Acknowledgement of photo sources

evangilder · 02-10-2006, 12:53 PM

The picture is labelled as part of Cooper's collection. Is it a known fact that Cooper took the picture? If he did, then HE is the copyright owner of the picture, not someone else. Here is the copyright law in Australia, which is where the website is hosted:

Quote:

In Australia, the artist or photographer initially owns the copyright in their work with the following exceptions:

A photograph taken by a photographer as part of their terms of their employment is owned by their employer. (Except in the case where the employer is the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, in which case the photographer will retain the right to control inclusion of the photograph in a book or as part of a hard copy news clipping service).

For a photograph taken prior to 30 July 1998, the copyright in photograph which was commissioned by a person other than the photographer belongs to that person. For a photograph taken after 30 July 1998, the copyright in a photograph commissioned by a person other than the photographer belongs to that person only if it was taken for a 'private or domestic purpose' (such as a family portrait or a wedding photograph).

FLYBOYJ · 02-10-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

The picture is labelled as part of Cooper's collection. Is it a known fact that Cooper took the picture? If he did, then HE is the copyright owner of the picture, not someone else. Here is the copyright law in Australia, which is where the website is hosted:

Quote:

In Australia, the artist or photographer initially owns the copyright in their work with the following exceptions:

A photograph taken by a photographer as part of their terms of their employment is owned by their employer. (Except in the case where the employer is the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, in which case the photographer will retain the right to control inclusion of the photograph in a book or as part of a hard copy news clipping service).

For a photograph taken prior to 30 July 1998, the copyright in photograph which was commissioned by a person other than the photographer belongs to that person. For a photograph taken after 30 July 1998, the copyright in a photograph commissioned by a person other than the photographer belongs to that person only if it was taken for a 'private or domestic purpose' (such as a family portrait or a wedding photograph).

And with that, the caption on the photo in question reads "The office of a Blenheim I (Bristol Aeroplane Co) The best Mark I cockpit shot in existence. Len worked for the Bristol Aeroplane Co. This is one of several Bristol shots in Len’s collection."

kiwimac · 02-10-2006, 01:24 PM

What I am asking for is that folk be sensible, that means posting the source if it is known or marking it 'source unknown.'

My problem is not with a failure to source, my concern is that the site as a general rule be seen to source where it is possible.

If you don't know the source, once again, just say so.

Les & NS, I will take further discussion of your posts on PM.

Kiwimac

cheddar cheese · 02-10-2006, 01:43 PM

Les and NS have done nothing wrong here. If you're gonna get pissy with them you may as well get pissy with me too. Theyre right.

trackend · 02-10-2006, 02:06 PM

How about this then, I here by declare that any images either graphic, photographic or literary posted by me, are my own , owned by me, or are from a source that has proclaimed them within the public domain. Should | post any images that are not of the previously mention type any sourcing will be included within my posting of the afore mentioned image/images.
That should about cover it guys?
Apart from that I think if somebody wanted to pursue a scabby old railroad worker like me through the courts, who's Bras-sic then go ahead I ain't got **** all worth having any-road.

FLYBOYJ · 02-10-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackend

How about this then, I here by declare that any images either graphic, photographic or literary posted by me, are my own , owned by me, or are from a source that has proclaimed them within the public domain. Should | post any images that are not of the previously mention type any sourcing will be included within my posting of the afore mentioned image/images.
That should about cover it guys?
Apart from that I think if somebody wanted to pursue a scabby old railroad worker like me through the courts, who's Bras-sic then go ahead I ain't got fu*k all worth having any-road.

Don Clark · 02-10-2006, 03:19 PM

Firstly I should introduce myself. I'm Donald R Clark, owner and researcher of the 211 Squadron site.

Next, I'd like to thank Col. Bogey for bringing this thread to my attention.

Fact is, the site and Gallery rules are clearly stated here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1210
and again in the Gallery
"If you hold a copyright on any of the material on this site please email me 'admin at ww2aircraft dot net' to work the problem out. Thanks horse"

The Blenheim cockpit image at
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/alb...hp?pic_id=8719
is clearly in breach of these rules. It is also clearly taken from my site, without permission or attribution.

All images on my site are fully attributed, used with permission, and (after title and attribution) for the most part presented with painstakingly researched sub-captions. Without these, each image is little more than wallpaper.

Contacting me for permission would have been a piece of cake, as my contact details are readily seen on-site. In fact I had already noticed the unauthorised copy here in my never-ending search for material on my main topics. I have twice emailed the Aircraft of World War II contacts about this, without the courtesy of a reply of any sort.

I object strongly to the misuse of the results of my long research into recording the history of brave young men who fought for freedom over 60 years ago. I would have thought that their history deserved more respect than to be filched without permission and without attribution.

Kindly take the picture down. In the light of the attitudes displayed here, I'll not be giving permission for any user of this board, site and gallery to use, copy, or link any material from www.211squadron.org

As for welcome to the boards, Bogey's comments were polite and constructive. I gather he is an ex-serviceman himself, with an interest in WW2 aviation. "Snooping": no-one "snoops" on the Internet - browsing is what it is for.

evangilder · 02-10-2006, 03:31 PM

Don,

Do you own the copyright of that image? Because you have that on your site does not mean that possess that copyright. I suspect that either Mr. Cooper or Bristol aircraft actually hold the copyright on that image. That does not give you copyright ownership, nor does the death of Mr. Cooper.

Who did you e-mail about it? If you think someone posting an image that you feel was "stolen" from your site on a message board that is free and dedicated to WWII aviation is doing a history a disservice, then you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

I will remove the image to make you happy, but know that because you possess a copy of someone else's picture does NOT make you the owner of the copyright. If you think this will be the last time someone uses an image from your site, you have a lot to learn. You will be making objections for the rest of your life.

The intention here was to let people see what they may not have access to see in the real world. If you think there was malice aforethought, then you are sorely mistaken.

No worries about your images from me. I will steer clear of your precious little empire.

evangilder · 02-10-2006, 03:44 PM

It appears that i do not have permissions to delete album images. I have sent a message to one of the admins to do so.

Wurger · 02-10-2006, 03:51 PM

I completely agree with Kiwimac.The general rule should be kept. Posting pictures and text, we should never state that they are own if they aren't.

FLYBOYJ · 02-10-2006, 03:52 PM

www.211squadron.org
Hmmmm....

Copyright
© DR Clark and others 1998–2006. This work is copyright. You may download, display, print or reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries may be directed to me in the first instance, at the Enquiries address. Private non-profit users may expect prompt approval.

evangilder · 02-10-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wurger

I completely agree with Kiwimac.The general rule should be kept. Posting pictures and text, we should never state that they are own if they aren't.

Agreed, but the person who posted it never claimed it as his own.

Wurger · 02-10-2006, 04:17 PM

Sorry Evanglider.I shouldn't do so much as utter one word.Unfortunately, I haven't noticed that the discussion took two sits. From my point of view You are absolutely right .First of all, someone who claims that is an owner should prove that he is really.Everyone could write down that his site is under copyright.

evangilder · 02-10-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wurger

I completely agree with Kiwimac.The general rule should be kept. Posting pictures and text, we should never state that they are own if they aren't.

Agreed, but the person who posted it never claimed it as his own.

kiwimac · 02-10-2006, 04:42 PM

I will remove the Image Don. I am really trying to understand where folk are coming from in this discussion. Let's try to keep it civil.

Ray <tiredly>