People like this **** me off

Almost_Invisible said:
I wonder if your hosting provider will share your view.
http://www.pcsmarthosting.com/termsofservice.php states:

"Acceptable Use

You are not permitted to use your service, account or server provided by the supplier to:

- Store, distribute or link to material which you do not have authorization to do so. This includes but is not limited to Copyrighted Multimedia, Pirated or "Nulled" Software and Scripts."
Click to expand...
That's not our host ... but thanks for trying.
 
karmagarda said:
That's called Creative Commons that I spoke of before. And further to that point, I haven't seen one photo on your site where you've credited the original photographer.
Click to expand...

If you look, most of the images on the site are political party logo's! However I will chase up the author(s) of the photo's that are 'violating copyright' and ask them where they got it from, and find out the licence for use of it.
 
Fresh Politics said:
If you look, most of the images on the site are political party logo's! However I will chase up the author(s) of the photo's that are 'violating copyright' and ask them where they got it from, and find out the licence for use of it.
Click to expand...

Yes of course you will, I mean we wouldn't want to look hypocritical would we :nono:
 
This is getting silly. 'Fresh Politics' just sent me a message stating that I'm "pretty sad" for requesting somebody to remove an image I took from their website.

He's lucky that I didn't take him to small claims court.
 
Fresh Politics said:
If you're talking about the copywrong article, I didn't write it!!!!
Click to expand...

as just said a moment ago on your site...

One could argue that if you are responsible for the site you are therefore responsible for it's content. I mean even on a public forum that any idiot can post on it has administrators who decide if it's content is representable of the site. So the "I didn't write it mate" excuse is a little thin as you allow it to be representable of your sites views so therefore could be said to be responsible for answering it's criticism.
 
18-270 said:
as just said a moment ago on your site...

One could argue that if you are responsible for the site you are therefore responsible for it's content. I mean even on a public forum that any idiot can post on it has administrators who decide if it's content is representable of the site. So the "I didn't write it mate" excuse is a little thin as you allow it to be representable of your sites views so therefore could be said to be responsible for answering it's criticism.
Click to expand...

Also media law states that in certain circumstances the writer, editor, publisher and host are all responsible.
 
Fresh Politics said:
That's not our host ... but thanks for trying.
Click to expand...

Really?

~> host freshpolitics.co.uk
freshpolitics.co.uk has address 95.154.244.153
freshpolitics.co.uk mail is handled by 0 freshpolitics.co.uk.

~> whois 95.154.244.153
% This is the RIPE Database query service.
% The objects are in RPSL format.
%
% The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions.
% See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf

% Note: This output has been filtered.
% To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag.

% Information related to '95.154.244.0 - 95.154.244.255'

inetnum: 95.154.244.0 - 95.154.244.255
netname: PCS-Range-2
descr: PCS Network
country: GB
admin-c: JS815-RIPE
tech-c: JS815-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: RAPIDSWITCH-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

person: Jason Smith
address: PC Smart Hosting
address: 157 Rugeley Road
address: Burntwood
address: Staffordshire
address: WS7 9HA
address: United Kingdom
phone: +4407886076832
abuse-mailbox: abuse@pcsmarthosting.com
nic-hdl: JS815-RIPE
mnt-by: RAPIDSWITCH-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

Seems to say it is PC Smart Hosting / Rapidswitch :razz:
Guess what, Rapidswitch also don't permit the hosting of copyrighted material.
 
scottcampbell said:
This is getting silly. 'Fresh Politics' just sent me a message stating that I'm "pretty sad" for requesting somebody to remove an image I took from their website.

He's lucky that I didn't take him to small claims court.
Click to expand...

To clarify, Scotty here asked someone to remove an image of thereself because he took the photo. I mean come on, someone takes a photo off me then I put it on my facebook, and we're still friends.
 
Fresh Politics said:
To clarify, Scotty here asked someone to remove an image of thereself because he took the photo. I mean come on, someone takes a photo off me then I put it on my facebook, and we're still friends.
Click to expand...

Not if that person taking the photo "off" you was being paid to do so :nono:

Or is that a professional thief?
 
But it is quite entertaining. There's naff all on the telly tonight....

The comment section of the offending article on his site is getting busier now as well - Must be tricky trying to respond here and there at the same time.
 
Just want to add that he said of Talk Photography members: "Photography is such a hard job. I don't care about some photographers on their high horse."
 
yoby said:
But it is quite entertaining. There's naff all on the telly tonight....

The comment section of the offending article on his site is getting busier now as well - Must be tricky trying to respond here and there at the same time.
Click to expand...

This is why I love this forum. Some threads get so amusing and yes, it's way better than the TV - especially that debate nonsense earlier.

Some much needed traffic for Fresh Politics ;).
 
18-270 said:
Not if that person taking the photo "off" you was being paid to do so :nono:

Or is that a professional thief?
Click to expand...

I don't believe it was, but I draw the law at sypathezing with guys here. Someone takes a photo of me, and me only, then it's mine. I'm in the photo, so that's me you're making money off. Sound fair?
 
Too much by the look of it - It's just gone down. Either that or he's busy removing all the unauthorised pics.

Or maybe he's harvesting all of ours as we speak so he can re-brand it as a supergallery...
 
If someone is stealing photos its there own fault if it gets taken further.
 
scottcampbell said:
TP has overthrown FreshPolitics....

For now.
Click to expand...

I've been meaning to sort out the sites theme, and am doing it now. I'll also be looking at the whole photo issue, however I'm only getting arrogant advice on here so I'll do my own research.

As for our visitors, we're doing quite well for a newly launched website from my experience.
 
yoby said:
Too much by the look of it - It's just gone down. Either that or he's busy removing all the unauthorised pics.

Or maybe he's harvesting all of ours as we speak so he can re-brand it as a supergallery...
Click to expand...

Hahahaha. Traffic overload?
 
Fresh Politics said:
I don't believe it was, but I draw the law at sypathezing with guys here. Someone takes a photo of me, and me only, then it's mine. I'm in the photo, so that's me you're making money off. Sound fair?
Click to expand...

Nope not fair (and not legal) it's the photographers. In the absence of any contract between you and him then it's his. Simple as that. If you wish to negotiate a fair price to purchase the copyright that's between you and the tog.

And to having caught up - It's not arrogant advice, it's advice. your attitude hasn't helped with the tone of the advice, but so far it's all been good.
 
yoby said:
Too much by the look of it - It's just gone down. Either that or he's busy removing all the unauthorised pics.

Or maybe he's harvesting all of ours as we speak so he can re-brand it as a supergallery...
Click to expand...

That would be amusing, from my prospective and people who share it, but I'm not. See above...
 
yoby said:
Nope not fair (and not legal) it's the photographers. In the absence of any contract between you and him then it's his. Simple as that. If you wish to negotiate a fair price to purchase the copyright that's between you and the tog.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but if I'm pictured next to say, David Tennant, then I'm putting that photo on my facebook. Simple as. I'm not going to pay some weirdo that's taken the photo of me and my favourite Doctor.
 
Fresh Politics said:
That would be amusing, from my prospective and people who share it, but I'm not. See above...
Click to expand...

Perspective.

And I'm not sure if you're being deliberately dense here. Go do your research on Image copyright, then come back and let us know what you think. You might not like the fact that just because you're in a photo, you don't own it and you can't use it without permission. but that my friend is the way it is.
 
Fresh Politics said:
Sorry, but if I'm pictured next to say, David Tennant, then I'm putting that photo on my facebook. Simple as. I'm not going to pay some weirdo that's taken the photo of me and my favourite Doctor.
Click to expand...

You probably wouldn't be able to obtain the photograph without paying said 'weirdo'.
 
Someone needs a slap of reality. It seems he is the type who will only learn the hard way.
 
Fresh Politics said:
Sorry, but if I'm pictured next to say, David Tennant, then I'm putting that photo on my facebook. Simple as. I'm not going to pay some weirdo that's taken the photo of me and my favourite Doctor.
Click to expand...


You're just not grasping the concept of copyright, are you? :lol:
 
scottcampbell said:
You probably wouldn't be able to obtain the photograph without paying said 'weirdo'.
Click to expand...

Or copying it from somewhere else and using it without permission in breach of copyright and potentially liable for forking out a couple of hundred quid for the pleasure.

Trying to think of another way of getting this across without resorting to pictures.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You're just not grasping the concept of copyright, are you? :lol:
Click to expand...

Hey, I make exceptions if I'm pictured next to someone as cool as Tennant. Plus I imagine the photographer will probably be cool if I catch him taking the photo, and asking if he could send me it.
 
Fresh Politics said:
Hey, I make exceptions if I'm pictured next to someone as cool as Tennant. Plus I imagine the photographer will probably be cool if I catch him taking the photo, and asking if he could send me it.
Click to expand...


Ah, so if you're in the pic you can nick it? :thinking:







:nono:
 
Fresh Politics said:
Sorry, but if I'm pictured next to say, David Tennant, then I'm putting that photo on my facebook. Simple as. I'm not going to pay some weirdo that's taken the photo of me and my favourite Doctor.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were you as that "weirdo" may just be the one that takes you/your parents to court for unauthorized use of there image, and trust me when it gets to court stage it will cost you/your parents loads
 
Fresh Politics said:
I don't believe it was, but I draw the law at sypathezing with guys here. Someone takes a photo of me, and me only, then it's mine. I'm in the photo, so that's me you're making money off. Sound fair?
Click to expand...

I had to pay the photographer that took photos of me for the soul copyright because I wanted to reproduce them on both facebook and via printable media. You'll forgive me but you come across as quite young and dare I say arrogant in the views of having professional images taken. If in your own mind you are including a quick snap taken on a £99 fuji camera in your argument then it is flawed because that is not taken by a professional photographer. It is just simply a "snap shot".

We are arguing the case for those that work hard to get in to the situations to take the photos of politicians or any other event or person for the purpose of gain. If the mate who took your snap of you for facebook can get in to the press pack for No 10 then use them! On your site facebook or wherever you please!
 
Fresh Politics said:
Hey, I make exceptions if I'm pictured next to someone as cool as Tennant. Plus I imagine the photographer will probably be cool if I catch him taking the photo, and asking if he could send me it.
Click to expand...

We have had threads on here before asking how much to charge for them type of shots and even sent copyright details in a text document.
 
18-270 said:
We are arguing the case for those that work hard to get in to the situations to take the photos of politicians or any other event or person for the purpose of gain. If the mate who took your snap of you for facebook can get in to the press pack for No 10 then use them! On your site facebook or wherever you please!
Click to expand...

So you're saying if a 'pro-looking-shot' taken on a £99 Fuji camera takes a photo of me and someone I admire, then I have more of a right to use that than if it's taken on a professional camera? :thinking:
 
The arrogance of the young is nothing new. Hopefully he will get some kick in the ass along the way and will grow up eventually. When I was young I was a punk rocker for a while, boy was I an arroagant ba$tard...........don't regret it though, and have grown-up....eventually. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top