Some pics from the Lamborghini Cars and Coffee Day in the US
Discussion
Have to say that as a Lambo owner I love to see photos of other Lambos, but as a photographer, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was infringing the copyright of my photos like this (these are not my photos I would like to add).
Wouldn't it have been more ethical to just include a link to the original pictures? I'm sure you'd feel the same Tim, as surely that's why you always watermark your own photos?
Wouldn't it have been more ethical to just include a link to the original pictures? I'm sure you'd feel the same Tim, as surely that's why you always watermark your own photos?
Edited by DIW35 on Thursday 31st July 22:07
DIW35 said:
Have to say that as a Lambo owner I love to see photos of other Lambos, but as a photographer, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was infringing the copyright of my photos like this (these are not my photos I would like to add).
Wouldn't it have been more ethical to just include a link to the original pictures? I'm sure you'd feel the same Tim, as surely that's why you always watermark your own photos?
Hi there,Wouldn't it have been more ethical to just include a link to the original pictures? I'm sure you'd feel the same Tim, as surely that's why you always watermark your own photos?
Edited by DIW35 on Thursday 31st July 22:07
Have I missed something here. The photos were posted on a well known photography forum site by the guy who took them and the pictures are hosted by him/her on Flickr.
I made it clear in my original post that they were not my pics.
How can I be infringing copyright, I am not attempting to pass them of as mine, neither have I altered the photos or removed any watermarks.
If the photographer had wanted to protect them, then he would have watermarked them and probably not hosted them on what is one of the biggest public photo sites in the world.
I do not understand what difference posting a link to the photo would have made as opposed to posting the actual picture.
Proection is the sole reason I watermark my own photos, and before you ask I have absolutely no objection to someone posting my pics on any site as long as they leave my watermark on them.
Had the pictures been posted on the photographers own site then I would still have posted them and also posted the link to the specific site as a credit. There is no point me posting a link to Flickr in this instance as it is just a photo hosting site.
From my point of view as an avid car enthusiast I posted the photos to be enjoyed by fellow enthusiasts, some of which I though frequented this site.
Hope this clears up any confusion.
Regards
Tim
Edited by autofocus on Thursday 31st July 23:56
- I'll have the yellow murci roadster please 
Tim, I know you stated clearly that the photos weren't yours, and that you are not trying to pass them off as your own, but there is more to copyright infringemeent than that which, as a photographer yourself, you will be well aware of.
Unless the photos are being shown here with the copyright holder's permission, that in itself is enough to breach his copyright, irrespective of where he has posted the originals.
By your own argument, provided that you didn't alter them or make claim to them being your work, it would be OK to use them in a book about cars, because he had posted the originals in the public domain! We both know that isn't OK, and it's no different between using them in a book or posting them on an internet forum.
If you don' think it's a breach of copyright to take someone else's photos that are in the public domain, and then post them elsewhere on the internet, why do you take the time to watermark your own photos?
Just trying to be clear about copyright issues.
Unless the photos are being shown here with the copyright holder's permission, that in itself is enough to breach his copyright, irrespective of where he has posted the originals.
By your own argument, provided that you didn't alter them or make claim to them being your work, it would be OK to use them in a book about cars, because he had posted the originals in the public domain! We both know that isn't OK, and it's no different between using them in a book or posting them on an internet forum.
If you don' think it's a breach of copyright to take someone else's photos that are in the public domain, and then post them elsewhere on the internet, why do you take the time to watermark your own photos?
Just trying to be clear about copyright issues.
Edited by DIW35 on Friday 1st August 11:32
IMO, any copyright laws are an ass at the best of times, especially in Ukland and Amerikky...
As I recall, to avoid a breach of copyright an item needs to be changed in a (small) number of different ways to make what is effectively a new image.
For example, with PhotoShop, or similar software, (if such exists), that can be achieved in seconds...
In this instance, the photographer could have watermarked the images and made an effort to enforce a control of some kind or, far more than likely, did not actually wish to do such a thing.
If anything, it would be nice to know who took these pix, but that's not that big a deal if the information is unavailable.
There is, thankfully, a growing 'wish' to share both images that are moving and still and also information of all kinds. YouTube would not be as successful as it is if nobody actually wanted to see 'stuff'.
Like the multitude of material that appears on the internet and in the dataverse in total - information wants to be free and the means to make it so far outweigh the means to restrict that happening.
Attempts to restrict open data passage are simply routed around and bypassed. Those who do that sort of thing get branded with easy badges like 'hackers' and 't*rr*r*sts'...
The near un-enforceability of data controls are also why gubbermints like that of the YuKay are utterly sh*t scared of such ideas and people...
Of course, this is not for any notions of protecting personal privacy but because it's something these gobbermunts can't properly control or can try to restrict or easily tax...
To which anybody not buried in the mire of head-wrecking that those gobbingmounts who wish only to control people utterly and always should say a big ol' hooo-rah!
... blimey, just got a bit full-on ranty libertarian there or wot???
As I recall, to avoid a breach of copyright an item needs to be changed in a (small) number of different ways to make what is effectively a new image.
For example, with PhotoShop, or similar software, (if such exists), that can be achieved in seconds...
In this instance, the photographer could have watermarked the images and made an effort to enforce a control of some kind or, far more than likely, did not actually wish to do such a thing.
If anything, it would be nice to know who took these pix, but that's not that big a deal if the information is unavailable.
There is, thankfully, a growing 'wish' to share both images that are moving and still and also information of all kinds. YouTube would not be as successful as it is if nobody actually wanted to see 'stuff'.
Like the multitude of material that appears on the internet and in the dataverse in total - information wants to be free and the means to make it so far outweigh the means to restrict that happening.
Attempts to restrict open data passage are simply routed around and bypassed. Those who do that sort of thing get branded with easy badges like 'hackers' and 't*rr*r*sts'...
The near un-enforceability of data controls are also why gubbermints like that of the YuKay are utterly sh*t scared of such ideas and people...
Of course, this is not for any notions of protecting personal privacy but because it's something these gobbermunts can't properly control or can try to restrict or easily tax...
To which anybody not buried in the mire of head-wrecking that those gobbingmounts who wish only to control people utterly and always should say a big ol' hooo-rah!
... blimey, just got a bit full-on ranty libertarian there or wot???
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff