copyrite theft

I once had a whole paragraph of text I wrote for a non-commercial community website pinched - cut and pasted w/o attribution into a website that was operated for commercial gain. Cheap s***. But that's the internet. I didn't lose any income - the issue was ethical. Did I pursue it? No - life's too frigging short.

In the case of the original post here, two words come to mind and sort of sum it up - one is lost and the other is plot. There has been no ethical trespass in what is described. End of story, if there ever was a story (there wasn't).
 
Last edited:
Just came in to say :LOL::LOL::LOL:

Claiming copyright infringement because somebody quoted your image on a forum reply :banghead:

Holy crap.
Yes, though we've all done/said silly things. Since the OP is a longstanding member I guess something nasty happened to him elsewhere and it skewed his thinking temporarily. The thread is an interesting minor example of how once someone gets a bonkers idea it is really difficult to convince them otherwise -- there are lots more serious examples in the world today.
 
I once had a whole paragraph of text I wrote for a non-commercial community website pinched - cut and pasted w/o attribution into a website that was operated for commercial gain. Cheap s***. But that's the internet. I didn't lose any income - the issue was ethical. Did I pursue it? No - life's too frigging short.

In the case of the original post here, two words come to mind and sort of sum it up - one is lost and the other is plot. There has been no ethical trespass in what is described. End of story, if there ever was a story (there wasn't).

There's been quite a few instances of this, usually on photographers website stealing the wording they like from someone else for their own website. But thats different to a quoted reply ;)
 
There's been quite a few instances of this, usually on photographers website stealing the wording they like from someone else for their own website. But thats different to a quoted reply ;)
I was making that contrast in my post - wasn't that clear?
 
Just to remind members that personal attacks against another member is against forum rules. There was a good reason for asking the qestion irrespective of some of the comments made. That is all I am prepared to say
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Just to remind members that personal attacks against another member is against forum rules. There was a good reason for asking the qestion irrespective of some of the comments made. That is all I am prepared to say

So is it just a quoted image you were concerned about or the accompanying text as well? Do you think that quoting or copying the image is the same as editing or changing the image. What about if someone copies your text and then bolds part of it to emphasise something they wish to respond to?

Is this not part of a normal forum discussion?
 
Just to remind members that personal attacks against another member is against forum rules. There was a good reason for asking the qestion irrespective of some of the comments made. That is all I am prepared to say
I don't think there have been any personal attacks on you.
I think you should be prepared to say something along the lines "I get it now, thanks to all the people who have shown where I was going wrong".
As I wrote earlier, we all get hold of the wrong end of the stick sometimes but that's how we learn.
 
I've read the whole thread - largely out of curiosity - and haven't come across anything that could reasonably be described as a 'personal attack'.

Or copyright theft :) :)
 
Irrespective of forum rules/T&Cs etc., the scenario described is not copyright infringement.

The obvious bit from the extracts below: "Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work" (my italics)

From https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Criticism, review and reporting current events
Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work. Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of reporting current events is allowed for any type of copyright work other than a photograph. In each of these cases, a sufficient acknowledgement will be required.

As stated, a photograph cannot be reproduced for the purpose of reporting current events. The intention of the law is to prevent newspapers or magazines reproducing photographs for reporting current events which have appeared in competitor’s publications.


Sufficient acknowledgement
In relation to certain exceptions, if you are making use of that exception to copy someone else’s work it is necessary for you to sufficiently acknowledge their work. For example, where you have copied all or a substantial part of a work for the purposes of criticism or review, or where the use was for the purposes of news reporting.

However such acknowledgement is not required where it is impossible for reasons of practicality.

Fair dealing
Certain exceptions only apply if the use of the work is a ‘fair dealing’. For example, the exceptions relating to research and private study, criticism or review, or news reporting.

‘Fair dealing’ is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?

Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include:

  • does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair
  • is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used
The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question.
 
Irrespective of forum rules/T&Cs etc., the scenario described is not copyright infringement.

The obvious bit from the extracts below: "Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work" (my italics)

Um, yes. It's a little more complicated than that! :)
 
Can I suggest that you reread the posts that I've made in this thread?
 
Um, yes. It's a little more complicated than that! :)
Is it? I don't think the examples of alleged copyright infringement as provided by the OP are worthy of more complex debate though.
 
Last edited:
Can I suggest that you reread the posts that I've made in this thread?
I did before asking the question but didn't see the answer to my question. You also said "Quite apart from any legal stuff (which I'm happy to debate at your peril)" which to me suggested that you would be happy to go into more detail. I wasn't after and don't want a perilous debate, just some of your insight.
 
I've posted enough detail for any reasonably bright person to understand. AS far as the debating was concerned, that was purely an offer to Reelspeed.
 
I've posted enough detail for any reasonably bright person to understand. AS far as the debating was concerned, that was purely an offer to Reelspeed.

You quote me to tell me things are more complicated, and when I ask how, you mention your previous posts with no particular reference or context and go on to insult my intelligence for not understanding. I still don't see how your earlier posts answer my subsequent query but, after your last post, I'm not going to pursue it. Thank you for your condescension and avoidance of a direct answer to a genuine query.
 
For clarity sake, I was referring to the use of photographs in quotations and how that related to copyright infringement.

Despite what the booklet you quoted says, it's a far from simple matter.
 
Despite what the booklet you quoted says, it's a far from simple matter.

I've just had a look through the Intellectual Property guidance pages of the gov.uk website, which include the sections on copyright and its exceptions (the latter part being the booklet you're referring to) and I can't see any suggestion contained claiming that it's a simple matter.

However, if you do know of a potential copyright infringement issue that can be triggered by simply quoting (in the same thread) an image as part of a response to the original posting of that image - perhaps an issue that's not occurred to anyone posting in this thread so far - maybe you can share it with us and the TP moderators? I'm sure they'd want to be the first to know about to a potentially MASSIVE can of worms that would leave every web forum I know of open to legal action (y)
 
Thanks for the clarification DemiLion :)

I appreciate that the booklet gives a rather succinct description and that beyond that description, there can be a lot of complicated debate as to whether the quoting of copyrighted work satisfies the legal rationale/criteria behind allowing it to be quoted.

My turn to clarify now ;) I did read your previous posts but have to admit that I failed to understand how sourcing an image from the same hosting site satisfies those criteria - the closest I could get to was that it satisfied the condition of sufficient acknowledgement (and that it makes explicit the act of quoting but that in itself does not qualify its usage as a quote). I also didn't see how the fact of a photograph being a holistic entity would complicate its use in a quote (if anything I think that simplifies things).

From the scant details provided by realspeed, I didn't see anything specific that would complicate the validity of the usage of the image as a quote for criticism or review. But if realspeed were to give specific detail, then things might get more complicated.

I suspect that your reference to T&Cs of the forum/website probably has much greater bearing on the OPs predicament than copyright law and offers a more realistic opportunity for remedy.
 
With reference to the original post in particular, did anyone previously know that such a can of worms can be balanced on the head of a pin?
 
Last edited:
I failed to understand how sourcing an image from the same hosting site satisfies those criteria

Svensson et Alia. ECJ C466/12


I also didn't see how the fact of a photograph being a holistic entity would complicate its use in a quote (if anything I think that simplifies things).

A quotation (as referred to in this circumstance) is by its nature an extract of the whole. You cannot create an extract of a photograph, you can only use the whole.
Using the whole of a copyrighted object would not be fair dealing apart from absolutely exceptional circumstances.
 
Svensson et Alia. ECJ C466/12
Cheers - that explains hyperlinking as acceptable ( I misunderstood when you said "because the image is sourced from the same hosting URL" - I processed that in my head incorrectly as 'host website' instead of 'image URL' and thought you were referring to the fact of both the original image post and the quoted image being on the same site - my bad)
A quotation (as referred to in this circumstance) is by its nature an extract of the whole. You cannot create an extract of a photograph, you can only use the whole.
Using the whole of a copyrighted object would not be fair dealing apart from absolutely exceptional circumstances.
Are you sure about "absolutely exceptional circumstances"? This might be true of films and books but (especially if you can only use the whole of a photograph) is surely nonsensical to apply to a photo and would exclude photos from use in critique and review completely (except with permission of the copyright holder)?
 
Without the exact details - it sort of sounds like a fair use thing. as forums are supposed to be educational its used for educational value.
 
Surely it is only polite to ask another member if it ok first before copying a post with a photo on it. When it says "edit my images ticked NO", then copying a post with a picture in it is not only copyrite breach but against forum rules as well ???

only asking. Maybe admin can clarify this for me

Have you just infringed copyright by quotong Orangecroc and repeating his words, which are his own intellectual property?

No? Thought not.
 
Have you just infringed copyright by quotong Orangecroc and repeating his words, which are his own intellectual property?

No? Thought not.
I made this point earlier, but I don't think what I have done with your post above this sentence is copying, it's just pointing to your original words, analogous to pointing your finger to a picture in a physical gallery.
Whereas if I quote you by copy and paste, thus "Have you just infringed copyright by quotong Orangecroc and repeating his words, which are his own intellectual property?" then I have copied your words (or picture etc) -- though I don't think I've infringed your copyright given it's in this forum.
 
Life is too short for this rubbish.
It is clearly both with in the law, and forum rules, to use the quote facility on this or any other forum.
Such use repeats the entire post of the subscriber as an attachment, so that it can be clearly seen what is being replied to. It is in no way infringement of copyright.
As both the words and image are simply a repeat posting of the original, not an actual posting by the commentator.
This is exactly the same as sending a reply to an email, that picks up and and returns the original content with the reply.
Such repetition. is the only way to make it perfectly clear, on an open forum, exactly what is being replied to.
 
Last edited:
Don't you agree to this when signing up? Just like you do for Facebook which people then complain about.


Steve.

Yes in both cases the image is held on the providers server and is just referenced and not copied. The only issue is when it's taken off the server and reuploaded.
 
Life is too short for this rubbish.
It is clearly both with in the law, and forum rules, to use the quote facility on this or any other forum.
Such use repeats the entire post of the subscriber as an attachment, so that it can be clearly seen what is being replied to. It is in no way infringement of copyright.
As both the words and image are simply a repeat posting of the original, not an actual posting by the commentator.
This is exactly the same as sending a reply to an email, that picks up and and returns the original content with the reply.
Such repetition. is the only way to make it perfectly clear, on an open forum, exactly what is being replied to.
You're right of course, but the OP is a longstanding member here (way before my time) with a lot of posts so it seems worthwhile to try to help him see things right. Also if he thinks like that maybe others do too.

Actually, if the OP still has the same view it is a genuinely interesting case study!
 
I made this point earlier, but I don't think what I have done with your post above this sentence is copying, it's just pointing to your original words, analogous to pointing your finger to a picture in a physical gallery.
Whereas if I quote you by copy and paste, thus "Have you just infringed copyright by quotong Orangecroc and repeating his words, which are his own intellectual property?" then I have copied your words (or picture etc) -- though I don't think I've infringed your copyright given it's in this forum.

I don't think the presence of the quote tags makes a difference, if you've clearly quoted something and then replied underneath, it's the same thing, tags or not.

Surely the OP is trolling.
 
I don't think the presence of the quote tags makes a difference, if you've clearly quoted something and then replied underneath, it's the same thing, tags or not.

Surely the OP is trolling.
No, quoting does not necessarily involve copying. I don't think the OP was trolling.
 
I find this all very strange.
If someone copied a photo of mine and called it their own (for monetary purposes or not) I would class that as theft. If they had quoted or linked to it in a thread, in a forum that the photo is in originally, then I wouldn't call it theft (or what ever the correct terminology is).
 
What if I screen shot your photo and post the screenshot as my own...
What if .. Oh no! I can't be bothered to think of another one. I think the OP has left without indicating he has had a light bulb moment.
 
Back
Top