JAE Official Photos Released

User avatar

TonyleFrog
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 5417
Joined: 29/07/06 1:00
Gender: Male
Years of MR2 Ownership: 12
MR2's Owned: 5
Real Name: Three guesses!
Location: Kent

Re: JAE Official Photos Released

Post by TonyleFrog » 27/09/13 20:33

jimi wrote:They are proof copies, clearly watermarked so there shouldn't be any problems with posting them.
Au contraire, the watermark is clear evidence of an attempt to protect the images.
Re-posting them here is a clear breach of copyright. Fact. Should he discover them and seek a remedy it will become an issue.
Even more interesting is this detailed critique.
http://www.epuk.org/News/1032/erra-you- ... make-it-up


If you're not living life on the edge, you're taking up too much room!

HM wrote: TonyleFrog aka "The Fog Penetrator"


fimmo
Posts: 338
Joined: 19/09/03 1:00
Years of MR2 Ownership: 9
MR2's Owned: 17
Location: kirkcaldy,fife

Re: JAE Official Photos Released

Post by fimmo » 27/09/13 22:41

nice pic of chris's mr2 there

as for the 'copyright' issue, as jimi says,the pics are clearly marked with his name so if you want a good clear unmarked pic my guess is he'd sell you one

but swing it round the other way, chris's car is my old car, i built it,say i wanted to buy a professional pic,he'd sell me one, but what will chris get out of it?? its his car, did the photographer get permission to take the picture of chris's property and whether he did or didnt, is the photographer going to give each car owner a percentage of each pic sold

i dont care when photographers take pics of my drift car but if they were selling the images i'd at least expect them to ask if its ok to sell their images of me and my car

User avatar

TonyleFrog
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 5417
Joined: 29/07/06 1:00
Gender: Male
Years of MR2 Ownership: 12
MR2's Owned: 5
Real Name: Three guesses!
Location: Kent

Re: JAE Official Photos Released

Post by TonyleFrog » 28/09/13 3:42

fimmo wrote:nice pic of chris's mr2 there
+1
fimmo wrote:as for the 'copyright' issue, as jimi says,the pics are clearly marked with his name so if you want a good clear unmarked pic my guess is he'd sell you one
Indeed. I was merely drawing attention to the legal position. A lot of people assume that because an author posts his/her pics on a website it is fair game to grab them and do whatever you want with them. It's not.
fimmo wrote:but swing it round the other way, chris's car is my old car, i built it,say i wanted to buy a professional pic,he'd sell me one, but what will chris get out of it?? its his car, did the photographer get permission to take the picture of chris's property and whether he did or didnt, is the photographer going to give each car owner a percentage of each pic sold
The photographer does not need Chris's permission to do so. That is a very common misconception. If the photographer is in a public place he/she can, with certain specific exceptions, photograph anything he/she wishes to. That will include your private dwelling if it visible from the street. On private land the only permission needed to take pics is that of the landowner not anybody who happens to be on the land at the time. If you disbelieve me, look it up. There are plenty of legal sites where you can find the relevant info.

In the UK, copyright automatically vests in the taker of the pic. It is not necessary for it to be watermarked or otherwise identified (although that would be an undoubted aid in proving ownership).
fimmo wrote:i dont care when photographers take pics of my drift car but if they were selling the images i'd at least expect them to ask if its ok to sell their images of me and my car
I agree that it might be courteous but there is no obligation on them to do so. As you don't own the images please explain why they should be under a duty to seek your permission to dispose of their property as they see fit.
If you're not living life on the edge, you're taking up too much room!

HM wrote: TonyleFrog aka "The Fog Penetrator"

User avatar

Gaz!
Posts: 2579
Joined: 12/04/05 1:00
Gender: Male
Years of MR2 Ownership: 10
MR2's Owned: 1
Real Name: Gertrude
Location: Somewhere in Oxfordshire middle England

Re: JAE Official Photos Released

Post by Gaz! » 28/09/13 11:12

Howlin_Mad wrote:
Daffy wrote:I spy with my little eye

Thuresday 3pm to 5pm Page 5 pic 1.

The Radman :th:
Page 6, bottom row, second from the left. And another two appearances on the website at Japshow! Gaz you are on Japshow too bud :)

HM
I know I'm on the JapShow pics, but that isn't my car on the JAE one? Dunno what your looking at.


Sent from my boot to your "censored".
JAE 2006 TUG OF WAR RUNNERS UP.
JAE 2007 TUG OF WAR CHAMPIONS.
JAE 2010 TUG OF WAR CHAMPIONS.
JAE 2011 DOUBLE TUG OF WAR CHAMPIONS
JAE 2012 DOUBLE TUG OF WAR CHAMPIONS
JAE 2013 DOUBLE TUG OF WAR CHAMPIONS

User avatar

Howlin_Mad
Posts: 7753
Joined: 14/09/06 1:00
Gender: Male
Years of MR2 Ownership: 10
MR2's Owned: 3
Real Name: Yes I have one ta.
Location: Wolverhampton

Re: JAE Official Photos Released

Post by Howlin_Mad » 28/09/13 11:28

Gaz! wrote:I know I,m on the JapShow pics, but that isn't my car on the JAE one? Dunno what your looking at.


Sent from my boot to your "censored".
My car! When did you arrive in your 2?

HM
MGB GT For Sale// JDM Rev3 3VZ-FE V6 // JDM Rev3 Auto G-Ltd GONE // JDM Rev3 GT-S Turbo RIP
MPSTorque monster...For SALE


Essexluke83
Posts: 70
Joined: 06/08/13 13:36
Gender: Male
Years of MR2 Ownership: 0
MR2's Owned: 1
Real Name: Luke
Location: Burslem, Stoke on Trent

Re: JAE Official Photos Released

Post by Essexluke83 » 28/09/13 20:19

im in the saturday lot when i went out to get petrol for the genni lol
Some say that if you remove his inner child both will die...

User avatar

Howlin_Mad
Posts: 7753
Joined: 14/09/06 1:00
Gender: Male
Years of MR2 Ownership: 10
MR2's Owned: 3
Real Name: Yes I have one ta.
Location: Wolverhampton

Re: JAE Official Photos Released

Post by Howlin_Mad » 28/09/13 21:58

Tony,

I have to keep ahead of this copyright issue due to work as it has changed somewhat in the last few years due to the rise of social media sites and VC's internet. As I currently understand it, you are correct, an attempt must be made to contact the original photographer (or company) for reproduction electronically. However, this is where the grey area is. How do you define "tried to seek permission to reproduce"?

I'm sure no-one on this thread has attempted to 'steal' any images being low resolution images with a watermark. It's quite clear that high resolution images are available for purchase from the linked website, which has also been posted on Bookface by the JAE team, as have I personally on Bookface, so I can post any image from that source myself via the 3rd party agreement ;)

To use these pics as a means of selling an item (i.e. a car ad on e-bay) or for profit in a commercial sense, then yes I'd be upset if those were my pictures. Pics on this thread are no more than what you can see when accessing their website due to the watermarks - so free advertising from our members for them!

Don't panic Mr Mainwaring!

HM
MGB GT For Sale// JDM Rev3 3VZ-FE V6 // JDM Rev3 Auto G-Ltd GONE // JDM Rev3 GT-S Turbo RIP
MPSTorque monster...For SALE


laze
Posts: 18
Joined: 20/06/13 19:09
Gender: Male

Re: JAE Official Photos Released

Post by laze » 28/09/13 22:32

Some people worry too much. I'm sure Peter will be grateful for the free promotion that's undoubtedly driven traffic to his site and possibly even led to a sale or two. That said, I think his photos are pretty run-of-the-mill personally.

User avatar

TonyleFrog
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 5417
Joined: 29/07/06 1:00
Gender: Male
Years of MR2 Ownership: 12
MR2's Owned: 5
Real Name: Three guesses!
Location: Kent

Re: JAE Official Photos Released

Post by TonyleFrog » 29/09/13 0:06

Howlin_Mad wrote:Tony,

I have to keep ahead of this copyright issue due to work as it has changed somewhat in the last few years due to the rise of social media sites and VC's internet. As I currently understand it, you are correct, an attempt must be made to contact the original photographer (or company) for reproduction electronically. However, this is where the grey area is. How do you define "tried to seek permission to reproduce"?
That has always been the thorny question with UK copyright law. Where there is nothing to indicate who the owner is, it's like sailing into uncharted waters. You may well not hit a reef but, if you do, you have no way of knowing whether the outcome will be just a scrape of the bow, being holed, or sinking with all hands.

The law has remained much the same for many a year (until now). All that social media and the internet has done is make it a whole lot easier to pinch stuff without asking. Keeping track of what might be being done with your images is a thankless task

The relevant sections of ERRA 2013, when implemented by secondary legislation, will be a sea change. Hence the concern being expressed by so many photographers.
Howlin_Mad wrote:I'm sure no-one on this thread has attempted to 'steal' any images being low resolution images with a watermark.
Your words not mine. I did not suggest, never mind say, any such thing.
Howlin_Mad wrote:It's quite clear that high resolution images are available for purchase from the linked website, which has also been posted on Bookface by the JAE team, as have I personally on Bookface, so I can post any image from that source myself via the 3rd party agreement ;)
The JAE team have only posted a link, no copied images. As I'm not on Facebook, you'll have to clarify the next bit as I have no idea what you mean.
Howlin_Mad wrote:To use these pics as a means of selling an item (i.e. a car ad on e-bay) or for profit in a commercial sense, then yes I'd be upset if those were my pictures. Pics on this thread are no more than what you can see when accessing their website due to the watermarks - so free advertising from our members for them!
That is a legitimate POV and one with which the photographer may well agree. Or not. I was simply pointing out the legal position. You can't predict how someone will react and making assumptions may come back to bite you in the a**e.
Howlin_Mad wrote:Don't panic Mr Mainwaring!
Don't tell him, Pike!
If you're not living life on the edge, you're taking up too much room!

HM wrote: TonyleFrog aka "The Fog Penetrator"

User avatar

Howlin_Mad
Posts: 7753
Joined: 14/09/06 1:00
Gender: Male
Years of MR2 Ownership: 10
MR2's Owned: 3
Real Name: Yes I have one ta.
Location: Wolverhampton

Re: JAE Official Photos Released

Post by Howlin_Mad » 29/09/13 8:01

TonyleFrog wrote:The JAE team have only posted a link, no copied images. As I'm not on Facebook, you'll have to clarify the next bit as I have no idea what you mean.
The pictures were posted on FB by themselves. JAE (as well as many others) shared them to me. When it's shared to me, (security settings aside) any of my friends can view it. Are they now immediately guilty of viewing or sharing pics with said copyright??

FFS, it's a couple of low res pictures of our cars!

Meh. :rolleyes:

HM
MGB GT For Sale// JDM Rev3 3VZ-FE V6 // JDM Rev3 Auto G-Ltd GONE // JDM Rev3 GT-S Turbo RIP
MPSTorque monster...For SALE

User avatar

TonyleFrog
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 5417
Joined: 29/07/06 1:00
Gender: Male
Years of MR2 Ownership: 12
MR2's Owned: 5
Real Name: Three guesses!
Location: Kent

Re: JAE Official Photos Released

Post by TonyleFrog » 30/09/13 11:40

Howlin_Mad wrote:The pictures were posted on FB by themselves.
I'm still none the wiser. Who are 'themselves'? Are you saying that Peter Sharp posted the actual images on FB? Or that JAE posted his pics on their FB account? I could only find a link here.

Any person posting a pic on FB is subject to FB's T&Cs. One of which gives FB a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license.
Howlin_Mad wrote:JAE (as well as many others) shared them to me. When it's shared to me, (security settings aside) any of my friends can view it. Are they now immediately guilty of viewing or sharing pics with said copyright??
See above. The terms of the licence means that whoever posts their pics on FB still holds the copyright but has made it exceptionally difficult for themselves to keep control of it.

Ergo, if Peter Sharp posted his images directly to FB then the above applies. If JAE posted them on their account they would have needed his permission in order not to breach his copyright.
Howlin_Mad wrote:FFS, it's a couple of low res pictures of our cars!

Meh. :rolleyes:
That misses the point I was making. It's no good saying, as you appear to be suggesting, that it's OK in some circumstances but not in others. Any more than being 'a little bit pregnant'. Downplaying the issue leads to a culture of tacit acceptance which just makes things worse.

It doesn't help that we are probably all guilty of having pinched someone else's pic and used it without asking at some time or another.
:blush:
If you're not living life on the edge, you're taking up too much room!

HM wrote: TonyleFrog aka "The Fog Penetrator"

Post Reply

Return to “JAE pics and vids”