A few re-enactor pics there I reckon...
A few re-enactor pics there I reckon...
News Flash .... The Internet is Full of Crooks
More at 11
Greetings Jersey 34,
I believe what is getting lost in this discussion is the concept of fair use. My take on this debate boils down to the “fair use” definitions as articulated in US copyright law:
"Section 107 of the Copyright Act states: the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
Obviously, US law is not EU Law, but this is what I am most familiar with. So, if I take an eBay image (or any other image) and use it in an online thread’s post and I’m not doing it for profit (i.e. one of the aforementioned/above listed reasons), then the copyright owner can (plain and simple) pound sand. Yes, it would be nice netiquette to attribute the image back to the owner, but as discussed, is eBay seller “Devil 666” the owner, or merely in possession of the images.
Either case, when you take an image and use it for profit (e.g. eBay sales or as eye candy on your militaria selling website) then I believe you have crossed the line of “fair use” and deserve the scorn legal and otherwise for doing so.
I suppose, if I desired to collect original photographs of Soldiers, I too would be dismayed to see what I considered my recently purchased images on the WWW, however if they are not making profit or receiving something tangible in their use… it probably falls under "fair use" and while I do not have to like it, there really is little I could do about it.
Sharing photos found on ebay or similar sites is A OK in my opinion... most of it's of no use for anything else other than sharing out of historical/intellectual benefit anyway. Sellers simply need to watermark properly or provide smaller images of the entire image coupled with high res image quality samples instead of entire high quality scans in their sales ads --- this is the sellers responsibility and unless the images have a clear cut ownership/documented copyrights that may or may not be transferred upon an eventual sale I see NO harm in sharing mere digital images saved from auction previews. For a photo collector it's the original physical original that is of interest, not pixelated digital copies online.
And, again, IF the seller is selling unique original prints that they themselves/consignor at the time owns all legal rights to it is their own responsibility to protect the integrity of that image --- logically by restricting access to digital high quality copies...if not they need to go hunting "perpetrators" after the fact, largely an exercise in futility in this day and age.
When it comes to images of equipment or similar things for sale I really do not see the problem at all. Unless someone actually steals the actual physical item from you I see no harm done whatsoever. Without this type of digital sharing we would be left with a whole lot less reference material shared on excellent sites such as this --- a small/no real sacrifice if you ask me.
The other issue tangentially here Lance is that 'owning' a copy of an image does not give you copyright, or any right other than possession. Copyright vests with the author/creator of the image typically in some variation from country to country 'life of the author plus 75 years' and often with ability to renew in exceptional cases. Now images created by the state of Nazi Germany were declared public domain very early after the war, but I don't believe this extended to personal snapshots. So - strictly interpreted that 1944 soldiers group shot may actually still be under original copyright and it is on you to determine the status.
Now realistically copyright is a financial protection to guard the creator against loss of income from unlicensed use of an artistic or creative work. The sort of whining over 'credit' that preoccupies the interwbs is more a function of hubris of the individual versus real loss in the intent of the law. There are fair use terms to as mentioned earlier here and these are legitimate concepts and while a person may not like or understand the intent, that does not invalidate it.
While I do see the issues raised I still don't get it. If I had a pic of a STuG & was asking if it were a STuG III or IV & someone used a pic that possibly they didn't actually own to show me the difference, fine I can live with that. But don't just add a pic of a STuG to a "show your Sturmgeschutz pics" thread that isn't yours! Just because you can, it doesn't aid the thread & to me shows that the individual has no real interest other than being involved in something. I don't carry a pic of a Ferrari in my wallet just to impress. It is a fine line between using as a reference or posting just to be part of something that either you wish you were truly into. Other than that it's almost trolling IMO. Thankfully, here it seldom occurs if ever. Of which I'm glad. Stewy
I was actually surprise to see a number of pictures I had taken of items in my collection and post here on this forum .
end up on private websites or forums.
There's idiots pretending to be someone they're not all over the internet. It's annoying, I guess...but that's about it. I'm annoyed with lots of online practices as well, there's nothing to be done about it though so I leave it alone--- you know, ignore.
I still feel that it would be a useful tool if this site would watermark photos posted here , if you are opposed there could be an opt out option .