It has come to the attention of the moderators that certain members are blatantly lifting scans (labels, pictures etc) for use on their own site without permission or credit. Most members are more than willing to share this information and gladly take the time and effort to share information for the benefit of others.

The scanning of records and the editing of the scans and the collating of information does take time and effort and it would appear some members are taking liberties when they are lifting these scans and the information provided with them for their own sites with not one mention of the source of the information.

If a member does wish to use information provided by other members I would think it was common courtesy and good manners to seek permission and credit the original source. I know most do but it would appear some are not.

Can I ask any member who wishes to use information provided by others to seek permission or at the very least credit the source on your site. I have no wish to see members stop providing scans and other information simply because other members lack the common courtesy to seek permission or give credit where credit is due.

Well said Chalky

I sometimes come across sites and see copies of scans I have posted on here or elsewhere and think - mmm credit where credit's due would be nice!

It comes down to 1) having tracked down the rare 45 in the first place 2) having taken the time to do a decent scan, nicely lined up with decent res etc. and then shared it. Just posting up someone else's scan can seem like taking the credit for that.

Any sites you are thinking of in particular please? Would be nice to have a look in any case as they must have decent content.

Cheers

Richard

It's a minefield. I've found Hitsville/There's That Beat! stuff all over the net, much of it just taken without any acknowledgement. Usually on flyers/sites for local soul dos in UK. By the same token I've had the odd instance where things I have been sent by people that we've used, has been lifted from another source without clearance. I agree you'd think it was common decency to at least acknowledge the source in some way. I think most collectors of both records and images would be happy to share, after all it's a 2 way street a lot of the time, but blatant plagiarism is rife now.

I was once told that once an image is in the public domain it becomes fair game, perhaps some legal eagle could clarify that for us?

Regards,

Dave

Is this for real??!!! Or have I quantum leaped into a few weeks time and found myself in April 1st?

Is this for real??!!! Or have I quantum leaped into a few weeks time and found myself in April 1st?

What do you mean?

One member has seen his work used elsewhere lifted straight off here and he isn't too chuffed. The site doesn't want members to stop sharing info but that could happen. Like I said it's common decency to ask or acknowledge.

i reckon once you have uploaded something to the internet you are basically saying share me. the reality is not many people say thankyou or give you a mention, but thats not the reason we do it in the first place. i actually want people to steel my work and see it all over the internet.

if i was uploading scans, i would put my name on the bottom of the scan or an emblem or something that people would relate to.

i totally understand where you are coming from though chalky and am not for one minute saying its right, it just seems the law of the web. share, share, share...

I don't think members have a problem with their work being shared. The problem lies with those sharing if that is the right word and taking the credit.

This isnt an order rather than a request for others to show a bit of respect and give credit where credit is due.

Out of interest, is there a statement about copyright and ownership of uploaded images in the site's T&C's?

Out of interest, is there a statement about copyright and ownership of uploaded images in the site's T&C's?

yep there is a general generic type statement

terms and use link can be found at bottom of every page

its always been the policy if want to use content be it words or images or what ever on here then members should ask the members first

of course there's a element of sharing with all images etc webwise

but if they are obviously a members own work and can be recognisable as such then surely a request would be the done thing?

I don't think members have a problem with their work being shared. The problem lies with those sharing if that is the right word and taking the credit.

This isnt an order rather than a request for others to show a bit of respect and give credit where credit is due.

That's my view Chalky

The whole point of posting in the first place is to share

Just think it's about credit where due and common courtesy if someone is using elsewhere - kind of honour and respect among collectors etc.

It's generally very easy to know who posted what on here

I even make it clear if I post something and it's not mine - saying things like 'a scan from eBay' or 'not my record'

Cheers

Richard

Edited March 3, 201213 yr by Premium Stuff

What do you mean?

One member has seen his work used elsewhere lifted straight off here and he isn't too chuffed. The site doesn't want members to stop sharing info but that could happen. Like I said it's common decency to ask or acknowledge.

I agree with that when it comes to work, but label scans are owned by the record labels and are public domain, surely?

There are significant differences between US and UK copyright laws. In the US, a scan or photo of an 'artwork' is not considered as a copyrightable work of art in its own right. In the UK however, a scan or photo of a work of art is protected by copyright.

However, this protection only applies if the scan or image work is either a) modified so as to be considered a new work in its own right (therefore "a derivative"), or b) the work put into creating the scan or photo is of a high professional standard.

A couple of years ago there was a major case whereby high quality photos of paintings (possibly from the collection of the UK's National Portrait Gallery) were used by Wikipedia.

The images commissioned by the museum were extremely high resolution, full-sized photos and required much professional and technical expertise to create them. As such works can only be made by experts who must devote many hours to creating them, this effort is recognised by UK copyright laws. Basically, even though they are 'only' photos, they are treated in law as if they were creative works. As such, they have full copyright protection.

The Americans don't see it this way and think that if you're just taking a photo, or using a scanner, then the technology produces the work, not the person - no creative effort goes into making them. It's because of this difference in perspectives that the legal case between US-based Wikipedia and the UK-based museum came about.

What's the point of this?

Well, certainly in the UK, scans, even of record labels, are copyright protected - but only if the person doing the scan also puts a good amount of effort into making them more than simply just a digital copy of the object.

Put the scan into Photoshop and create a new design, one that features the label (for example) as a theme, and you may well have created an original work. As such, it is automatically copyright protected.

When a work is created, you do not have to include a copyright statement (for example: © - Me, me, me: all rights reserved, 2012) when publishing them. Having said that, it is best to include a copyright statement as this makes it clear to potential infringers that the rights to the image are indeed assigned to an owner. Also, the first thing an image snatcher will say in their defence is "Oh, but you didn't say that it was copyright protected, so I assumed it wasn't!"

Ignorance, of course, is no defence in law.

Edited March 4, 201213 yr by Russell Gilbert

Very interesting post Russ - thanks for sharing that

Cheers

Richard

I agree with that when it comes to work, but label scans are owned by the record labels and are public domain, surely?

A creative work (and that includes a record label design) cannot be owned by someone and be in the public domain at the same time.

However, in the commercial world (and let's keep it to records), copyright owners are happy to allow the distribution of their designs (record labels), because this aids in the promotion of them. And therein lies the rub. Scanning labels and using the images online to draw attention to the record company and its products is absolutely tolerated.

However, you stick (for example) a scan of a Motown 45 or the logo on a t-shirt and, unless you have a merchandising licence from Motown, you'll be in trouble and the company will want to sue your proverbial ass off. Infringement of copyright will be one of the things you'll be charged with (along with illegal use of a trademark; producing, marketing and selling illegal merchandise, etc, etc).

What defines how you can use something like a label scan is context. If it is being used in a way that benefits the copyright owner, then it is unlikely to create a problem. If an image is used in a way that benefits the user, but is to the detriment of the owner, then trouble is likely to follow.

Usual disclaimer applies: I am not a lawyer, I'm not qualified at anything, if symptoms persist, please seek medical advice, blah, blah

Edited March 4, 201213 yr by Russell Gilbert

I stopped doing my writeups for my radio interviews because I invested a lot of time into them and people would just steal the text (even on this site) uncredited. They took a lot of time. I wouldn't even care as much if my label scans were stolen as they didn't take as much time, although I have had scans of rare photos stolen (e.g. superlatives photo) edited and uncredited and that was sort of annoying (not as much as the writeup that took hours though).

x

Edited March 7, 201213 yr by simon t

You could always watermarking things.

Try picture-shark

https://www.picture-s...ery_default.htm

It's a bit quirky, but just read the instructions on the site and a have fiddle. It's free.

I like how they spell "license" wrong consistently. It's kind of disturbing that it's a link to a legal licensing contract.

I like how they spell "license" wrong consistently. It's kind of disturbing that it's a link to a legal licensing contract.

In the UK, you must have a TV Licence to watch TV. When you have one in the UK, you are licensed to watch TV.

In the USA, you must have a gun License to own a gun. When you have one in the USA, you are licensed to kill people.

In the UK, you must have a TV Licence to watch TV. When you have one in the UK, you are licensed to watch TV.

In the USA, you must have a gun License to own a gun. When you have one in the USA, you are licensed to kill people.

sorry, I didn't realize that word was spelled differently in the UK. Either way it's inconsistent on that page because the actual license text uses the s.

I stopped doing my writeups for my radio interviews because I invested a lot of time into them and people would just steal the text (even on this site) uncredited. They took a lot of time. I wouldn't even care as much if my label scans were stolen as they didn't take as much time, although I have had scans of rare photos stolen (e.g. superlatives photo) edited and uncredited and that was sort of annoying (not as much as the writeup that took hours though).

This is exactly what we are trying to avoid, members refraining from sharing information.

Watermarking sounds like a good idea for scans and pictures.

This is exactly what we are trying to avoid, members refraining from sharing information.

Watermarking sounds like a good idea for scans and pictures.

Edited March 7, 201213 yr by simon t