Stealing IS a crime, right?

Yeah i read that Joe but the images where still for sale on the website yesterday as i understand it. They also couldn't have checked the image copyright etc to thoroughly imo.
 
Joe T said:
Read the article posted by MK. It's not necessarily as clear as all that. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah but who's word do you accept? Quite simply they made a profit from her work, they're at fault. As is the mysterious person who supposedly conned them.
 
petemc said:
Yeah but who's word do you accept? Quite simply they made a profit from her work, they're at fault. As is the mysterious person who supposedly conned them.
Click to expand...

Exactly why my words were "its not clear". Without more info we cannot point any fingers at this time.

If you were sold some images, how would you know for sure that the seller had the copyright? Its not very easy, unfortunately.

Whether they were duped or not we cannot say.
 
its nice to see that OnlyDreemin.com have at least had a chance to tell their side of the story. Unfortunately copyright law is quite clear in this regard, if you sell someone elses work without their permission you are liable for damages. It is then up to the defendant to make claims against whoever duped them. So whether or not they have done the ethically right/wrong thing, there are still legal ramifications.

I do however think the lawyers for OnlyDreemin.com have given them poor advice. Surely, it would have been more appropriate to ensure rebekka's lawyer had the details of their own lawyers and make some effort to promote communication (exactly the opposite to what OnlyDreemin.com was advised). As it is, it sounds like OnlyDreemin.com's lawyers are just hoping the matter will go away.

Also as a last note: this quote from the rustylime link has an interesting point. What background checks did OnlyDreemin.com actually do?

One problem with that research; it takes 2 seconds to check and find out on Companies House (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk) that no such company exists. Ignorance is NOT an excuse and NOT a valid form of defense.
Click to expand...
 
CT said:
I doubt very much if this constitutes property within the meaning of the Theft Act. It isn't as if they've physically nicked a hard copy print (which would constitute 'property' ) they've made unauthorised use (she claims) of a pile of pixels or a data file.. however you look at it.

If it isn't property then there can be no offence of Receiving Stolen Property, and that's a non starter anyway.

It's clearly about copyright.
Click to expand...

I expect you are entirely right CT and the matter would be best resolved with copyright law, of which I know nothing. However under the 1968 Theft act, property includes "things in action", examples of which include patents, trademarks, and other things which can only be enforced by legal action as opposed to physical possession. This would include intangible things such as software programs. It's like a fraudulent money transfer, the cash isn't physically in anyone's possession, but it's stolen just the same. It is possible to steal the empty space in a skip, for instance.
Therefore I would think the question would be does she own the images or the copyright to them? I would think she owns the images as property "belongs" to someone having possession,control or a propriertary interest in it. That's only one part of the theft act, dishonesty, appropriation and the intention to permanantly deprive would all need to be proved.
As said above, I don't know copyright law, but expect that woudl be the best way to proceed, and not criminal law, but it would appear possible in the circumstances.
 
If this company :thumbsdown: was legit, now that they have discovered 'their error', they should be willing to settle with the copyright owner, in good faith, but I'm afraid they will not do this 1. As it admits responsibility and 2. they already know that this young lady cannot afford to Sue them. Come on lets see them take some positive action.

As for flickr, well need I say anymore...:annoyed: :thumbsdown: :bang:
 
petemc said:
Agreed. Its all gone a bit Daily Mail. "Ban this filth!!!!" Its all video games fault I'm sure ;)
Click to expand...

Don't be soft Pete. It's all Marilyn Manson's fault.
 
i blame south park.

On the subject of copyright theft, my company manufactures a lot of products that are protected by trademarks, but it doesnt stop people ripping them off, the slightest change to the design can be enough to negate the copyright, and its very expensive to chase it down. The only thing about the OP is that the argument for small pictures on the net is a good one.
 
I would agree about the theft issue, I'm not familiar with UK criminal law but I am extremely familiar with military law and one of the things you must prove is intent. If I bought a stolen good off of someone on Ebay as long as I did not know or should not have reasonably known then intent is not there even if infact I have stolen property in my possession. Intent is not an easy thing to prove. So I'm with everyone else thinking this should be handled under copyright.

On the other hand as stated with companies house it is unbelievable easy to get information on any company and a business who does not do so with the companies it does business with is leaving itself very open to litigation.
 
matty said:
i blame south park.

On the subject of copyright theft, my company manufactures a lot of products that are protected by trademarks, but it doesnt stop people ripping them off, the slightest change to the design can be enough to negate the copyright, and its very expensive to chase it down. The only thing about the OP is that the argument for small pictures on the net is a good one.
Click to expand...

Trademarks are quite different to copyright. A trademark only prevents the use of that term/symbol/phrase/image in trade (of goods and services). Copyright is used to exclusively protect "original works of authorship" (quoted from lawmart, US I know, but its a common concept across UK, US, Aus, Canadian law). Thus trademark law does not prevent someone else from producing a likeness of the trademark as long as it is not being used in the trading of goods and services. So anyones trademark is fair game for people to rip off and make copies of it, as long as they don't trade under the trademark.

Copyright is aimed more at artistic works and offers more protection than trademarks.
 
I thought companies house was only a listing of limited companies? surely they can still be a business, just not a limited one?
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
I thought companies house was only a listing of limited companies? surely they can still be a business, just not a limited one?
Click to expand...

They were "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD", so they were claiming to be a limited company anyway.
 
You're correct JL but as said above the company was claiming to be a LTD company when it was not (a crime in an of itself I believe). ON the plus side since they aren't a LTD company if you could prove anything in court you could take all their private property as they would be personally responsible.
 
we have trademarks on the names and copyrights on some of the designs..good ideas always get pinched...
 
It's made the Beeb now:

news.bbc.co.uk said:
Yahoo has been accused of censorship on its popular photo website Flickr, in a row that has highlighted the issue of copyright in the online age.
Earlier this month photographer Rebekka Gudleifsdóttir discovered that seven of her pictures were reportedly being sold by a UK-based online gallery.

She raised the issue on Flickr but a photo and comments were deleted.

Yahoo, which had no involvement in the row over the sale of the photos, has now apologised for its "mistake".

According to Ms Gudleifsdóttir, online gallery Only Dreemin sold 60 prints of seven of her photos, for more than £2,500, without her consent.

No-one from gallery Only Dreemin was available for comment.

Ms Gudleifsdóttir owns the copyright to all of her photos on Flickr and the website clearly states that people cannot use them without permission.

The gallery withdrew the photos for sale but refused to compensate her, she said.

Ms Gudleifsdóttir posted a new photograph on Flickr to highlight her problem with the gallery and received more than 450 comments of support from other users.

But that post was removed by Flickr staff on the grounds it could "harass, abuse, impersonate, or intimidate others".

Ms Guðleifsdóttir said Flickr had also threatened to terminate her account.

"Freedom of expression? Telling the truth? Not popular with Flickr administration, apparently," she wrote on her blog.

The co-founder of Flickr, Stewart Butterfield, has now apologised.

"We screwed up and for that I take full responsibility," he said.

He added: "It's important to be clear why the photo was deleted: it had nothing to do with a desire to silence Rebekka from calling attention to the outfit which had reportedly sold copies of her photos without knowledge or permission and without compensating her.

"This had nothing to do with fear of a lawsuit, but with deeply held beliefs about the kind of place we want Flickr to be. Unfortunately, those beliefs were misapplied in this case, but we still hold the general principle to be true."

He said Flickr had removed the comments because there was "personal information of the infringing company's owner and suggestions for how best to exact revenge".

Ms Gudleifsdóttir told BBC News that the gallery had told her they had bought the photos from a third party for £3,000 in good faith and had been shown "official looking documents".

"When my lawyer requested that they send a copy of these documents, to prove that this transaction had indeed taken place, we heard no more from them," she said.

"If I had decided to proceed further with this case, my next move would have been to hire a UK-based lawyer to take them to court. I however did not feel able to do this, as I simply don't have the money needed to pay for it."

She said she had been left feeling "extremely frustrated" by the gallery and had been "offended" by Flickr's initial reaction to her protest.

But she said she had now accepted Flickr's apology but would continue to campaign for compensation.

"The fact remains that they made a profit off my work when they had absolutely no right to," she said.
Click to expand...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6665723.stm
 
Excellent, lets hope it highlights the problem.
 
beat me to it - just been reading it in bbc news. well, I guess its getting the right amount of noise over it then
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top