Howlin_Mad wrote:Tony,
I have to keep ahead of this copyright issue due to work as it has changed somewhat in the last few years due to the rise of social media sites and VC's internet. As I currently understand it, you are correct, an attempt must be made to contact the original photographer (or company) for reproduction electronically. However, this is where the grey area is. How do you define "tried to seek permission to reproduce"?
That has always been the thorny question with UK copyright law. Where there is nothing to indicate who the owner is, it's like sailing into uncharted waters. You may well not hit a reef but, if you do, you have no way of knowing whether the outcome will be just a scrape of the bow, being holed, or sinking with all hands.
The law has remained much the same for many a year (until now). All that social media and the internet has done is make it a whole lot easier to pinch stuff without asking. Keeping track of what might be being done with your images is a thankless task
The relevant sections of ERRA 2013, when implemented by secondary legislation, will be a sea change. Hence the concern being expressed by so many photographers.
Howlin_Mad wrote:I'm sure no-one on this thread has attempted to 'steal' any images being low resolution images with a watermark.
Your words not mine. I did not suggest, never mind say, any such thing.
Howlin_Mad wrote:It's quite clear that high resolution images are available for purchase from the linked website, which has also been posted on Bookface by the JAE team, as have I personally on Bookface, so I can post any image from that source myself via the 3rd party agreement
The JAE team have only posted a link, no copied images. As I'm not on Facebook, you'll have to clarify the next bit as I have no idea what you mean.
Howlin_Mad wrote:To use these pics as a means of selling an item (i.e. a car ad on e-bay) or for profit in a commercial sense, then yes I'd be upset if those were my pictures. Pics on this thread are no more than what you can see when accessing their website due to the watermarks - so free advertising from our members for them!
That is a legitimate POV and one with which the photographer may well agree. Or not. I was simply pointing out the legal position. You can't predict how someone will react and making assumptions may come back to bite you in the a**e.
Howlin_Mad wrote:Don't panic Mr Mainwaring!
Don't tell him, Pike!