ShipSpotting.com Forum
Shipspotters all over the world => Site related news, functions and modules => Topic started by: dirk septer on December 18, 2020, 03:42:20 PM
-
What is the policy on posting historic photographs?
If the vessel is not actually spotted/photographed by a certain member,
should this still qualify to be posted on a site by the name shipspotting?
If historic photos taken by others can be posted, is it kosher that
the member posts these under his own name?
-
From the site's Support section:
http://www.shipspotting.com/support/faq.php?category=Copyright
-
Hello Dirk,
I think i know where you are coming from.
One suggestion i would have to simplify things is when you look at a photo and firstly you see photographer, then date captured, if IT could type posted by, between the two, then if the poster is not the photographer then you could insert unknown or name of photographer if known or the late with the name inserted.
I would not expect IT to do this for all photos currently on site, but consider it for a new beginning for the new year.
-
Personally I don't think members should not even post/be allowed to post photos that are not their own. After all, this site is called SHIPSPOTTERS..... Other people's photos have nothing to do with shipspotting.
To post historic photos not taken by themselves could be posted under a separate category "historic photographs," with the name of the photographer, or when this is not known just a simple "unknown."
-
Hi
I think Dirk is way off reservation, yes the site is shipspotting (not shipspotters), but over the years these arguments have overwhelmingly resolved that we should see all photoes. The site only opened two decades ago, but should not exclude old stuff which has massive interest and even though the photographer is dead, they traded their rights to the poster by allowing the image to be passed on.
How many times have we seen this debate ...
-
As Brent has said, this has been raised before and there are also other views that have been aired in the past.
Even though a poster may not be the original photographer, the ships involved have still been "spotted", but in that period, there was no opportunity to share photos this way.
Some believe (including myself), that it would be a great loss to have historic photos left in a draw or up in the attic, only to be thrown out when the original photographer passes away.
It would be safe to say most posters are hobbyists, and are not wanting to profit from their postings.
I set myself the task some years back to get a photo of every ship to visit the Port of Napier, and that would not have been possible if I wasn't able to access sites where historic photos were available.
-
The site rules on this subject are quite clear and, until or unless these are changed (I hope not), they should be adhered to by members and rigorously enforced by admins.
-
Thank you for your various contributions. They well illustrate the variety of views on this subject amongst members. Copyright is one aspect and Kyle has usefully linked below to the current site policy, usefully formulated by Ken. It has two purposes:
- to set the requirements for attribution
- to protect the site from legal claims for breach of copyright
Where commercial rights are believed to be breached, images are removed and can only be reinstated where specific permission can be shown.
Where a specific non-commercial copyright claim is made by another member or from elsewhere the image is categorised "Copyright Questionable" and a prompt check made before deletion (false claims are rare, but not unknown).
Other "non-member" photos are accepted at face value - they should either indicate the original photographer or, for those where that is not possible, explain the provenance. Some of these are investigated either specifically or on a random basis, and action is taken as appropriate.
In all cases, uploads to the site are the responsibility of the member. That is why it is fundamental that the uploading member's name appears below the image. There is no possibility of changing that, and it remains the case that no Admin can alter that. Just to clarify, "Admin" here means the small team of volunteers that moderate the site content, applying site standards and other rules etc; "IT" is the professional team employed by the site-owner to maintain the software and functionality - they have no role in moderating content.
This is not intended to close off discussion, but I thought it useful to give an indication of how I approach some of these issues.
-
So, David, is it or is it not permissible to post photos by "unknown" photographers or from other people's "collections" where the original photographer's identity is uncertain or not given? As I read the site rules as they stand, they are not.
-
I think the big grey area is that of photographs that have been inherited from family members. I have a significant quantity I have inherited from my Grandfather. Quite a few are good enough to meet site standards. I don't specifically have his permission to post them, he died long before the internet was thought of. I don't have any way of proving their provenance, they were not in his will, my Grandmother just gave them to me. I've not posted any up to now, as clearly they are not my own, many were taken before I was born. I could post them and say taken by my Grandfather....would that be OK????? Lockdown has given me the time to sort and scan the best, but I've been reluctant to post, in case other members objected.
Quite a few are of vessel with no other photograph on this site. I do sometimes think the site ought try and find a way to host historic photographs. I'm not sure seeing yet another photograph of Emma Maersk or whatever is all that interesting, however good the photograph. Many members also like to see something a bit different, or out of the ordinary, and historic photographs can fulfill that need.
-
Simonwp: posting your grandfather's photographs that he took himself is no problem as long as you give him the credit for them. The copyright problem comes if you post one from his collection not taken by himself and where the photographer is unknown. Copyright remains with the original photographer until 70 years after his or her death.
-
During the first half of the eighties I bought pictures from the WSS collection and directly from: Keith Byass, Michael Cassar and Peter Foxley (Airfoto Malacca). I traded negatives with Alex Duncan in exchange for photos. As far as I know all mentioned persons are no longer alive. Yet I think copyright laws are still in place for all of them, so I will not post anything coming from them, until I am told that some of those pictures might no longer come under copyright laws. For the upcoming years I still have enough left in my own stuff to remain a prolific poster. (in waves)
-
Where commercial rights are believed to be breached, images are removed and can only be reinstated where specific permission can be shown.
Where a specific non-commercial copyright claim is made by another member or from elsewhere the image is categorised "Copyright Questionable" and a prompt check made before deletion (false claims are rare, but not unknown).
Other "non-member" photos are accepted at face value - they should either indicate the original photographer or, for those where that is not possible, explain the provenance. Some of these are investigated either specifically or on a random basis, and action is taken as appropriate.
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1653526
Now, taking this interesting historic photograph of liner-troopship-liner Tegelberg taken in 1939;
(even claimed as his own by member who posted it!), should be deleted according to rules quoted above.
BTW: This Tegelberg photo and all others of same vessel show the wrong IMO as well (5354391 >> 5535439).
There are many more that should be deleted according to the rules. This would be a real loss.
So, instead of deleting them, why not just leaving them and quoting these as "photographer: unknown"
-
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1653526
Now, taking this interesting historic photograph of liner-troopship-liner Tegelberg taken in 1939;
(even claimed as his own by member who posted it!), should be deleted according to rules quoted above.
The member in question did not say that, he mentioned it to be from his collection. I have photos in my collection which I did not take.
-
his name is entered as being the photographer, which he is/was not;
here as photographer should be entered "unknown."
This is what webmaster Ken Smith wrote on December 20, 2013: (especially note his last paragraph):
There has been a recent increase in the number of photographs of older ships uploaded to the website under the heading of "From My Collection" also seen is "Photographer Unknown" or quite often nothing to indicate the author of the original but from the photograph it is obvious it was not taken by the member who uploaded it and that it has been acquired or purchased even maybe copied from another source.
If a photograph is uploaded as such then it can be considered as Copyright Infringement and this Website has very clear rules on this and they are laid out in "Uploading Photos Guidance" Rule 7 clearly states "When uploading Members must comply with the Copyright Law". the rules also state that if you are uploading photographs not taken by you then you must give the Authors name and that you have approval to use them, this information must be given with an uploaded photograph, sadly this is not always the case and no credit is given.
We do have members uploading to the Website photographs that they do not own, I will not name them but you will know who I am referring to, I can assure you and they can confirm that they have been thoroughly checked for authenticity of the information they give, I have insisted that they do this for the credibility of this website so they are not affected by this decision, the details they provide with their uploads have been approved.
This question of uploading without any credit to the Author or Approval for use could have serious consequences for this website and I have a duty to protect the Website from any possible legal litigation, so with this in mind it has been decided that from today Tuesday Dec 10th 2013 all photographs uploaded to this website and not owned by the member will only be accepted if the Authors name and approval to use them is given with the photograph, "From My Collection" or "Unknown" will no longer be accepted and if uploaded as such they will be removed, I should also stress that if the details required are given and prove to be false then the member has to accept full responsibility, they have been accepted in good faith.
So to sum up, this Website was, and as far as I am concerned still is for uploading your Own photographs that are taken by you personally, obviously with its expansion it has rather drifted away a little from that principle but I would like to encourage a return to that idea for the future, we have plenty of homemade talent, let us make use of it.
Kind Regards
Ken Smith
Webmaster
-
Dirk, I rather listen to how the current webmaster interprets the rules, especially where he mentions (19/12) that the "photographer" is always the poster and that cannot be changed. The "photographer" can then indicate where the originates from. And copyright infringements in this day and age will probably only have serious consequences if people would try to upload Fotoflite images.
-
his name is entered as being the photographer, which he is/was not;
here as photographer should be entered "unknown."
Considering the the identity of photographer is a user name as opposed to any kind of verified identity, I don't think we should get too worked up over that qualification. If someone dubbed their account as "Donald Duck," I think we're all reasonable enough to assume that the photos posted by that account belong to the owner of the account, and not to the cartoon character.
-
Please refer to the topic: COLLECTIONS and UNKNOWN PHOTOGRAPHERS:
the current webmaster did agree with the statement of webmaster Ken Smith who noted there:
This question of uploading without any credit to the Author or Approval for use could have serious consequences for this website and I have a duty to protect the Website from any possible legal litigation, so with this in mind it has been decided that from today Tuesday Dec 10th 2013 all photographs uploaded to this website and not owned by the member will only be accepted if the Authors name and approval to use them is given with the photograph, "From My Collection" or "Unknown" will no longer be accepted and if uploaded as such they will be removed, I should also stress that if the details required are given and prove to be false then the member has to accept full responsibility, they have been accepted in good faith.
So to sum up, this Website was, and as far as I am concerned still is for uploading your Own photographs that are taken by you personally, obviously with its expansion it has rather drifted away a little from that principle but I would like to encourage a return to that idea for the future, we have plenty of homemade talent, let us make use of it.
Kind Regards
Ken Smith
Webmaster
Now, again refering to that 1939 photograph of liner-troopship_liner Tegelberg:
the member who posted this photo is NOT the photographer;
there is a big difference between "collection of" and "copyright."
there is no explanation about who took the photograph, nor whether the member
who posted the photo has the copyright.
was posted originally with the wrong IMO; and though this was pointed to poster,
who did acknowledge that comment, never even bothered fixing the mistake;
consequently, other photos of Tegelberg posted by other members also now show
the wrong IMO.
I understand the IT problem about the "photographer" but this can be improved in a
very simple manner by changing "Photographer:" to: "Photographer or poster:"
the poster will still have to explain the details re: copyright, etc.
"Collection of" does not mean anything.
And I totally agree with Ken Smith that the Shipspotting Website was, and as far as
he was concerned, still is for uploading member's own photographs that are taken by
them personally.
Maybe the time has come to return to our original roots and mission...
-
Dirk, today I turned 72. I have a large collection of own shot photographs. Both historical and modern stuff. Are you now suggesting that within say ten years time, my shots can no longer be published because I am dead, even if I give my children explicit permission to post?
-
Unfortunately Pieter, that is what the rules state, as written by Ken Smith in 2013. However things have moved on since then, and perhaps it is time to be a bit more flexible. As I said earlier, I have a collection on my Grandfathers photographs, which I've not posted, simply because they would be likely to provoke this sort of argument. I think the site will be poorer for not having that flexibility. I think "photographer unknown" is not acceptable, but "from my Grandfathers collection" or similar, should be.
-
For a UK interpretation of copyright please see attached pdf. I would suggest that this wording is very much universal. Pieter re your photos see section Automatic Assignment .. (pass on in your will etc)
-
And/or received from grandfather / father etc.
-
Thanks Chas, this really does clarify most points. It might be useful to have it pinned into the site rules so that it's easily visible. I'll start looking at my Grandfather's photographs with a view to posting the one's that meet site standards.
-
For a UK interpretation of copyright please see attached pdf. I would suggest that this wording is very much universal. Pieter re your photos see section Automatic Assignment .. (pass on in your will etc)
Thanks Chas, just glanced through, just wondering
1: whether it is allowed to download photos from Shipspotting in the first place, even for private use only....
2: It is allowed to sell photos on Ebay showing the photograph?
Just wondering how many shipspotters have actually made arrangements regarding copyright for after their death, and in how many cases heirs are actually aware of:
a: The existence and possible value of the collection.
b: The copyright rules involved.
If I remember correctly the WSS has asked several times to be included in peoples will with regards of the photo collections, but would that mean that in such cases the WSS gets the actual copyright?
-
Pieter in reply to your questions
1. Downloading photos from anywhere on the web is breaching copyright unless specific permission is given by the copyright holder. That picture still cannot be re-published by that new holder as its still not their copyright, your permission is granted only for personal use. Even if you sell it to them its still your copyright. They cannot sell on otherwise commercial sites would be out of business. Some persons waive their copyright on websites but that has to be stated for each specific article.(Royalty Free). I have some old Esso tanker photographs sent to me in the 1960's (I begged a few) and they actually say I can reproduce but only for free and acknowledge their copyright. I have been asked via Shipspotting personal mail box if persons can download a copy of a photo of mine. I generally forward from my computer but its still my copyright which I retain. They can only save and view on their computer or use in printed format/publication. Cannot sell!. Still my copyright and they can't grant further copying without my permission.
2. Re Grandfather/father ..if not specifically designated in will (could be left to an organization) they are still part of the estate and inherited by you/next of kin etc. (You do not detail every cup & saucer in a will do you?). So grandfather to father to you copyrights still applies so long as within specific country timeframe. After time limit = public domain.
3. Further to 1. and value. If you do not intend to sell they have no value on inheritance. Depending on each country's inheritance laws (eg UK you have to guesstimate value of every item in the estate for tax purposes /above
-
Thanks Chas,
So if I would download one of your shots and just store it on my laptop, it would be a breach op copyright. I have no intention to publish nor sell it on Ebay. The Ebay sellers I was thinking of are Woody Iow's of this world, that offer shots on Ebay, mostly watermarked and sell it as if they own the copyright. And yes I have been asked several times whether people could use one of my shots from here for a publication and with due credits, that is how it should be done.
-
Pieter: if you were to download one of my photos onto your computer for your own personal appreciation and admiration, I would be quite "chuffed" that you liked it so much. It would NOT be seen as a breach of copyright any more than if - in the days before the internet - you had cut a picture out of a magazine or brochure and stuck it in a scrapbook.
However, if you then posted my photo on another site without my permission - particularly if you also did not give me credit for it - I would be down on you like a tonne of bricks (in your case, in a relatively friendly sort of way LOL). And if you SOLD one of my photos, I'd be down on you like 10 tonnes of bricks (possibly with a copyright lawyer in tow).
In the meantime, best wishes for Christmas and New Year from the Tier 4 county of Kent (now twinned with Wuhan, China) and STAY SAFE
-
Bob, just copying (is that allowed??) from ChasB attachment I can only conclude that the downloading act in itself is already restricted. I doubt if they would apply that rule to your work, but all other "work" would come under this restriction.
"Under UK law, the restricted acts are:
-
Does anyone know if there has ever been a successful prosecution of a photo thief?
I think a number of mine have been stolen over the years and sold on by thieves using anonymous names.
If i was ever given a name i would prosecute.
I know we are told if you dont want your photos stolen, dont post them on the internet, if we all did that there would be no site.
-
Pieter another long answer.
Pieter , no one has the right to download any photo from a website even for their sole use. Out of kindness I could give you a copy of my photo but that still does not infer on you any rights at all. Selling that picture as your own is an international criminal offence. (At minimal contravenes Geneva Convention) Dutch Copyright Law (called Auteurswet) is as far as I can tell exactly same as UK. Possibly whole of Europe States are the same and you could be prosecuted under European (not Netherland/Dutch law)
Once upon a time you had to put an encircled C or a statement claiming copyright. This is no longer the case. A person
-
Thanks Chas, a short answer, if I understand this correctly and literally. the download function on Shipspotting should have to be discontinued as it is soliciting a crime/infringement of copy right rules.
-
Thanks Chas, a short answer, if I understand this correctly and literally. the download function on Shipspotting should have to be discontinued as it is soliciting a crime/infringement of copy right rules.
I believe that downloading of copyrighted photos is protected under various laws, depending on the country. In the British Commonwealth, "Fair Dealing" permits research and private study in a non-commercial capacity, which I believe would be the umbrella terms we are looking for. In the United States, "Fair Use" doctrine permits the same sort of use.
-
As this title contains 'Historical Photographs' I thought I would add a cautionary tale.
In the period 1950s-1980s my father was a photographer in business in Teignmouth (U.K). He would take photographs of ships at the local port and because of UK Purchase Tax law was only allowed to sell to ships crews or shipping related companies. A couple of years ago, I found a copy of one of his photos on a Dutch Coaster website, not credited to him. All photographs sold were stamped on the reverse side with a copyright stamp but of course the act of scanning does not record the back of photographs. I contacted the site concerned and was told that this issues was under the remit of a US company that maintained the site content. When I contacted the US company, they said that they would change the details but only after I had sworn an affidavit in a US court. Obviously I did not pursue this.
Experience with other sites has often worked well, usually I offer some additional info on the actual photo circumstances to show thanks.
I have several thousand photos taken by my father and myself, but not uploaded them to any site because I find that the copyright issue is too stressful to resolve should someone choose to violate it.
Even so, some photographs still find their way into books published by reputable publishers, mainly because they are wrongly advised that someone else holds the copyright.
Best regards for Christmas and the New Year, keep safe and well,
Tom
-
This is supposed to be a
-
Just a small note to Pieter Melissen: Michael Cassar ,a dear friend of mine is still a amongst the living, he is well and living in Valletta,Malta.
And may I wish you a Happy Birthday on your 73 year and whilst we are at it another wish for a Happy Christmas and a an equally Happy New Year 2021 without the cursed Corona virus.
Best regards my Friend
Emmanuel.L.(Malta)
-
Just a small note to Pieter Melissen: Michael Cassar ,a dear friend of mine is still a amongst the living, he is well and living in Valletta,Malta.
And may I wish you a Happy Birthday on your 73 year and whilst we are at it another wish for a Happy Christmas and a an equally Happy New Year 2021 without the cursed Corona virus.
Best regards my Friend
Emmanuel.L.(Malta)
Hi Emmanuel
Thank you for this very pleasant correction on Michael Cassar. I thought I remembered having recently read some implicit message that he had passed away, but great to know that he is still with us. During the eigthies I bought photos from him at a regular basis and he was even kind enough to print photos for me from his Marine News offerings that had already expired. Perhaps he will remember me, so give him my best wishes.
Thanks also for all your good wishes, which I of course would like to return to you in the same vein. (And I am 72 now, and not 73).
-
May I propose that a paragraph based on this quote from Chas
"Could be part of site rules/agreement that copying for limited personal use is permitted."
in combination with this post from Kyle
"I believe that downloading of copyrighted photos is protected under various laws, depending on the country. In the British Commonwealth, "Fair Dealing" permits research and private study in a non-commercial capacity, which I believe would be the umbrella terms we are looking for. In the United States, "Fair Use" doctrine permits the same sort of use."
can be incorporated in Shipsspotting's Mission Statement, so that it becomes clear to everybody what it means when you post a photo here? It looks like a solution that I could live with, and probably many others too who just come here out of interest for ships.
-
Agreed, Shipspotters are a "family" that chat to and help each other in whatever country they meet. I'm so glad that so many took the trouble to learn English. My Latin mark was 3/100 and French was just a little better. I could read the words and translate in my head but as for speaking, zero.
I have no problem sharing my photos (most elsewhere /not on Shipspotting but that's another story) for personal saving/viewing. It's just the rogues that take advantage of our comradeship that need to be stopped.
-
This is supposed to be a
-
Hi coastwatcher, the opposite is true. If you go back several days the problem arises where a minority of persons exploit the site and "ripping" off members photos for gain/profit. Technically any copying of a photo, even for your own viewing, is "illegal". All original work be it music, text, photos or even a scribble on a piece of paper is copyrighted immediately. No need for circled C etc. or to make that statement. Its covered by international law/ prosecution automatically. You can personally redact that copyright and make the subject "royalty free" or a "stock photo" but you have to make that statement on every article/photo.
So technically it is illegal for you/me to copy another persons photo without permission and by allowing such an act the site is seen to be complicit. The discussion was trying to find a way for site members to enjoy each others photos and "copy for personal use to computer for our enjoyment/viewing at home". Strictly speaking this is illegal. Its so easy on this site for felons to exploit our photos.
We are trying to find a way to stop those who are taking advantage of "our" photos for their money gain, claiming the photos are their own to sell without spoiling enjoyment of the site.
-
Sorry Pieter for having added a year to your age so it is 72, well you are not far from mine , I am 75 and 6 months, but these last months , I have been feeling more of my age as not having enough exercise having to stay mostly indoors, usually I am at the harbour photographing any thing that moves on the waters, but this cursed pandemic has curtailed ship movements ,so my visits to the harbour area are at a minimum ,and my usual friends are also old ,so we are all vulnerable, so mostly I find that am all alone.
As to Michael Cassar ,if you want to reconnect , I will gladly forward his email address.
keep safe my friend ,always hoping for better times.
Season Greetings.
best regards
Emmanuel.L.(Malta)
-
Hi coastwatcher, the opposite is true. If you go back several days the problem arises where a minority of persons exploit the site and "ripping" off members photos for gain/profit. Technically any copying of a photo, even for your own viewing, is "illegal". All original work be it music, text, photos or even a scribble on a piece of paper is copyrighted immediately. No need for circled C etc. or to make that statement. Its covered by international law/ prosecution automatically. You can personally redact that copyright and make the subject "royalty free" or a "stock photo" but you have to make that statement on every article/photo.
So technically it is illegal for you/me to copy another persons photo without permission and by allowing such an act the site is seen to be complicit. The discussion was trying to find a way for site members to enjoy each others photos and "copy for personal use to computer for our enjoyment/viewing at home". Strictly speaking this is illegal. Its so easy on this site for felons to exploit our photos.
We are trying to find a way to stop those who are taking advantage of "our" photos for their money gain, claiming the photos are their own to sell without spoiling enjoyment of the site.
Sorry ChasB46 - you have lost me completely. The opposite of what is true? I am well aware of the laws of copyright. You rightly say that posting copyright photos on this or any other site is illegal. There is a body of opinion that claims it is ok to post the images of others because it is only for the enjoyment. This is irrelevant. The felons, as you call them, are only part of the problem.
-
Coasterwatcher, you have got the "wrong end of the stick". This is not about persons posting other people's photos on Shipspotting claiming them to be their own etc. That is a separate topic/ illegal and site could be liable and that's why they are removed.
However the copyright law works both ways. This discussion is about "members" at present copying any photos from this site to their own computers even if for just viewing at a later date. Any photo posted on this site from me or anyone else is automatically copyrighted. If you or anyone else wants to download a photo you must ask not just "take" unless site photo/photos are designated public domain. The discussion was to find a "constitution"/ club rule wording that all members (requires login status)agree that copying other member's photos for ONLY personal viewing/saving for a later date is automatic. (However, if you should die and relatives find those photos believing them to be yours and display then they are acting illegally .. keep downloaded in separate named folder??)
Suggestion-If you do not want your photos copied at all you do not join the "club"/ become a member or upload your photos. At present the site could be deemed complicit in breaking international law as would any other person using the site and copying a photo. Further it was suggested the photos on the opening page were degraded/ made smaller in size to be useless for copying. However by being a member and logging in a photo of copying standard would be available for members.( ie to be a member you agree to permit copying for personal use by other members.)
see reply 38 for other methods to stop "stealing" of our photos for use elsewhere.
-
Coasterwatcher ..in simple terms ..wording to be placed within Shipspotting site rules that ONLY members( via login?) agree other members are permitted to copy any photos on the site BUT only for personal viewing.
-
Dear members
This discussion has already been hijacked from that which was originally raised - just read it please and note the subject just above here. If you want to talk about something different kindly start a new thread
Secondly there is no need to repeat yourselves nor to include copies of other members full messages in your replies (just a short extract if necessary). It is the views of other members that is sought.
-
I don't post very often, but I'd like to comment on this thread which, as DAVIDSHIPS has said, seems to have been hijacked/wandered off topic or whatever one likes to call it. I used to post photographs on different sites - not related to shipping - and I found that they kept being taken by "G..... Im...s" among others, without even the courtesy of asking me. I know that some sites and individual people put watermarks of some sort in the view, but all that does is obscure some vital part of the photo. The annoying (at least) habit of taking other people's photos for other purposes breaches copyright and prompts many (including me) to stop submitting them for publication. There. End of rant. I'll go back to sleep!