copyright on photos (split from WC Sparrow)

[nexstarneil]

There are a few nice pics of this bird on the usual web sites. I find both amusing yet puzzling why some photographers (even though presumably not professional in the true sense of the word) put their names and various swirls all over images when they are either no better than other unadulterated pics and in many cases a lot worse. Look at the latest Smurf birds offerings for instance, why would you protect a hideous video grab? Either sell them to your many admiring fans and stay off the public boards or join in the spirit of rejoicing in something beautiful and lets see it rather than imprisoning it electronically. I know there is all the copyright stuff etc but in most cases of long staying ,accessible megas there will be dozens of images freely available and I'm sure no one will make any money off them would they?

[crabplover]

There are a few nice pics of this bird on the usual web sites. I find both amusing yet puzzling why some photographers (even though presumably not professional in the true sense of the word) put their names and various swirls all over images when they are either no better than other unadulterated pics and in many cases a lot worse. Look at the latest Smurf birds offerings for instance, why would you protect a hideous video grab? Either sell them to your many admiring fans and stay off the public boards or join in the spirit of rejoicing in something beautiful and lets see it rather than imprisoning it electronically. I know there is all the copyright stuff etc but in most cases of long staying ,accessible megas there will be dozens of images freely available and I'm sure no one will make any money off them would they?

Most people moan about swirls/names and copyright symbols only when they want to download them and avoid paying the photographer for their efforts.
Would you park your bike in the town centre and not lock it up?
or leave your bins in a public hide for others to use prior to your return.

I didnt think so.

Very little is free in this world anymore- pay up or shut up !

You could email the photographer through the link or via their website and ask them for a copy either digitally or print, in return for a donation to the photographers favourite charity.

The photographers get stick for being at a twitch in the first place, hogging spaces, not moveing on, getting too close, flushing etc (some is justified) but then you have the cheek to demand a freeby download
I cannot believe some people. :C

[ukbirder]

Very little is free in this world anymore- pay up or shut up !

Surfbirds IS free isn't it? If every surbirds contributer slapped watermarks accross the subject of their photos then there would be no point in ever looking at the surfbirds website. Photographers who want to spoil their images could get their own website and put a lot of nackered photos on it and then see how many people bothered to visit it.

[Gastronaut]

Very little is free in this world anymore- pay up or shut up !



How about if you don't want anyone else to keep a copy of your pictures for free don't post them on the internet? Nobody is forcing you to. If your aim is to advertise the pictures for sale then set up your own website at your own expense and stop poncing off the free sites set up for birders to share their info, opinions and perhaps even pictures.

You see it cuts both ways so it's really not worth getting so upset about.

[nexstarneil]

Most people moan about swirls/names and copyright symbols only when they want to download them and avoid paying the photographer for their efforts.
Would you park your bike in the town centre and not lock it up?
or leave your bins in a public hide for others to use prior to your return. I didnt think so. :C

Missed point ...... most of the 'protected' images on the open forum sites are no better than those not protected. I have no problem with stunning or exclusive images being for sale just keep them in a commercial setting.

Very little is free in this world anymore- pay up or shut up ! :C

Really? .... Is not posting with protection and a link to an images for sale site free advertising? Win win.

The photographers get stick for being at a twitch in the first place, hogging spaces, not moveing on, getting too close, flushing etc (some is justified) but then you have the cheek to demand a freeby download
I cannot believe some people. :C

This is the best one ..... I'd rather see a bird with no photographic record than have it flushed ten minutes before I arrive. Lets be realistic, images on Surf etc are generally posted by people who love taking pics for pleasure and to share them with others for whatever reason (pride, fun, accolades etc etc). I don't think anyone objects to a true professional getting paid by Birding World, Birdwatch etc for a commercial image (so long as the photographer has played the game) but don’t get the two worlds confused.

[crabplover]

How about if you don't want anyone else to keep a copy of your pictures for free don't post them on the internet? Nobody is forcing you to. If your aim is to advertise the pictures for sale then set up your own website at your own expense and stop poncing off the free sites set up for birders to share their info, opinions and perhaps even pictures.

You see it cuts both ways so it's really not worth getting so upset about.

I'm merely trying to defend and support the photographers here for their efforts, cruddy photo's, amateur's, video grabs or professionals. The image and copyright still belongs to them.
Yes the surfbirds gallery is free to VIEW, ThereforI see nothing wrong with photographers protecting their work to prevent people from downloading.

I have noticed that many photographers are now leaving the surfbirds gallery because there is nothing to protect there images, unlike Birdguides etc. This spoils it for everyone.
Just because you cannot right click to steal the image on Birdguides, does that mean that you don't look at the pictures there ?

Surely if you want to view pictures on the web of a bird, and were faced with a copyrighted image or nothing at all, are you saying you you would not bother to look ?
In most cases the watermarking is offsett so that the id features are still available, its just the background thats spoilt.

Do you walk into a gallery in London and walk out with a painting you like under your arm, with an excuse of well the artist should'nt have displayed it if he didnt want anyone to steal it- nobody was forceing him to?

In my opinion, photographers are provideing a service by submitting to a gallery, If you like the picture enough to want a copy, offer to buy one.

[Garry Richard Bagnell]

Surfbirds IS free isn't it? If every surbirds contributer slapped watermarks accross the subject of their photos then there would be no point in ever looking at the surfbirds website. Photographers who want to spoil their images could get their own website and put a lot of nackered photos on it and then see how many people bothered to visit it.

I agree with ukbirder. I cannot see the point in putting watermarks etc on low resolution images. They don't print well on a 6 by 4 size.

Maybe the professional photographers could be allocated a separate gallery to advertise their works of art.

If there was a separate gallery, atleast the digi pic's wouldn't look so crap (mine included).

[PYRTLE]

Some do not "provide a service" - apart from one or two like Mr Gantlett (who was fortunate enough to photograph the bird before it was put out on pagers) .... see post regarding Julian Bhalero who ignored the sign and twitchers protests.

[Brian Stone]

Just because you cannot right click to steal the image on Birdguides, does that mean that you don't look at the pictures there ?

Is there a bit of confusion here? I can right click on images on Birdguides to save them but even if I couldn't I could hit print screen and paste it into an image editor or just go to the Temporary Internet Files folder (or equivalent for the browser in use) and copy the picture from there. Most images you view on the web get downloaded whether you like it or not.

[Barred Wobbler]

I must say I'm educated by the attitude of some people on here to the property of others. "If I can see it, it's mine" seems to be the attitude.

I'll be thinking long and hard about that before I post any more images on this site to illustrate my posts.

Thanks folks, for saving me future effort.

As to Birdguides, even when I right click on my own photos there (and there are many, under my proper name), I get the message "This image is protected".

I don't use Surfbirds and I don't advertise my photos for sale.

[crabplover]

I must say I'm educated by the attitude of some people on here to the property of others. "If I can see it, it's mine" seems to be the attitude.

I'll be thinking long and hard about that before I post any more images on this site to illustrate my posts.

Thanks folks, for saving me future effort.

As to Birdguides, even when I right click on my own photos there (and there are many, under my proper name), I get the message "This image is protected".

I don't use Surfbirds and I don't advertise my photos for sale.

Alan, in addition to your comments regarding birdguides may I add this Copyright information that they add at the bottom of their gallery page.

'Copyright of contributed images remains with the individual photographers and pictures may not be reproduced or downloaded without the written permission of the contributor. If contact details are not given, please contact BirdGuides and we will pass on your request if possible'.

I have looked at the Surfbirds gallery page, and they do not have any equivalent statements, which justifies my point that the photographer has every right to protect their images however they wish to prevent downloading.

[ukbirder]

As to Birdguides, even when I right click on my own photos there (and there are many, under my proper name), I get the message "This image is protected".
If you are using Firefox then you do get the message but can still save the image. In IE you have to turn javascript off first (tools->internet options->security->custom level->scripting->active scripting->disable).

PS, thanks for the map Tim, I still hadn't a clue where the car park is.

[Barred Wobbler]

If you are using Firefox then you do get the message but can still save the image. In IE you have to turn javascript off first (tools->internet options->security->custom level->scripting->active scripting->disable).

PS, thanks for the map Tim, I still hadn't a clue where the car park is.

Well thanks for that information. Now I can steal my own images.|^|

As can anyone else reading this who, like me didn't know (or in my case didn't care to know) how to do it.

It looks as if the image "protection" provided by Birdguides isn't as secure as I thought. I posted there rather than Surfbirds because of the total lack of security on Surfbirds. It's not arrogance on my part -some of the images (especially distant record shots of rare birds) may be decidedly ropey. I simply like to retain my images until such time as I decide to release them.

If I let someone look at a photo album in my house it doesn't mean they can take a few prints home with them. Similarly if I post an image on a website I should have the same consideration. I'm not naive enough to think it doesn't happen, but some of the blatant statements such as those on this thread are surprising - especially where the board rules state that image copyright is held by the photographer.

At least in the past some people have had the courtesy to ask me if they could use some of my images. No request has been turned down.

[DunnoKev]

The web, regardless of whether the item in question is a photo, an article, or whatever, is 'fair game', providng the tea-leaf wasn't using it for disproportionate personal gain - and even then they'd probably lbe unable to prove in a court of law.. The web cannot be compared to a home photo album, it's taking your piccie and inviting the world and his dog download it.

A couple of years back a friend of mine went as far as getting a legal consult on the matter of 'intellectual property' regarding bird sightings on his webpage being nicked by a birdline, and he was told tuff tiddy, if you put it out in the public domain, you're asking for it. So he doesn't post anything anywhere now. His choice.

Nexstarneil's original post was asking why some people bother going to all that length on an average quality image. IMO the answer to that original question is deep-rooted in ego (sorry to be Freudian, but there it is).

Honestly, is there anyone out there nicking all these 'supasnaps' quality images of rarities with Fredwasere written over 'em - when there's better ones with nout written on that they could purloin??

And even more importantly, how many peeps are nicking the 'money shots' anyway??

Not enough to put a quality photographer out of business. No-one is ever going to make a living out of rarity photos. The Pros make their money on quality Tawnies, or Gannets, or fields of Poppies (with a lot of the profit coming from the framing btw). Take a look at what's on their stands at the next Birdfair.

If finding out someone has taken a copy of your blurred Sparrow and downloaded it onto their computer so they can look at it whenever they want, instead of going to the webpage it was originally on to view it whenever they want.. if that bruises your ego, then stay off the web, you'll feel a lot better for it.

[Barred Wobbler]

Well thankfully Kev I don't need advice from the likes of you whether or not I should go on the web.

And as I said above I don't advertise photos for sale, but I've given quite a few images in original quality to those who have had the courtesy to ask. I have also had approaches from commercial bodies, but it was they who instigated the approach.

I'm reminded by some of the replies on this thread of my biology lessons at school, the various types of fungus, plants, animals etc and their relationships with other organisms. Saprophytes and such-like. They told us about the various relationships between organisms and their hosts - symbiotc relationships for instance where both parties benefit - a bit of give and take - clown fish and sea anenomes, lichen (a sybiotic relationship between an alga and a fungus). I quite like that. I provide something voluntarily, someone else takes it and vice versa. Win-win.

And then there was the other kind of relationship - the parasitic one where one organism takes from the other without providing benefit to the host - sometimes destroying the host.

It seems that parasitism is encouraged on the web in the name of modernity, an attitude of "If you are soft enough to post here expect to get ripped off".

I'd prefer not to be a host to parasites.

[Archie Archer]

Very little is free in this world anymore- pay up or shut up !

LOSER! Look here pal if us normal birders allow you to hog prime positions at twitches and have to endure you boring us to tears with stories about filters, zooms and the like then I expect to be able to download your images free of charge. If not I will simply stand infront of you next time or pull you by your hood and frog march you to the back of the que. Jeeez these so-called photographers really get on my nerves sometimes.

[Archie Archer]

I'd prefer not to be a host to parasites.

I define a parasite as someone who uses a free resource such as this website to advertise their snaps of out-of-focus rarities.

[DunnoKev]

No worries Alan, the advice was free and uncopyrighted from me and the likes of me..

DunnoKev
---------
"Quality photos supplied, all genuine, no questions asked.."

[deborah4]

Now thinking disingenuously, which is entirely inconsistent with BF ... it's far harder to claim a good high rez for your own but naffy out of focus pics ... far easier to add to your album and in years to come, claim a rarity tick without going further than your living room ... but surely not even desperate listers would do that ...would they? Birders are nice people - they don't steal each other's birds. They Share and Don't Care. (unless their photos are Nigel Blake standard, in which case, paying for the class photography seems fair do's) :smoke:

(sorry couldn't resist that one;))

[Barred Wobbler]

I don't understand your point Deborah.

I just don't like the feeling that something I can't see is feeding off me and others like me and having a good laugh into the bargain.

Problem sorted however. I've learnt a lot today.

[deborah4]

I don't understand your point Deborah.

I just don't like the feeling that something I can't see is feeding off me and others like me and having a good laugh into the bargain.

Problem sorted however. I've learnt a lot today.

Sorry Alan didn't mean to offend you - I was only making the point, sumwat clumsily, that once pics go on the Web, it's in reality very hard to control who downloads them and what they might be used for unless there's clear copyright stamped all over them. The value in even a really fuzzy pic of a rarity lies in it's subject matter of course. Often photos of rarities improve as the word gets out and more photos get uploaded - remember the first naffy pics of the LB Murrelet, a very difficult bird to photograph - (all mine were of upended rumps of a totally unidentifiable auk!)

(the other comment was tongue in cheek - it did seem to be getting a little warm in here ;))

[Barred Wobbler]

I wasn't offended Deborah, I just didn't follow it.

I found the LB Murrelet particulary difficult to photograph. I arrived on the same day the storms came and the bird had left.;)

[Dave Hutton]

LOSER! Look here pal if us normal birders allow you to hog prime positions at twitches and have to endure you boring us to tears with stories about filters, zooms and the like then I expect to be able to download your images free of charge. If not I will simply stand infront of you next time or pull you by your hood and frog march you to the back of the que. Jeeez these so-called photographers really get on my nerves sometimes.

Archie,

I'd like to see that a Warks/Staffs hybrid (all 5ft nothing) struggling with some big bruiser at the front 8-P

[Gavin Haig]

I provide something voluntarily, someone else takes it and vice versa. Win-win.

Isn't that exact principle a big tick in the 'pros' column in the 'Is The Internet Good Or Evil?' debate? It's what makes 'Wikipedia' work, for example. The reward for the provider is in the providing, innit? If one didn't want to share, one wouldn't offer, would one? If one wanted dosh, one would protect, and charge, surely?

Re. photos - I couldn't give a monkey's if every photo I posted were downloaded ad infinitum. I don't want money for them, so I have already had my reward in full. If I ever found one of my pics used elsewhere I might get a bit miffed, but as that is highly unlikely I shan't lose any sleep.

Take our esteemed BirdForum, for example. It is provided for free to any who wish to share (pics, prose, debate, whatever). The providers presumably take pleasure in their creation, and we enjoy using it. A symbiotic relationship, no? Now, we can (if we choose to) make a contribution towards the cost of BF. If we do not, does that make us a parasite? I think not - that would be too harsh....

Like nexstarneil I cannot see the point in putting a photo of a smart bird on the internet for everyone to enjoy....and then not allowing them to enjoy it coz it's distorted by a whacking great C. What is the motive for posting, exactly???????

[Barred Wobbler]

Isn't that exact principle a big tick in the 'pros' column in the 'Is The Internet Good Or Evil?' debate? It's what makes 'Wikipedia' work, for example. The reward for the provider is in the providing, innit? If one didn't want to share, one wouldn't offer, would one? If one wanted dosh, one would protect, and charge, surely?

Re. photos - I couldn't give a monkey's if every photo I posted were downloaded ad infinitum. I don't want money for them, so I have already had my reward in full. If I ever found one of my pics used elsewhere I might get a bit miffed, but as that is highly unlikely I shan't lose any sleep.

Take our esteemed BirdForum, for example. It is provided for free to any who wish to share (pics, prose, debate, whatever). The providers presumably take pleasure in their creation, and we enjoy using it. A symbiotic relationship, no? Now, we can (if we choose to) make a contribution towards the cost of BF. If we do not, does that make us a parasite? I think not - that would be too harsh....

Like nexstarneil I cannot see the point in putting a photo of a smart bird on the internet for everyone to enjoy....and then not allowing them to enjoy it coz it's distorted by a whacking great C. What is the motive for posting, exactly???????

I don't know. I've always been puzzled by that as well.

[Dave Hutton]

As i understand it the photographer holds copyright of his/hers photos if he/she chooses to put them on the web then thats their choice,if however someone was to choose to download the pics & redistribute for money or otherwise as their own then that would be a different matter? I foreone enjoy taking photos (good or bad!) & have never looked to make financial gain from it (But if a donation was made for charity Superb)

Dave

[Birdspotter]

I looked at surfbirds the other day and was a bit disappointed at some decent and some not so decent shots of the sparrow with big copyright signs emblazoned right across them.
This rather ruined what I had anticipated was going to be a great looking bird, and no not because I couldn't download them before anyone starts.
I would rather look at a shit photo of a great bird, rather than a great photo with all the copyright on.
I will look forward though to seeing all the great shots were they outta be in BB,Birdwatch and BW and so on.
But, if photographers want to use these sites as free advertising and protect their work, then that's up to them.
Shame, but that's the way it is I am afraid, until websites can protect better.

PS Birders are quite welcome to download any of my work available on this forum, without signs I may add3:-)

[Andy Bright]

I'm not sure, but I don't think any photographer begrudges someone taking a photo off the web for their own personal use? It's when it comes to republishing that they'd like to be at least asked (and rarely refused for non-profit use).

As to copyright banners... yep, they're mainly ego, as the copyright symbol has no significant legal bearing anymore. It's mainly about getting some credit if someone does use your piccy without permission on the web (yeah they can crop/clone out but they rarely bother). A fairly discreet notice towards the edge is fair enough, and my own choice.

Destroying an image with a copyright notice across the subject and showing it on a gallery type platform seems a bit odd to me, when you're supposed to be showing the image for the sake of the subject matter. The BF gallery, home to 150,000+ photos, including many from genuine masters, doesn't seem to attract any excessive copyright banners... in fact it's often the best photographers who seem to have the more rational outlook when it comes to showing photos on the web .

cheers,
Andy

[Archie Archer]

Archie,

I'd like to see that a Warks/Staffs hybrid (all 5ft nothing) struggling with some big bruiser at the front 8-P

I'd fancy my chances in a 'street fight' with most photographers as the majority resemble the geezer from the 'Mr Muscle' adverts! ;) The exceptions would be Steve Morgan (he'd batter me) and Steve Young (he's too much of a nice bloke). I'd always offer those guys a place at the front! ;)

[Barred Wobbler]

I'm not sure, but I don't think any photographer begrudges someone taking a photo off the web for their own personal use? It's when it comes to republishing that they'd like to be at least asked (and rarely refused for non-profit use).

As to copyright banners... yep, they're mainly ego, as the copyright symbol has no significant legal bearing anymore. It's mainly about getting some credit if someone does use your piccy without permission on the web (yeah they can crop/clone out but they rarely bother). A fairly discreet notice towards the edge is fair enough, and my own choice.

Destroying an image with a copyright notice across the subject and showing it on a gallery type platform seems a bit odd to me, when you're supposed to be showing the image for the sake of the subject matter. The BF gallery, home to 150,000+ photos, including many from genuine masters, doesn't seem to attract any excessive copyright banners... in fact it's often the best photographers who seem to have the more rational outlook when it comes to showing photos on the web .

cheers,
Andy

I've had the night to think about it and I still think that this is a strange remark coming from someone running a board which should have a duty to at least try to protect the copyright of its contributors.

[Brian Stone]

Alan, you can only view pictures on the web by downloading them. Your browser does this for you. Websites can reiterate copyright policy but if you have put an image on the web it can be copied and used without permission by the unscrupulous. From this point of view I can see why someone would want to watermark a high quality image posted on the web. I can't understand why you would do it with a small, low res image on surfbirds.

[Jos Stratford]

I've had the night to think about it and I still think that this is a strange remark coming from someone running a board which should have a duty to at least try to protect the copyright of its contributors.

Alan, though I sympathise with you and fully accept you have the right not to have pictures used without your permission, Andy's comments are really spot on - I presume most of the photographers, myself and yourself included, post pictures primarily because we have enjoyed taking them, are pleased with the result and with to share the picture with others, albeit on a view only basis. It does therefore seem very odd to me to first spend huge amounts of time trying to get the most visually pleasing image to then purposely deface it/reduce its visual impact by plastering a great copyright logo in front of it. At the end of the day, aren't we mostly posting the pictures for others to enjoy - if so, then I would try to make that picture as nice as possible.

When photography becomes a business or significant revenue earner, I suppose the equation changes - some of the pictures by Hugh Harrop in Shetland are the classic example of this ...his shots of Brunnich's Guillemot, for example, were fantastic, but at the same time an eyesore, the copyright was more prominent than the bird! I fully understand his motives are slighty different - he does sell many pictures and is protecting business interests - but for the rest of us 'normal types', is it really worth worrying about?

[Barred Wobbler]

As I've said above Jos I don't agree with defacing photos with watermarks etc. The image is important and all that text ruins it.

I do take exception to being considered some sort of nutter for daring to suggest that if someone wants an image all they've got to do is ask. As I've said in a similar thread that someone started in the Computers and The Internet board, I've never turned down a request and I usually send the requester a better quality image that the one posted, often with a few other shots for good measure. If they say they want to publish it in a non-commercial way all I ask is an acknowledgement. I believe in playing fair.

For that I'm accused of being amonst a group who use the board for free advertising so I can sell out of focus sub-standard photographs. Read the messages above.

[Bob Thompson]

I'm not sure, but I don't think any photographer begrudges someone taking a photo off the web for their own personal use? It's when it comes to republishing that they'd like to be at least asked (and rarely refused for non-profit use).

As to copyright banners... yep, they're mainly ego, as the copyright symbol has no significant legal bearing anymore. It's mainly about getting some credit if someone does use your piccy without permission on the web (yeah they can crop/clone out but they rarely bother). A fairly discreet notice towards the edge is fair enough, and my own choice.

Destroying an image with a copyright notice across the subject and showing it on a gallery type platform seems a bit odd to me, when you're supposed to be showing the image for the sake of the subject matter. The BF gallery, home to 150,000+ photos, including many from genuine masters, doesn't seem to attract any excessive copyright banners... in fact it's often the best photographers who seem to have the more rational outlook when it comes to showing photos on the web .

cheers,
Andy
Andy,

I find it a little difficult to believe that you really wrote the above quotation, as a No 2 on the board you should have some respect for the copyrighted photos on this website.

You all seem to fail to remember that there are photographers out there trying to make a paltry living by taking bird shots and some of them would love to share their shots with others who have a similar interest.

I for one detest, seeing people linking my shots to their websites and they then have the hide to run adds on the pages - they are strictly robbing me.

[Jos Stratford]

I do take exception to being considered some sort of nutter

Not by me ;) As said, I sympathise with your position, but I suspect you (if anything like me) got some sort of pleasure from sharing your photographs on this and other websites - if so, why stop? Just 'cos some persons are inconsiderate out there, doesn't mean you (and us) need to lose out on the joy of sharng photographs. If they ignore polite requests for asking permission first, well so be it, just means they are not nice.

[Jos Stratford]

You all seem to fail to remember that there are photographers out there trying to make a paltry living by taking bird shots .

Whilst I have full sympathy with Alan, I do not with this attitude. Firstly, BirdForum is not run as an advertising medium for would-be professional photographers and, secondly, BirdForum is not controlling the technology that permits downloading anyhow.

99% of people on here, I suspect, post pictures simply to share the image and are not concerned by money either way and, in reality, how many shots are downloaded for commercial use anyway? I guess very few, given that they are of low resolution and limited commercial value. If you are trying to make a living from photography, then that's fine, copyright your work however you choose, but why expect a public website to host your stuff for free and also bend over backwards to ensure you don't lose any income?

[Brian Stone]

Not by me ;) As said, I sympathise with your position, but I suspect you (if anything like me) got some sort of pleasure from sharing your photographs on this and other websites - if so, why stop? Just 'cos some persons are inconsiderate out there, doesn't mean you (and us) need to lose out on the joy of sharng photographs. If they ignore polite requests for asking permission first, well so be it, just means they are not nice.

Nor me. FWIW I seem to be increasingly contacted before my shots are used so perhaps there is a more responsible culture developing. Of course there is no way to know how many get used without permission except when you happen to come across one (like when I opened a copy of the Independent to find one of my shots! - they paid up when I chased them though.).

[Harold Stiver]

As to copyright banners... yep, they're mainly ego, as the copyright symbol has no significant legal bearing anymore. It's mainly about getting some credit if someone does use your piccy without permission on the web (yeah they can crop/clone out but they rarely bother). A fairly discreet notice towards the edge is fair enough, and my own choice.


Putting a copyright on the image has been recommended as its removal by those who use it without authorization shows the intent of pirates, and at least in the U.S., can result in extra damages awarded.

I agree that it makes little sense to mar an image in an attempt to protect it except for strictly stock sale sites.

It is amusing how adamant some people are when they are trying to give away other people's property. No doubt the same people who see no problem in downloading music for free.Would they be so cheerful if I nicked their bike left parked in a public spot for me to admire?

[jforgham]

[QUOTE=Archie Archer;1098603] if us normal birders

Really???;)

Jono

[Marcus Lawson]

I'm not sure, but I don't think any photographer begrudges someone taking a photo off the web for their own personal use? It's when it comes to republishing that they'd like to be at least asked (and rarely refused for non-profit use).


When I asked Mr Gantlett a while ago where my cheque was for a photo published in BW he said that as the image was on the web he presumed he could publish it for nothing! The image he used wasn't on the web anywhere as I kept it back for the mags!! Don't assume anything.

[Isurus]

I favour a middle ground here - total respect for copyright and people's rights to watermark their photos but I really don't like seeing images ruined by clumsy use of watermarks - some of the u/w stuff I've seen is so mangled you can barely make it out with the result that whilst people won't nick it, they can't make a judgment on purchasing it either.

By all means watermark but I think a little judgment on how best to apply it favours all - it protects the photo whilst letting see it, enjoy it, and perhaps even be persuaded to purchase it.

[Andy Bright]

I probably worded my post rather badly. Almost every photograher I know does not mind if someone downloads the image for their personal use on their pc...not printing, not republishing (web or physical), but simply, as many do, to have a database of images on their pc for their own viewing.
I hope this clears it up.

I have had my images taken off the web, compiled on a cd and resold on ebay (odd as that may seem)... and the gentlemen reluctantly coughed-up the ££ for the 30 or so cd's sold. I can recount many other examples (google image search = ££). So, yes, I value my images and do have first hand experience of copyright law but will only press for a fee if it has been used for financial gain.

Expecting someone to ask permission to simply save the picture to their pc, where that photo will never be seen by anyone else, is ridiculous in my view.

Andy

[Barred Wobbler]

Maybe in your view Andy.

In that case I'm ridiculous, but rest assured it won't be happening to any more of my images from this site.

I'm also surprised that anyone can download my images willy-nilly, with the tacit approval of the board it seems, yet I can't use the Manage Attachments facility to remove my own images from my own posts after a day or so of posting. Amazing.

[Andy Bright]

When I asked Mr Gantlett a while ago where my cheque was for a photo published in BW he said that as the image was on the web he presumed he could publish it for nothing! The image he used wasn't on the web anywhere as I kept it back for the mags!! Don't assume anything.


You'll have to elaborate, Marcus, unless you didn't mean to quote my post.
cheers,
Andy

[Harold Stiver]

Expecting someone to ask permission to simply save the picture to their pc, where that photo will never be seen by anyone else, is ridiculous in my view.

Andy

I was under the impression that some members were suggesting that if posting on the internet makes it fair game for any use, since the internet is "free".

I note also there is a lot of anti-photographer sentiment blossoming in the birder world which tends to creep into any discussion of photographs. There are certainly some photographers who deserve some lumps for bad behavior (as there are non photographers) but a lot seems to come from baser motives.

But I should be careful, I don't want to head this already split thread in another direction. ;)

[Andy Bright]

Maybe in your view Andy.

In that case I'm ridiculous, but rest assured it won't be happening to any more of my images from this site.

I'm also surprised that anyone can download my images willy-nilly, with the tacit approval of the board it seems, yet I can't use the Manage Attachments facility to remove my own images from my own posts after a day or so of posting. Amazing.

Amazing indeed. I'll remove all your images this evening.

[Barred Wobbler]

Thank you.

[pe'rigin]

I’ve got to agree with Alan and Harold on this, copyright is very important to individual, company or organisation.

Ok, you can argue this is an open forum, free access to any image, great if you want to showcase your work.

But, weekly, I come across people who are downloading over the Internet images, designs etc, which clearly are not theirs and they are using them for some monetary gain or advantage. Plagiarism has never been so rife. Supposedly named ‘web designers’ are literally lifting whole portions of other peoples work for other sites.

[Andy Bright]

It's odd, but I've always been regarded as a copyright hardliner and have constantly urged (on BF and elsewhere on the web for nearly 10 years) that photographers should value their work... but clearly I'm not as hardline as some.

To me (not BF, just a photographer), it is what is done with the image that counts... People save photos to their pc, it happens, it's inevitable and it cannot be stopped. As I have said, most photographers I know accept this and are perfectly happy if someone saves a photo to their pc, maybe as a part of a slideshow of their favourite photos... any public display would be a different matter.

The right click warnings about copyright are often used as just that, a warning about copyright and a reminder that the photo does actually belong to someone i.e don't republish without permission.

I'm sure Harold remembers the glory days of Birds-pix .... people actually collected the photos for their own personal reference, nobody got angry or anything like that.

I just try and be rational as far as my own photos are concerned, I don't have nightmares about some little old granny downloading one of my photos for a screensaver.

cheers,
Andy

And this thread could wel be moved to the photography section.

[BobTag]

And this thread could wel be moved to the photography section.

Think that could be a very good idea Andy ;)

[postcardcv]

I probably worded my post rather badly. Almost every photograher I know does not mind if someone downloads the image for their personal use on their pc...not printing, not republishing (web or physical), but simply, as many do, to have a database of images on their pc for their own viewing.
I hope this clears it up.

I tend to agree with Andy, image on the web are freely available to be viewed so personally I don't see much difference between someone returning to a website each time they wish to view it or keeping a copy on their pc. The moment an image is used elsewhere, either digitally or in print then I'd have an issue with it. I've seen some of my images turn up in unexpected places and have always taken action.

[Dave Hutton]

[QUOTE=pe'rigin;1099577]I’ve got to agree with Alan and Harold on this, copyright is very important to individual, company or organisation.

Ok, you can argue this is an open forum, free access to any image, great if you want to showcase your work.

Im sorry i just don't see their problem! they were quite happy to post to a open forum & prob have praise given on their photos yet when it comes to the odd person downloading the pic (yes its nice to be asked as i have been many times) they seem to have lost the plot!!! Ive spent thousands on equipment (for my own enjoyment,not as a job!)& am quite happy for people to use my images for personal use or for charity!! If you don't want people to use your images then don't post!! SIMPLE

[Harold Stiver]

Ok, you can argue this is an open forum, free access to any image, great if you want to showcase your work.

I'm not sure what you mean. having access to view images doesn't mean free to do whatever you want with them.

I have no problem with people downloading images to their PC for their own use, but a lot of bf members seem to think by posting on the internet you have given up your rights to the image.

To me this is less of a monetary issue as some members think, than it is one of control over your own intellectual property, how things get used and for what purpose.

[Andy Bright]

I have no problem with people downloading images to their PC for their own use



Then we are in perfect agreement :t:

cheers,
Andy

[Barred Wobbler]

[QUOTE=pe'rigin;1099577]I’ve got to agree with Alan and Harold on this, copyright is very important to individual, company or organisation.

Ok, you can argue this is an open forum, free access to any image, great if you want to showcase your work.

Im sorry i just don't see their problem! they were quite happy to post to a open forum & prob have praise given on their photos yet when it comes to the odd person downloading the pic (yes its nice to be asked as i have been many times) they seem to have lost the plot!!! Ive spent thousands on equipment (for my own enjoyment,not as a job!)& am quite happy for people to use my images for personal use or for charity!! If you don't want people to use your images then don't post!! SIMPLE


An extract from the Birdforum guidelines:

"Remember that the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo. Please do not use any of the Gallery photos without first obtaining the permission of the photographer."

Notice the use of the word "use", it doesn't qualify it with any phrase such as "commercial gain", it doesn't say "sell". It says "use".

Put simply. If you want to use it, ask the photographer. This is all I've been saying all along. A simple request in a Pm or even in the thread is all it takes. Manners cost nowt.

[Dave Hutton]

I'm not sure what you mean. having access to view images doesn't mean free to do whatever you want with them.

I have no problem with people downloading images to their PC for their own use, but a lot of bf members seem to think by posting on the internet you have given up your rights to the image.

To me this is less of a monetary issue as some members think, than it is one of control over your own intellectual property, how things get used and for what purpose.

Harold,

Your not quoting me that was a quote from per'rigin!!!
& i don't believe that a lot of BF mbrs seem to think that you've given up your rights to your image just because you have posted it (Give them some credit!! you seem to be implying they're a bunch of uneducated idiots) ;)

[Harold Stiver]

Harold,

Your not quoting me that was a quote from per'rigin!!!
& i don't believe that a lot of BF mbrs seem to think that you've given up your rights to your image just because you have posted it (Give them some credit!! you seem to be implying they're a bunch of uneducated idiots) ;)

Sorry Dave. Your quote is actually messed up in the post so its hard to tell. Also you apparently edited after I started to reply, and I'm a slow typer.|:$|


& i don't believe that a lot of BF mbrs seem to think that you've given up your rights to your image just because you have posted it (Give them some credit!! you seem to be implying they're a bunch of uneducated idiots) ;)

I should not have said a lot, but there is the following gem from earlier in this thread.

The web, regardless of whether the item in question is a photo, an article, or whatever, is 'fair game', providng the tea-leaf wasn't using it for disproportionate personal gain - and even then they'd probably lbe unable to prove in a court of law.. The web cannot be compared to a home photo album, it's taking your piccie and inviting the world and his dog download it.

[Dave Hutton]

[QUOTE=Harold Stiver;1099689]Sorry Dave. Your quote is actually messed up in the post so its hard to tell. Also you apparently edited after I started to reply, and I'm a slow typer.|:$|

My fault there Harold i hit the post button just after the Quote button!! itchy trigger finger (hav'nt done any photography since last Sunday) ;)

[Barred Wobbler]

I repeat:

An extract from the Birdforum guidelines:

"Remember that the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo. Please do not use any of the Gallery photos without first obtaining the permission of the photographer."

[Dave Hutton]

I repeat:

An extract from the Birdforum guidelines:

"Remember that the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo. Please do not use any of the Gallery photos without first obtaining the permission of the photographer."

Whats your point Alan??

the same post twice in about 4 posts!! waiting for a reply! i thought you had gone away happy that all your photos were going to be removed o:D

[a.dancy]

I have absolutely no problem at all with any private individual downloading any of my images onto their PC for their own private use. I just do not see the problem with it. In the first instance I would not want to receive the emails asking permission (not that I receive that many) and secondly a commonsense/practical approach has to be considered regarding low res images in any event. I agree it is an entirely different matter if those images are printed or moved on and publishing for gain or otherwise, no matter what medium is employed.

[Barred Wobbler]

My point is that having worked for many years in contract supervision, project management, including the drawing up of contracts and contract specifications and contract operation, it appears to me that these guidelines form or imply a contract between the members and the board and also between the board and the members, in this case the photographers, which is why I find some of the posts in particular on this topic so surprising.

The rules say ask before using. The posts say, don't bother, if anybody complains just tell them they are being an old fuddy-duddy and the need to get up to date and they'll go away.

And if you think I'm happy you are very much mistaken.

[dave123]

My point is that having worked for many years in contract supervision, project management, including the drawing up of contracts and contract specifications and contract operation, it appears to me that these guidelines form or imply a contract between the members and the board and also between the board and the members, in this case the photographers, which is why I find some of the posts in particular on this topic so surprising.

The rules say ask before using. The posts say, don't bother, if anybody complains just tell them they are being an old fuddy-duddy and the need to get up to date and they'll go away.

And if you think I'm happy you are very much mistaken.

rules are only made so some of us can break them (that why the legal profession charge extortinate prices)
happy clicking alan

[Dave Hutton]

[QUOTE=Alan Seaton;1099725]My point is that having worked for many years in contract supervision, project management, including the drawing up of contracts and contract specifications and contract operation

Your not in the boardroom now Alan (It's a hobby for gods sake,there might be a few idiots out there looking for financial gain out of 1 of your photos) Like i said before if you dont want people to enjoy your work Don't Post It!! failing that get yourself to the Docs I'm sure they can find you some pills for your anger or a self help group 8-P

[Barred Wobbler]

I'm not suggesting I am in the boardroom.

I'm just pointing out that the board has rules that are there for ALL to see. What is the point of having them if, as dave above so helpfully points out that "rules are only made so that some of us can break them"?

And when will the message get through that it is not finacial aspects I'm bothered about? Haven't you read the thread?

I do want people to "enjoy my work". I've often used it for helping out others. I don't sell it.

Try reading what I've written in earlier posts before you start accusing me of saying things I haven't.

I won't lower myself to comment on the cheap shot at the end.

[Dave Hutton]

I'm not suggesting I am in the boardroom.

I'm just pointing out that the board has rules that are there for ALL to see. What is the point of having them if, as dave above so helpfully points out that "rules are only made so that some of us can break them"?

And when will the message get through that it is not finacial aspects I'm bothered about? Haven't you read the thread?

I do want people to "enjoy my work". I've often used it for helping out others. I don't sell it.

Try reading what I've written in earlier posts before you start accusing me of saying things I haven't.

I won't lower myself to comment on the cheap shot at the end.

Alan,
Its tongue in cheek (yes ive read the posts from day 1 !! but it all comes back to the same thing!! not accusing you off saying anything,just what you've posted) :cat:

[Andy Bright]

My point is that having worked for many years in contract supervision, project management, including the drawing up of contracts and contract specifications and contract operation, it appears to me that these guidelines form or imply a contract between the members and the board and also between the board and the members, in this case the photographers, which is why I find some of the posts in particular on this topic so surprising.

The rules say ask before using. The posts say, don't bother, if anybody complains just tell them they are being an old fuddy-duddy and the need to get up to date and they'll go away.

And if you think I'm happy you are very much mistaken.

Yes, in a perfect world, people will contact you to ask permission to download a photo to their pc for their own personal enjoyment. And yes, taken to extreme the word 'use' in the BF gallery notice includes some member downloading a photo to their pc and maybe glancing at it once in a while. But as a photographer you have to realise this will not usually be the case, welcome as it may be when it happens... most of us realise this and just get on with it. I'm not simply talking about the gallery here but the web as a whole.

I'm sorry that you are so unhappy but it's the reality anyone posting photos on the internet has to live with. I suspect your decision not to post any photos on the internet again is the right one if you feel this way.

cheers,
Andy

[Barred Wobbler]

I didn't say I wouldn't be posting any photos on the internet again. The internet is a big place.

I did think however that a representative of the board would at least stand up for the site rules.

Obviously in my old granny, fuddy-duddy way I was mistaken.

[a.dancy]

Alan, it is not my intention to be disrespectful towards you. I do understand where you are coming from. If you work as a project manager then I am sure you would not engage huge amounts of your time on issues that do not really matter (subjective I know). We all have countless rights but do not occupy ourselves all day long asserting them. We wouldn't have time to sleep. It's a real world we live in and we have to be practical. These are my personal views. I hope in the fullness of time you accept that in regard to people transferring images to their computer it is not such a big deal. I hope you continue to enjoy birds and photography.


Edit: This was written without my being aware of Andy's comments.

[Tim Taylor]

I would just like to chip in from a slightly different perspective and say how pleased I have been to find the BF community and to be able to view people's pics and to post mine. This forum has always been about sharing and has been extremely supportive to newbies like me. I get the impression that many very experienced photographers, some of whom also make money from their photography also enjoy the experience on BF.

As has already been said, it's technically impossible (as I understand it) to view an image without it being downloaded to your PC. I don't think anyone approves of people profiting from use of other people's images and I don't really think there's as much disagreement in this thread as there appears.

[dantheman]

I was under the impression that the quality of a picture has to be higher for publishing than it has to be for web viewing.

Surely it should be possible to post a still lower quality/ smaller size image which still shows the subject matter/ composition on a web site such as this, and which no-one would feel worthy of downloading to put in their own personal slideshow/screensaver.

I noticed Alan's Glaucous gull pic he linked to in a separate thread was of higher image quality than most images I'm used to seeing. Surely by making the images less desirable in this way, without wrecking them with copyright imaging, you would take away the temptation people might have to use them for their own usage (or other purposes). . .

And the beauty of the shot, record, whatever would still be here for people to enjoy and appreciate.


Edit:

Maybe it's analogous to the situation with small children and sharp knives- you are not going to get rid of all the sharp knives because the children find them fascinating and want to play with them. And you don't leave them lying around on the floor, and constantly have to watch the child and tell it off every time they go near them. No, you put the knives somewhere out of reach- you limit the temptation.

Web users are really just like small children - without the technology and a 1984 style regime to implement it, they are nigh on uncontrollable. You have to be a little sneaky yourself, or accept they will play with the knives.

[ukbirder]

Well thanks for that information. Now I can steal my own images.|^|

As can anyone else reading this who, like me didn't know (or in my case didn't care to know) how to do it.
Ignorance is bliss.

[Barred Wobbler]

Ignorance is bliss.

I think you'll find that the proverb actually says,

"When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise".

Which rather proves my point.

Thanks for that.

[Conorbirda2]

I've just come into this thread but read pages 1&3 (missed out 2!) What exactly are people using the photos for? How can anyone make financial gain from down loading someone elses photos? Who would download them then sell them on? Does that happen? If you go to any rarity now, there are more cameras than scopes. I wouldnt pay for a photo any more, Im quite happy for people to download any of my photos and do what they want with them. If they publish them on another website then fine as long as they are not claiming that they have taken the shot themselves. There must be 1000's of photos of the WC Sparrow doing the rounds at the moment and how many of those will make money i wonder!