Reply With Quote
I make no qualms about the fact that I'll take the piss out of you.
But surely it's gotten to the extreme now, that to take "me" seriously, says plenty about you.
Here’s an example: Copyright of the Weegie photograph you altered a few posts back remains with Weegie (or his agency, since he’s dead. I forget which agency hold his shots now.) You do not have the right to republish it. You’re in the wrong for republishing it here on AltNation, altered or not, but because it’s fairly innocuous and this site’s fairly obscure you are unlikely to get into trouble over it. If you did get pulled up, it would likely be Forbes who received notice and he’d just quietly remove it. End of.
The interval between birth and death is fractal. Any given moment is infinitely deep and rich, and therefore one lifetime is quite enough for me.
I make no qualms about the fact that I'll take the piss out of you.
But surely it's gotten to the extreme now, that to take "me" seriously, says plenty about you.
Do it or don't. I've got places to be.
As far as I'm aware you can only get in trouble if you're claiming the images are your own or if you're trying to make money from them.
Any image (or comment) posted on an open forum is done so with the understanding that it is open for 'commentary' which could include manipulating and reposting the image. Site guidelines don't even really come into it, if it's clearly understood to be an open discussion forum.
No-one is going to give a shit about this at all.
It might be on legally shaky ground if you'd went to someone's personal website, taken an image, doctored it and posted it on a public forum without consent.
Willies.
Fucking hell, Les, is spot on.
Well there you go.Originally Posted by poprock
OH NO NO NO!
Just been reading:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988...-ch2-pb1-l1g21
21 Infringement by making adaptation or act done in relation to adaptation
(1) The making of an adaptation of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work.
What I made was an adaptation. An adaptation of a photograph is not considered to be an infringement of copyright law: Also, as he uploaded the image, he copied the photograph to the server, and the server then copied the photograph to my PC.
Also, I'd like to argue that his work was not copyright as http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/co..._copyright_law states(and I know it's not the official act, but hey ho):
"Copyright is an automatic right and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work. To qualify, a work should be regarded as original, and exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement"
His photograph was original, but I'd argue that it exhibits no degree of labour, skill or judgement. He simply photographed himself.
I didn't infringe his copyright, I simply adapted his work, then displayed it:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988...-ch2-pb1-l1g19
19 Infringement by performance, showing or playing of work in public
(1) The performance of the work in public is an act restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work.
Again, I displayed his altered photograph, something which I am not forbidden from doing as far as I can tell.
Hey, if I'm wrong, someone point me to a part in http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988...80048_en_1.htm
Some times you really do speak rubbish.
Sorry your not alternative nation just by being a user. That's like saying your an owner of Macdonalds because you've bought a burger.
As I said your wrong, Alternative Nation is basically the corporate entity. It's not those that use the site who are granted permission to use the text and images of this site in any way they like.
There are some fair use rules around copyright but at no point do we state that submitting the image to this site allows anyone who finds the image on our site to alter it.
Certainly I haven't even considered banning Thecastrator for the altering and posting the images. He did it in good faith and the way the photo was taken by the original poster wasn't how it was intended but as we were request to remove the image by the apparent copyright holder and we felt it was in the best interest of all parties to do so. It's always nice to help someone.
Bare in mind we have to abide by US copyright rules as well.
Last edited by Ghostsuit; 21st August 2008 at 4:28pm.
"Alternative Nation is basically the corporate entity not those that use the site who are granted permission to use the text and images of this site in any way they like."
Knew I'd get a rise out of you
Yup but as users of AN you have to abide by those rules to, it's unfortunately not a two way street. You have to follow the rules of both the UK and US law but anything posted doesn't belong to the users it belongs to Altnation.
Like most legal documents it's all a bit blurry because we don't accept it's our either in parts of it as it's a users posts, however if our attention is drawn to something then we have to decided wither to remove the thing or not, else we can be held responsible to a degree for the users actions.
It's about as clear as mud at times.
I was abiding by the UK laws. If your server is in the US, then that's not really my problem. It'd be unfair to say that I should know the ins and outs of a foreign law system, so I stick to what I know. If someone's offended by a headswap, then, really, they ought to get out more.
But yes, a lot of problems are neatly solved by just removing the offending item. And not going to your ISP about it.
Oh, and unless the UK is part of a copyright Treaty Party with the United States, this chap's work is not copyright until thirty days after it has been published, as per http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#104
But also, http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 :
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right —
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right.
I would say that adding Paul Gadd's head on top of his is not prejudicial to his honour or reputation, primarily as, if the image was reproduced, he would not be identified.
I'd also have a good defense with http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 on fair use:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Made for nonprofit humour purposes.
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
Simple picture not selling or displaying anything other than the author's image.
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
Nothing identifiable was left, approximately 66% of the original present.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Would not affect the market; the work holds no/little commercial value.
I like reading about this sort of stuff.
Last edited by TheCastrator; 21st August 2008 at 5:28pm.
This is why i can't be fucked with this shit......its obvious people have nothing better to do than have a go at people for the stupidest things or more serious things!! Everyone has a opinion (which their entitled too) but when your making someone feel like shit its only right that someone should step in an deal with the 'drama' its causing!!!
Why can't people on this forum just let things go...if a decision is made..its made for a reason!!!
I would've though it's good etiquette to let someone get settled before you start/continue to piss them off (if you have to at all). I mean, some of us are thick skinned but also most of us know who half the people who are mocking us are and that mitigates things a bit; when you know no-one here (and aren't even Glaswegian) then having a bunch of strangers seemingly attack you may not look as harmless as it's intended. I say give people a week or two to get to know what everyone's like to each other before aiming any banterfire at them, especially if it's clear that they aren't seeing things your way at the start. AT LEAST USE GRATUITOUS SMILIES.
Sorry, but this only an issue because of one overly sensitive user. None of the "abuse" given was particularly bad and he seems to have taken one particular joke completely out of context and overreacted pretty badly to it.
I won't disagree that some of the initial posts made weren't particularly welcoming but let's be honest - if you can't take a few digs the internet's not going to be a comfortable place for you. As I said earlier, there were also more than a few people who were friendly and went out of there way to try and persuade him not to base his opinion of the place on a couple of silly comments.
If Forbes has noticed a trend developing in the way new users are treated then fair enough, he's perfectly entitled to speak out and act about it but this particular case is a one off in my opinion. I very much doubt that the vast majority of new users would react so quickly to something so relatively inoffensive.
PETRO VOODOO
By your judgement.
Why is your judgement about what's acceptable more valid than his?
It's not but unless I'm mistaken the vast majority of people would agree that it's more than a bit of an overreaction. As Forbes said earlier 99.9% of people wouldn't have a problem with it - I wouldn't want to be the person who has to write the rulebook that caters for every 0.1% of people who might happen to get offended by something.
PETRO VOODOO
Posting Permissions 
Bookmarks