jazzbo Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 I contemplated that image and this is what came up: I'm just a media chile. . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Now let’s all contemplate the deeper meaning of this image. I see a rather fashionable thing to put miscellaneous junk in. The only problem is, it might be too small. Hadi, does it come in any other colors and sizes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn·m Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Jeez, I wouldn’t want my junk within 10 feet of that, but… There’s really just one question: We may deduce where it’s been, but where will it turn up next? The Tonight Show? Disneyland? Oprah? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slsmcgrew Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Jeez, I wouldn’t want my junk within 10 feet of that, but… There’s really just one question: We may deduce where it’s been, but where will it turn up next? The Tonight Show? Disneyland? Oprah? Sweetheart, don't you remember it's sitting on top of the piano. It's not going anywhere. Where would I sleep at night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn·m Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Now what the Hell am I ’sposed to do with that? Oh, this does not bode well… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Just watch out for Major Healey. That guy is NOT to be trusted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 And while we're at it, let's have a nce round of applause for Nick & Nora Charles, ladies and gentlemen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted August 13, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 The response: Dear Jim, Displaying a link to our images (the actual URL) is fine. Displaying the image itself is not. If the user said "Check out this picture" and posted a URL, I would not have a problem with it. Simply because an image is on the historicgolf.com site does not make it public domain. Visibility on a web site does not give a party permission to reproduce an image. Yes, your website is free, but you should have a policy in place that prohibits members from displaying copyrighted material. Your member was the person in violation, but I had no way of contacting that member. Our policy, in that case, is to contact the webmaster of the site to address the problem. The link to the Federal copyright site is www.copyright.gov In answer to your question regarding copyright law, the Definitions page of the copyright.gov site defines infringement as follows: "What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner." I would think that since your web site is a band site, you would understand our position. I'm sure you don't want people freely distributing bootleg copies of your cd to anyone that wants one. If you did, then you would just provide the music free and allow any and all to download it at their leisure. In answer to your post on the forum regarding this matter, yes, we did notice an unusual number of hits on this image coming from your site. We also notice this same issue with another website and the image was removed graciously without a lot of hoopla. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Best regards, Brenda Bragg Sales/Operations Manager Historic Golf Photos 800-868-9155 850-244-0222 www.historicgolf.com I still don't understand how I'm displaying the image considering we're just linking to it. The link just happens to show the picture. I'm not hosting the picture. It doesn't reside anywhere on my server. Isn't this the same situation that keeps Peer To Peer networks going? But the copyright owner had a problem with it so I removed it. End of story. As far as the band comment is concerned, I honestly don't care if our music is copied, downloaded, compressed, shared, etc. I don't expect to make a living selling CDs. I expect to make a living playing music, which is what musicians should be doing. People need to realize that the olds days of the printed press and printed media are over. It's a brave new world, baby! And as far as creating a hoopla, isn't that what this board thrives on? As long as my ass doesn't get sued. I don't have time for that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Brenda Bragg should do anything but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Isn't the point of copyright law to prevent *damages* or to punish those who *damage* the interests of copyright holders? Then what are the *damages* exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 This lady is comparing apples and oranges. First of all, as she notes, the image was watermarked. That means it has her stupid company's name splashed ALL OVER the picture ina way that's very difficult to remove. Only someone really dumb would try to download such a picture and take it somewhere to have it blown up so they can hang it on their wall. That's the whole reason why they watermark it in the first place. On the other hand, the vast majority of CDs are not watermarked. A straight burn of the CD would contain no deterioration in quality. A rip to a 128kbps MP3 file would show some deterioration, but probably not enough to deter most listeners from enjoying it. The closest analogy to a watermarked picture is a shitty RealAudio clip that nobody would want for regular use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 (edited) Another thought: say you and a friend are in a bookstore. You're leafing through an engrossing book and want your friend to check out a certain passage in it. You put the book down and say to your friend, "Hey, check out page 167 in this book," and your friend does. Now let's imagine the same situation, only this time, you hold the book open for your friend and flip to page 167 so he doesn't have to. Is there an appreciable difference between the two scenarios? To me, the first scenario is the same as displaying an image's URL. The second is the same as using code to show the image without actually possessing the image file in any sense. True, you don't own the book yet while it's still in the bookstore, but the bookstore doesn't have a problem with you looking at it there. What people like Brenda Bragg (and certain German courts, evidently) don't understand is that on the Internet, the "bookstore"--in this case, her online photo store--doesn't only exist when someone's typed the URL of the store into their browser. Every time we looked at the now-deleted thread, it was just like we visited her online store. Edited August 13, 2003 by Big Wheel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 (edited) My biggest gripe about the whole thing is that we lost a lot of pics of hot chicks and beautiful jazz women because of some old golfer. The now-deleted thread was about "babes" and not, uh, "Babes." If you wanna post pics of babalicious sports stars, Jim, let's stick with Anna Kournikova. Everone else is doing it. But, nooooo, JSngry's gotta be clever and ruin it for the rest of us... Edited August 13, 2003 by RDK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 This lady is comparing apples and oranges. First of all, as she notes, the image was watermarked. That means it has her stupid company's name splashed ALL OVER the picture ina way that's very difficult to remove. Exactly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slsmcgrew Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 And while we're at it, let's have a nce round of applause for Nick & Nora Charles, ladies and gentlemen! Thank you, thank you very much. We aim to please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Just watch out for Major Healey. That guy is NOT to be trusted! Jim, you are so right. After he left the space program at NASA, and entered the private sector as a commercial airline navigator, he was back to pulling the same shit with the neighbors across the hall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Jeez, I wouldn’t want my junk within 10 feet of that, but… There’s really just one question: We may deduce where it’s been, but where will it turn up next? The Tonight Show? Disneyland? Oprah? Sweetheart, don't you remember it's sitting on top of the piano. It's not going anywhere. Where would I sleep at night? I can't help but find these chats between K-HB and Slsmcgrew a little weird and voyeuristic. Are we really sure that they're married or is this another of those Mnytime-Misterioso deals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn·m Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Holy shrivlin’ junk, Bat Man! Even an IP check proves nothing. How diabolical! Oh, she’s very real. I have the warm fuzzies and battle scars to prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slsmcgrew Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Holy shrivlin’ junk, Bat Man! Even an IP check proves nothing. How diabolical! Oh, she’s very real. I have the warm fuzzies and battle scars to prove it. Look honey, I think you killed another thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 I still don't understand how I'm displaying the image considering we're just linking to it. The link just happens to show the picture. I'm not hosting the picture. You are integrating the picture into your website ("framing"). I explained the difference in my post on the first page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted August 13, 2003 Report Share Posted August 13, 2003 Claude, I can see how some courts might say that it's improper for a site to merely appear to be stealing another's intellectual property in a case like this, when in fact the data is not stolen at all--it can look like one is passing another's intellectual property off as one's own. If the organissimo.org home page contained a bunch of linked Frank Wolff photos of Jimmy Smith, it makes sense that Blue Note or Mosaic Images would have problems with Jim appearing to "own" the photos he's displaying on his web page. But isn't context an important factor? This is a bulletin board, not Jim's personal home page. It's obvious from the context in which the picture was posted that nobody is claiming that they created or own the image that's being displayed. They're only referring others to it--basically, giving information about it so others can view the content more easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 (edited) Yes Big Wheel, you are completely right, and most websites (such as allmusic.com) whose pictures are frequently used by music discussion boards are reasonable enough not to complain about it. But they could, as they have the law on their side. So it is better to remove the pictures from the threads if the copyright owner requests it. Even if Historic Golf Photos' complaint seems ridiculous because only one picture was displayed, it must be acknowledged that they dealt with it in an unbureaucratic manner. In Germany, some copyright owners don't hesitate to immediately send a formal warning letter ("Abmahnung") through a lawyer, who is then allowed to have his "costs" ($300-500) reimbursed by the person which receives the warning! And they do this also with private homepage owners who are not competitors or making money with other's images. As far as I understand it from the legal situation in Europe, mere links to pictures on other websites cannot constitute copyright infringement, so threads with images would be no problem if just the link is posted without IMG tags making the picture visible within the message. But this would be less fun of course. Edited August 14, 2003 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 Ok, Brenda Bragg, have it YOUR way. http://www.historicgolf.com/page_simphotos...m?subjectid=163 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 http://www.historicgolf.com/images/photos/...d/0503-4039.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 http://www.historicgolf.com/images/photos/...d/0503-4032.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.