memory. how about this one?

I'd say the person who actually took the digital photo.
How to prove it? Tricky question, but I am sure there is already an answer to it, available somewhere on the 'net.

[Alexandru H.]

I don't believe I'm discussing this but everything has a start:

Since I was the one that took the photo and owns the alleged instrument, I am the guilty party. However, since there was no previous agreement between us, since you don't owe the exclusivity of your image, and since there is nothing in the photo that would incriminate you in any way, there is no bloody chance to even bring such a case to a civil court.

It doesn't matter anyway. I have more "incriminating" photos with you, anyway :wink: