Guardian Photo Essays

petersmart

petersmart

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,000
Edit My Images
Yes
Last edited by a moderator:
Good call, I often visit the "in pictures" section and it's always worthwhile. But can you imagine what folk on here would say about this:

622.jpg
 
FFS - is it really that hard to understand copyright as photographers?

By all means link a URL to an image that you want to talk about, but don't upload a copy.
 
DemiLion said:
FFS - is it really that hard to understand copyright as photographers?

By all means link a URL to an image that you want to talk about, but don't upload a copy.
Click to expand...

I doubt if may people would claim I breached copyright since I also linked to the article which contained the photo.

And I did it that way so that people could also read the complete article.
 
petersmart said:
I doubt if may people would claim I breached copyright since I also linked to the article which contained the photo.

And I did it that way so that people could also read the complete article.
Click to expand...

So it seems you're admitting that what you did was wrong, and rather than fix it you're claiming it's OK because most people wouldn't complain. I really don't understand. Do you prefer being argumentative to doing the right thing? In the time it took you to be argumentative, you could easily have changed your post to contain a link to the image. Like this.

4500.jpg
 
StewartR said:
So it seems you're admitting that what you did was wrong, and rather than fix it you're claiming it's OK because most people wouldn't complain. I really don't understand. Do you prefer being argumentative to doing the right thing? In the time it took you to be argumentative, you could easily have changed your post to contain a link to the image. Like this.

4500.jpg
Click to expand...

Looks like someone forgot to link, I hope you're punishing yourself with as much vigour as you reprimand others. :D
 
GlennW said:
Looks like someone forgot to link, I hope you're punishing yourself with as much vigour as you reprimand others. :D
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure Stewart is big enough and ugly enough to respond, but for the record he has used a link ... if you had looked at the bb code editor you would have seen it. :)

Back on topic (gee that will be a first for TP ;)) I do browse through the in pics part from time to time, always something that is worth thinking about :) Agree with David, these are a bit weird but don't find it surreal as such.
 
Last edited:
But anyway, about the photos....

Personally I am completely underwhelmed. Most of them are just poorly composed snaps.
 
PaulButler said:
I'm quite sure Stewart is big enough and ugly enough to respond, but for the record he has used a link ... if you had looked at the bb code editor you would have seen it. :)

Back on topic (gee that will be a first for TP ;)) I do browse through the in pics part from time to time, always something that is worth thinking about :) Agree with David, these are a bit weird but don't find it surreal as such.
Click to expand...

There's no actual link to the image in his post, you can't click on anything to take you there.
 
GlennW said:
There's no actual link to the image in his post, you can't click on anything to take you there.
Click to expand...
Stewart's image, although it appears inline on this page thanks to the magic of your web browser and talkphotography's proxy (right-click to see the details), is still hosted on the Guardian site, so if they replaced it with a photo of Donald Trump, that's what you'd see here. Yours is a local copy stored on the talkphotography server. The Guardian could probably take copyright action against you but not Stewart, even though it's actually much easier for a reader to find the human-readable source and context of the photo from your explicit link to the original story.
 
GlennW said:
There's no actual link to the image in his post, you can't click on anything to take you there.
Click to expand...
The image is linked to this site and posted in line ... the full path to the image is https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/54b2...12&fit=max&s=724637364b65203a2e2854083fc24a2a which is the gruniads website. So there is an "actual" link, you just cannot click it as such.

The difference here is that Stewart has not copied the image, whereas the OP has and has uploaded the copied image to TP ... one is a perfectly acceptable practice and one isn't.
 
petersmart said:
I doubt if may people would claim I breached copyright since I also linked to the article which contained the photo.

And I did it that way so that people could also read the complete article.
Click to expand...


The wonderful thing about copyright infringement is that your opinion doesn't matter two jots.

You did it and as such have also made slack media (the publishers) liable.

Well done!
 
StewartR said:
So it seems you're admitting that what you did was wrong, and rather than fix it you're claiming it's OK because most people wouldn't complain. I really don't understand. Do you prefer being argumentative to doing the right thing? In the time it took you to be argumentative, you could easily have changed your post to contain a link to the image. Like this.

4500.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah Whatever:dummy:
 
A warning has been given for this post
DemiLion said:
The wonderful thing about copyright infringement is that your opinion doesn't matter two jots.

You did it and as such have also made slack media (the publishers) liable.

Well done!
Click to expand...

Yeah Whatever:dummy:

So I guess I can expect the old Bill to rush in and arrest me for the heinous offence of what? Posting a picture with a link to it?

Get a life people!
 
petersmart said:
Get a life people!
Click to expand...

If photographers don't take copyright seriously, then who else will and how could you expect them too?

Get a life?

Try not being an utter MOD EDIT - REDACTED.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
petersmart said:
So I guess I can expect the old Bill to rush in and arrest me for the heinous offence of what? Posting a picture with a link to it?

Get a life people!
Click to expand...

no, but you can expect the staff that you've inconvenienced to be upset, and take action... have a day off to read up on copyright.
 
TheBigYin said:
no, but you can expect the staff that you've inconvenienced to be upset, and take action... have a day off to read up on copyright.
Click to expand...


Apologies for the sweary bit. Any chance you could edit his original post to remove the image? :)

Ta
 
A warning has been given for this post
GET A f*****g LIFE SNOWFLAKES!!!!

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SITE ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY NOT A BUNCH OF PUSSY WITTED f***UPS WHO LOVE HAVING A f*****g MOAN - YOU WANT TO BE THAT THEN GET A f*****g LIFE!!
 
I was about to refer the non-honourable member to the terms and conditions...:dummy:
  • Respect - Always act respectfully and polite towards everyone else. Always. Speak to them as you would speak to your own grandmother.
  • Common sense - Apply it, use it, and be guided by it.
but I see prompt action was taken. :police:
 
Back on topic, I think the photos are great as a set as they give me a social commentary on the town and (some of) its inhabitants and I also understand some of the political views of the photographer. I get a real sense of the place.

Photography isn’t just about aesthetics, images don’t need to be pretty to be good and providing social commentary is a very tricky art form which is rarely looks good, I think a lot of people forget that.
 
Nawty said:
Back on topic, I think the photos are great as a set as they give me a social commentary on the town and (some of) its inhabitants and I also understand some of the political views of the photographer. I get a real sense of the place.

Photography isn’t just about aesthetics, images don’t need to be pretty to be good and providing social commentary is a very tricky art form which is rarely looks good, I think a lot of people forget that.
Click to expand...

This is always the bit that comes up whenever we have an art discussion, that for many it's about producing 'pretty' pictures, reproducing images shown in magazines. One of the best bits about doing my degree course was opening my eyes to these different ways of using art/imagery. On first glance the typical response is 'thats crap' but it misses that it's so much more than just an image.
Thats not to say there isn't a place for pretty images, just that contempory art etc is a different genre and has it's place. It often makes you think
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top