copyright on photos (split from WC Sparrow) (1 Viewer)

[Neil Hagley]

There are a few nice pics of this bird on the usual web sites. I find both amusing yet puzzling why some photographers (even though presumably not professional in the true sense of the word) put their names and various swirls all over images when they are either no better than other unadulterated pics and in many cases a lot worse. Look at the latest Smurf birds offerings for instance, why would you protect a hideous video grab? Either sell them to your many admiring fans and stay off the public boards or join in the spirit of rejoicing in something beautiful and lets see it rather than imprisoning it electronically. I know there is all the copyright stuff etc but in most cases of long staying ,accessible megas there will be dozens of images freely available and I'm sure no one will make any money off them would they?

 

[crabplover]

There are a few nice pics of this bird on the usual web sites. I find both amusing yet puzzling why some photographers (even though presumably not professional in the true sense of the word) put their names and various swirls all over images when they are either no better than other unadulterated pics and in many cases a lot worse. Look at the latest Smurf birds offerings for instance, why would you protect a hideous video grab? Either sell them to your many admiring fans and stay off the public boards or join in the spirit of rejoicing in something beautiful and lets see it rather than imprisoning it electronically. I know there is all the copyright stuff etc but in most cases of long staying ,accessible megas there will be dozens of images freely available and I'm sure no one will make any money off them would they?

Most people moan about swirls/names and copyright symbols only when they want to download them and avoid paying the photographer for their efforts.
Would you park your bike in the town centre and not lock it up?
or leave your bins in a public hide for others to use prior to your return.

I didnt think so.

Very little is free in this world anymore- pay up or shut up !

You could email the photographer through the link or via their website and ask them for a copy either digitally or print, in return for a donation to the photographers favourite charity.

The photographers get stick for being at a twitch in the first place, hogging spaces, not moveing on, getting too close, flushing etc (some is justified) but then you have the cheek to demand a freeby download
I cannot believe some people. :C

 

[ukbirder]

Very little is free in this world anymore- pay up or shut up !

Surfbirds IS free isn't it? If every surbirds contributer slapped watermarks accross the subject of their photos then there would be no point in ever looking at the surfbirds website. Photographers who want to spoil their images could get their own website and put a lot of nackered photos on it and then see how many people bothered to visit it.

 

[Gastronaut]

Very little is free in this world anymore- pay up or shut up !

How about if you don't want anyone else to keep a copy of your pictures for free don't post them on the internet? Nobody is forcing you to. If your aim is to advertise the pictures for sale then set up your own website at your own expense and stop poncing off the free sites set up for birders to share their info, opinions and perhaps even pictures.

You see it cuts both ways so it's really not worth getting so upset about.

 

[Neil Hagley]

Most people moan about swirls/names and copyright symbols only when they want to download them and avoid paying the photographer for their efforts.
Would you park your bike in the town centre and not lock it up?
or leave your bins in a public hide for others to use prior to your return. I didnt think so. :C

Missed point ...... most of the 'protected' images on the open forum sites are no better than those not protected. I have no problem with stunning or exclusive images being for sale just keep them in a commercial setting.

Very little is free in this world anymore- pay up or shut up ! :C

Really? .... Is not posting with protection and a link to an images for sale site free advertising? Win win.

The photographers get stick for being at a twitch in the first place, hogging spaces, not moveing on, getting too close, flushing etc (some is justified) but then you have the cheek to demand a freeby download
I cannot believe some people. :C

This is the best one ..... I'd rather see a bird with no photographic record than have it flushed ten minutes before I arrive. Lets be realistic, images on Surf etc are generally posted by people who love taking pics for pleasure and to share them with others for whatever reason (pride, fun, accolades etc etc). I don't think anyone objects to a true professional getting paid by Birding World, Birdwatch etc for a commercial image (so long as the photographer has played the game) but don’t get the two worlds confused.

 

[crabplover]

How about if you don't want anyone else to keep a copy of your pictures for free don't post them on the internet? Nobody is forcing you to. If your aim is to advertise the pictures for sale then set up your own website at your own expense and stop poncing off the free sites set up for birders to share their info, opinions and perhaps even pictures.

You see it cuts both ways so it's really not worth getting so upset about.

I'm merely trying to defend and support the photographers here for their efforts, cruddy photo's, amateur's, video grabs or professionals. The image and copyright still belongs to them.
Yes the surfbirds gallery is free to VIEW, ThereforI see nothing wrong with photographers protecting their work to prevent people from downloading.

I have noticed that many photographers are now leaving the surfbirds gallery because there is nothing to protect there images, unlike Birdguides etc. This spoils it for everyone.
Just because you cannot right click to steal the image on Birdguides, does that mean that you don't look at the pictures there ?

Surely if you want to view pictures on the web of a bird, and were faced with a copyrighted image or nothing at all, are you saying you you would not bother to look ?
In most cases the watermarking is offsett so that the id features are still available, its just the background thats spoilt.

Do you walk into a gallery in London and walk out with a painting you like under your arm, with an excuse of well the artist should'nt have displayed it if he didnt want anyone to steal it- nobody was forceing him to?

In my opinion, photographers are provideing a service by submitting to a gallery, If you like the picture enough to want a copy, offer to buy one.

 

[Garry Bagnell]

Surfbirds IS free isn't it? If every surbirds contributer slapped watermarks accross the subject of their photos then there would be no point in ever looking at the surfbirds website. Photographers who want to spoil their images could get their own website and put a lot of nackered photos on it and then see how many people bothered to visit it.

I agree with ukbirder. I cannot see the point in putting watermarks etc on low resolution images. They don't print well on a 6 by 4 size.

Maybe the professional photographers could be allocated a separate gallery to advertise their works of art.

If there was a separate gallery, atleast the digi pic's wouldn't look so crap (mine included).

 

[PYRTLE]

Some do not "provide a service" - apart from one or two like Mr Gantlett (who was fortunate enough to photograph the bird before it was put out on pagers) .... see post regarding Julian Bhalero who ignored the sign and twitchers protests.

 

[Brian Stone]

Just because you cannot right click to steal the image on Birdguides, does that mean that you don't look at the pictures there ?

Is there a bit of confusion here? I can right click on images on Birdguides to save them but even if I couldn't I could hit print screen and paste it into an image editor or just go to the Temporary Internet Files folder (or equivalent for the browser in use) and copy the picture from there. Most images you view on the web get downloaded whether you like it or not.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

I must say I'm educated by the attitude of some people on here to the property of others. "If I can see it, it's mine" seems to be the attitude.

I'll be thinking long and hard about that before I post any more images on this site to illustrate my posts.

Thanks folks, for saving me future effort.

As to Birdguides, even when I right click on my own photos there (and there are many, under my proper name), I get the message "This image is protected".

I don't use Surfbirds and I don't advertise my photos for sale.

 

[crabplover]

I must say I'm educated by the attitude of some people on here to the property of others. "If I can see it, it's mine" seems to be the attitude.

I'll be thinking long and hard about that before I post any more images on this site to illustrate my posts.

Thanks folks, for saving me future effort.

As to Birdguides, even when I right click on my own photos there (and there are many, under my proper name), I get the message "This image is protected".

I don't use Surfbirds and I don't advertise my photos for sale.

Alan, in addition to your comments regarding birdguides may I add this Copyright information that they add at the bottom of their gallery page.

'Copyright of contributed images remains with the individual photographers and pictures may not be reproduced or downloaded without the written permission of the contributor. If contact details are not given, please contact BirdGuides and we will pass on your request if possible'.

I have looked at the Surfbirds gallery page, and they do not have any equivalent statements, which justifies my point that the photographer has every right to protect their images however they wish to prevent downloading.

 

[ukbirder]

As to Birdguides, even when I right click on my own photos there (and there are many, under my proper name), I get the message "This image is protected".

If you are using Firefox then you do get the message but can still save the image. In IE you have to turn javascript off first (tools->internet options->security->custom level->scripting->active scripting->disable).

PS, thanks for the map Tim, I still hadn't a clue where the car park is.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

If you are using Firefox then you do get the message but can still save the image. In IE you have to turn javascript off first (tools->internet options->security->custom level->scripting->active scripting->disable).

PS, thanks for the map Tim, I still hadn't a clue where the car park is.

Well thanks for that information. Now I can steal my own images.|^|

As can anyone else reading this who, like me didn't know (or in my case didn't care to know) how to do it.

It looks as if the image "protection" provided by Birdguides isn't as secure as I thought. I posted there rather than Surfbirds because of the total lack of security on Surfbirds. It's not arrogance on my part -some of the images (especially distant record shots of rare birds) may be decidedly ropey. I simply like to retain my images until such time as I decide to release them.

If I let someone look at a photo album in my house it doesn't mean they can take a few prints home with them. Similarly if I post an image on a website I should have the same consideration. I'm not naive enough to think it doesn't happen, but some of the blatant statements such as those on this thread are surprising - especially where the board rules state that image copyright is held by the photographer.

At least in the past some people have had the courtesy to ask me if they could use some of my images. No request has been turned down.

 

[DunnoKev]

The web, regardless of whether the item in question is a photo, an article, or whatever, is 'fair game', providng the tea-leaf wasn't using it for disproportionate personal gain - and even then they'd probably lbe unable to prove in a court of law.. The web cannot be compared to a home photo album, it's taking your piccie and inviting the world and his dog download it.

A couple of years back a friend of mine went as far as getting a legal consult on the matter of 'intellectual property' regarding bird sightings on his webpage being nicked by a birdline, and he was told tuff tiddy, if you put it out in the public domain, you're asking for it. So he doesn't post anything anywhere now. His choice.

Nexstarneil's original post was asking why some people bother going to all that length on an average quality image. IMO the answer to that original question is deep-rooted in ego (sorry to be Freudian, but there it is).

Honestly, is there anyone out there nicking all these 'supasnaps' quality images of rarities with Fredwasere written over 'em - when there's better ones with nout written on that they could purloin??

And even more importantly, how many peeps are nicking the 'money shots' anyway??

Not enough to put a quality photographer out of business. No-one is ever going to make a living out of rarity photos. The Pros make their money on quality Tawnies, or Gannets, or fields of Poppies (with a lot of the profit coming from the framing btw). Take a look at what's on their stands at the next Birdfair.

If finding out someone has taken a copy of your blurred Sparrow and downloaded it onto their computer so they can look at it whenever they want, instead of going to the webpage it was originally on to view it whenever they want.. if that bruises your ego, then stay off the web, you'll feel a lot better for it.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Well thankfully Kev I don't need advice from the likes of you whether or not I should go on the web.

And as I said above I don't advertise photos for sale, but I've given quite a few images in original quality to those who have had the courtesy to ask. I have also had approaches from commercial bodies, but it was they who instigated the approach.

I'm reminded by some of the replies on this thread of my biology lessons at school, the various types of fungus, plants, animals etc and their relationships with other organisms. Saprophytes and such-like. They told us about the various relationships between organisms and their hosts - symbiotc relationships for instance where both parties benefit - a bit of give and take - clown fish and sea anenomes, lichen (a sybiotic relationship between an alga and a fungus). I quite like that. I provide something voluntarily, someone else takes it and vice versa. Win-win.

And then there was the other kind of relationship - the parasitic one where one organism takes from the other without providing benefit to the host - sometimes destroying the host.

It seems that parasitism is encouraged on the web in the name of modernity, an attitude of "If you are soft enough to post here expect to get ripped off".

I'd prefer not to be a host to parasites.

 

[Archie Archer]

Very little is free in this world anymore- pay up or shut up !

LOSER! Look here pal if us normal birders allow you to hog prime positions at twitches and have to endure you boring us to tears with stories about filters, zooms and the like then I expect to be able to download your images free of charge. If not I will simply stand infront of you next time or pull you by your hood and frog march you to the back of the que. Jeeez these so-called photographers really get on my nerves sometimes.

 

[Archie Archer]

I'd prefer not to be a host to parasites.

I define a parasite as someone who uses a free resource such as this website to advertise their snaps of out-of-focus rarities.

 

[DunnoKev]

No worries Alan, the advice was free and uncopyrighted from me and the likes of me..

DunnoKev
---------
"Quality photos supplied, all genuine, no questions asked.."

 

[deborah4]

Now thinking disingenuously, which is entirely inconsistent with BF ... it's far harder to claim a good high rez for your own but naffy out of focus pics ... far easier to add to your album and in years to come, claim a rarity tick without going further than your living room ... but surely not even desperate listers would do that ...would they? Birders are nice people - they don't steal each other's birds. They Share and Don't Care. (unless their photos are Nigel Blake standard, in which case, paying for the class photography seems fair do's) :smoke:

(sorry couldn't resist that one)

 

[Barred Wobbler]

I don't understand your point Deborah.

I just don't like the feeling that something I can't see is feeding off me and others like me and having a good laugh into the bargain.

Problem sorted however. I've learnt a lot today.