 Hmmm, it is indeed a minefield.
I've just read an interesting passage in one of the Pictorial Guides:
"The suggestion is repeated that readers who are enthusiasts for the fells should use these volumes as basic notebooks and make their own corrections as the need arises."
The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think that if I made such corrections, with permission as implied in the extracted sentence (and not needing the permission of either the original or the current publisher/copyright owner), then I would be in possession of my own unique document to which I would then have copyright. As such, I should have the right to reproduce it in any way I see fit.
|
 |
 You'll be fine BG, just go for it. Call it Painwright's Wictorial Guides, just for safety.
;)
|
|
 BG - You'd certainly own the copyright to your own notes - but you wouldn't own the copyright to Wainwright's notes. You could publish your own notes, but you couldn't publish Wainwright's notes with your notes appended to them!
Ninja Pussy Cat - Don't confuse copyright law with the rules and regulations applied by online commercial photograph sales sites such as Alamy. Copyright law is the law of the land, but businesses can apply their own rules and regulations and make you jump through even more hoops.
Any further down this line and I'll need to come up for breath... we're getting into deeper and deeper water!
|
|
"You could publish your own notes, but you couldn't publish Wainwright's notes with your notes appended to them!"
Point taken, Paddy, but I'm not talking about appending. The statement implies permission for correction, which, to me, means that I can delete some of AW's bits (outdated paths on maps, for instance) and replace them with updated details, such as swathes of Pinus mugo!
Edit: LOL, Scott! Anyways, shouldn't you be busy website-building? I've got a couple of spanners, a hard-hat and some scaffolding that you can borrow if it'll help :-)
|
| Edited: 22/05/07 13:23 |
Indeed. My back's killing me already.
;)
|
|
 So what can you do if somebody nicks your copyright?
I noticed pictures from my website (which I had taken)on the home page of a website of a well known national magazine (no not TGO or Trail). To make the matter more complicated (in light of Ninja's comment about property release) it was a picture of my boat.
(Pedantic question which I'm not really bothered about the answer to - you've just reached the summit and get somebody to take a photo of you with your camera, can you use this pic without risk of copyright infringment?)
|
|
 JH - small claims court...
I read something on a website about copyright of self-portraits....all madness
|
|
BG: You have the right to amend and append your own private copy of Wainwright's book. You also have the right under the'fair dealing' clause to publish an extract (in a book, article or on this forum) quoting Wainwright's text and correcting any errors without obtaining the permission of the copyright owner. But it can only be extracts, not a substantial portion of the book.
You are also entitled to make photocopies of small parts of published works for the purposes of your own private study and research, but not for distribution to third parties. Some years ago a well-known public school photocopied dozens of copies of a music score for use in the school orchestra and was prosecuted and fined.
|
|
 Another thought regarding the books.
Is there not a clause somewhere that allows you to copy a certain amount of a book, presumably provided it's for non-profit purposes. I just thought of this as in school and uni our lecturers are allowed to give us photocopies of up to a certain percentage of textbooks. I don't have the exact rules to hand but could this apply to BG?
|
|
JH - In the first instance, write a polite letter of complaint to the website or magazine concerned. Point out they're your pics. Ask them to remove them immediately, or pay you a fee to use them. My guess is that they don't know they are your pics, and someone else might have passed them on to the site/mag. If they are decent folk, they'll apologise and either remove the pics or pay you a fee for using them. If not, then you can rack up the pressure, issue incremental threats, along with invoices, and if they still don't act, then take them to court. The Small Claims process will want to see evidence that they're your pics, evidence that you've tried to deal with the site/mag, and will award you a reasonable fee and slam the other side for costs. There's no point trying to go to court unless and until the other side understands your grievance.
I posted a link earlier that makes it quite clear what I think about people who nick my stuff. I start with a polite request, and in most cases that's enough. Someone once nicked a couple of thousand words of mine, and the practical upshot was that he lost his job and I took his place. I could have kicked up a stink and maybe got a couple of hundred quid, but I kept it polite and I think I must have earned about 15 grand!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 A model release is not needed just because there is an identifiable person in a photo. I could walk down the street and take a photo, showing lots of other people, and then put that on my website, or post it to the gallery here. I wouldn't need a model release to do that.
You don't 'need' a model release even if the shot is to be used commercially. It can be helpful, but it is by no means a must. I've sold photos for commercial use that feature people that do not have an associated model release.
However, if the photo is going to be used in advertising, the photo buyer is unlikely to use photos with identifiable people in, because there is an inherent implication that the person(s) in the photo is endorsing the product being advertised - that's risky, and is potentially much more likely to result in legal action.
The same (pretty much) applies to property - replace 'model release' with 'property release' in the above.
|
|
Thanks for all the input so far, folks.
Sadly, at this time I can't say the same to Frances Lincoln Publishers, as they haven't replied to my email yet. Of course, it might be such a comprehensive reply that it's held up on the production-line awaiting binding or gold-leaf embossing :-)
|
| Edited: 23/05/07 17:02 |
BG: You have to be patient!
Bear in mind that you are asking for a favour, even though you may be offering something in return, so a response will not be very high on the list of priorities. I don't know how big this particular publishing house is but many of the larger ones have a special department to deal with copyright requests. Also, the person who handles such matters may be on holiday!
But good luck, anyway!
|
|
BG - You need to have a lot of patience when it comes to dealing with publishers!
|
|
 Ohh poo.. I need to work on my web site pronto.. I have several maps that I kinda drew by hand using photoshop.. if what ya all say is true then OS are gonna hit me with at least a £500 fine.. double poo... myabe I'll just save up the £50 I think it is for a licence... treble poo..
|
|
 JH - our club had a similar issue with a photo taken from our website and published in the MCoS "Scottish Mountaineer" magazine. Details here.
|
|
Ayshire Tiger, I'm glad that that was resolved to your benefit..
Anybody know what Classic boat pay for a photo on their website, and Yachting World pay for in the magazine? Actually it was years ago, so it's a bit late, but I do wonder if there's any way of searching the web for photos that might have been nicked?
By the way, one of the reasons I changed my tag to JH was that TGO had an annoying habit of publishing snippets from these forums with our names attached. I take it I had relinquished my copyright to my humble jottings on this forum when I signed up......?
John
|
|
Yeah John - you'll find it's lost down in the small print below the bit about "immortal soul" and "devil".
|
|
