Bonjour mes amis

[acherontia]

Or should I say - How'r't fettlin'? Only pulling your leg there - I tend to do that.

I stumbled across this forum when I put in a search for 'buckthorn Lancashire' as I need to find some for caterpillars.Looks like a friendly place!

Almost all of my spare time is devoted to wildlife photography - OH is the lucky one who's studying the degree in it but as his 'assistant' I get to enjoy it as well.
Here's a couple of my images -

Oops - there doesn't seem to be a link to do that?

Can anyone explain? I've lots of stuff here!

Acherontia

[Lancashire Lad]

Ey up, another Lancashire bod to the fore.

Welcome to WAB acherontia.

Have a good read at this thread for details of how to upload photos. It's not as bad as you might first think - but just follow the instructions carefully. Photo uploading seems to be the one thing that catches a few people out.

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...otos-info.html

Look forward to seeing your pics. & posts around the forums.

Regards
Mike.

[Tursiops2]

Hi Acherontia, welcome to the forum

Uploading photos here is a bit more complex than on most forums. Click on "Gallery" in the bar at the top of the page, then click on "upload photos" (top right) and you'll find the instructions.

HTH
T2

[acherontia]

Cheers m'dears!

This is bad news though -

You agree to grant us a worldwide, royalty free, irrevocable, non-exclusive license (including the right to sub-license) to use, publish, distribute, perform, display, reproduce, translate, modify, adapt, create derivative works from any content (in whole or in part) you upload, post or email and/or to incorporate such content in other works in any form, media or technology now known or developed in the future. In certain circumstance we may also share your contribution with trusted third parties*. Copyright in your contribution will remain with you and this permission is not exclusive, so you can continue to use the material in any way including allowing others to use it.

and worse still - I'm pretty sure it wouldn't hold up in a court of law unless a document had been drawn up and signed in person with witnesses. Therefore - you're putting yourselves in a vulnerable position.

There are very stringent laws about using or trying to take over other people's images.

I don't mind putting my images anywhere at all from an external source with no such 'contract' (!) like this as they would be protected but I really don't like the idea of this statement and the fact that I would have to hand them over to your Gallery first!
We both sell and know quite a lot about these things.

I'm not sure if you're doing yourself any favours here as you may be lowering the standards of your photographic contributors - and I don't mean to offend by this.


Eh bien - it started well - perhaps I can enjoy just having a chat instead?
I hope you don't mind me raising these issues? I was quite shocked when I read that 'agreement'!

Acherontia

[treecreeper]

Welcome to WAB, Acherontia

Sorry you're upset by the site rules. Have a plate of black pudding and tripe to calm yourself down. If that doesn't work put a ferret down your trousers

[Lancashire Lad]

Hi acherontia,

I acknowledge your concerns, but from my personal point of view the relevant section of the clause is: -

"Copyright in your contribution will remain with you and this permission is not exclusive, so you can continue to use the material in any way including allowing others to use it".

I don't particularly take photo's for gain, so the way I look at it, means that I only upload those photo's which I would be willing to let WAB have use of if they so wished. I still have copyright, and I can still use the pics or sell the pics elsewhere if the opportunity arises. (I've actually had a couple of enquiries brought about by people seeing my pics. on WAB).

Obviously, everyone is entitled to their own thoughts on the matter, and no-one will think any the worse if you choose never to upload a pic.

Regards
Mike.

[acherontia]

Ey up - that black puddin' were reet good. Nor sure about t'tripe though - even though my Great Granfather supplied all't Coops round here wi' it! Used to boil it up scrape it off in Bamber's yard behind't tripe n onion parlour in Preston... - it's true!!

The 'copyright whizz' (part of his course) is home and says that to give images away for free is betraying all those professional 'Wildies' that are struggling to make a living. A bit blackleggish so my electricians ex shop steward father would't approve either!! 'ecky thump/flippin 'erry what to do eh? I'm fair kerfuffled. And this dialect is wearing me out......

Acherontia

[Lancashire Lad]

Ah well - each to his/her own.

In truth though, as soon as you upload an image to the net it is liable to be ripped off - even if you have copyright or watermarks etc. all over it.

The chances of you finding out that your image had been stolen would be astronomically small so it's not something I lose any sleep about.

As for giving the images away free, well WAB is a registered charity, a non-profit organisation, so if they can make a few bob from any of my images to help with the site's running costs, they're welcome to it.

Best regards
Mike.

[mickmassie]

Is it possible to delete images ? If so, how ?

[acherontia]

As for giving the images away free, well WAB is a registered charity, a non-profit organisation, so if they can make a few bob from any of my images to help with the site's running costs, they're welcome to it.

This is even more worrying - nowhere on that 'agreement' does it say that WAB will use images for profit yet obviously they do!

As a point of law - if anyone found out that WAB was touting their image for profit WAB could be sued. It's not good enough that someone ticks a box to agree to the terms of the site. It has been proven in a court of law that this does not fulfil all that is required as far as use of another persons images is concerned.
I'm not telling you this to be awkward or contentious - I'm pointing out that there is a serious flaw in what WAB is trying to do here. Perhaps the organisers should examine the system in place?

Acherontia

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by acherontia

...nowhere on that 'agreement' does it say that WAB will use images for profit yet obviously they do!...

For clarity, your words not mine. - I said "if they can make a few bob to help with the site's running costs" - I didn't say they could make a profit.

Why is there a serious flaw in what WAB is trying to do? - As I see it the WAB statement is clear and forthright enough. If people don't accept it, they don't upload photo's - simple as that.

If they do accept it, then I would consider it somewhat scurrilous to attempt to sue WAB, should they later find that WAB had used one of their images.

I take a pragmatic approach to such things. I don't consider that all my images are so fantastic that they are immediately going to be sold on for vast fortunes the moment I upload them to WAB.

The choice lies with the individual. The terms & conditions are there to be seen, and no-one is forced to upload anything against their will.

Anyway, regardless of whether you finally decide to upload pics. or not, (go on - you know that you want to, surely a couple won't hurt ), you've found the best set of British wildlife forums on the web. So stick around and enjoy what WAB has to offer.

Regards
Mike.

[Hedge Witch]

Hi acherontia, sorry but I seem to have stumbled in on a heated debate, and I only wanted to wish you a warm welcome to WAB

Perhaps it is best if you don't upload images, at least until you have cleared the legal aspects with an Administrator? That would be the safest bet, and certainly what I would do. A "Hello" thread might not be read by anyone "in authority", so you might need to rethink your interrogation procedure. Vous comprenez?

All the best

Hedge Witch

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Hedge Witch

....sorry but I seem to have stumbled in on a heated debate...

Not a heated debate at all HW, just a bit of healthy banter between two down to earth Lancastrian's. Generally known to speak as they find, and not too concerned about putting their feet in their mouths. (At least I hope that acherontia sees it that way).

Best regards to all, and may everyone's lives be forever filled with milk and honey
Mike.

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Not a heated debate at all HW, just a bit of healthy banter between two down to earth Lancastrian's. Generally known to speak as they find, and not too concerned about putting their feet in their mouths. (At least I hope that acherontia sees it that way).
mike.

I'm not hot under the collar either Mike!! owt I've said is hypothetical and not at all personal. I may put stuff on regardless and not all my images are worthy of sale - good heavens I wish they were!! LOL

Say, for example, someone put on what they may consider one of their better shots and some months/years down the line they have some commercial success and discover that WAB has jumped on the bandwagon and is making money out of some of their images (it has actually happened in a similar situation) they may be likely to ask for some pennies back via the courts.Which I'm sure would impact on everyone here. If I put anything on it will be in the knowledge of my rights - whereas someone else might just tick a box without reading orunderstanding the implications.
There's a software programme that can scour the web for someone else using your images too! Pros use it a lot.
It may not happen but sites like this should be a little more careful about being 'controlling' about the images. Most sites allow you to upload from your computer (ie Birdforum) or upload from your own image host.
It is not good policy to demand that the individual hand over to a Gallery controlled by the forum and also ask them to hand over rights for use!
Has anyone answered the other chap - is it possible to withdraw images after putting them on the Gallery?

and Hi Hedge Witch!! Hope you don't live in hawthorn - it's very prickly! A nice laurel hedge may be pleasant though We have privet that is ram jam full of allsorts at the moment! We even have blackbirds nests in the cotoneaster and ivy too!

Right - off to the cinema to watch Star Trek!

See yous all later la's (oh dear must be the scouse influence...)

Acherontia

[Tursiops2]

Originally Posted by acherontia

This is even more worrying - nowhere on that 'agreement' does it say that WAB will use images for profit yet obviously they do!

As a point of law - if anyone found out that WAB was touting their image for profit WAB could be sued. It's not good enough that someone ticks a box to agree to the terms of the site. It has been proven in a court of law that this does not fulfil all that is required as far as use of another persons images is concerned.
I'm not telling you this to be awkward or contentious - I'm pointing out that there is a serious flaw in what WAB is trying to do here. Perhaps the organisers should examine the system in place?

Acherontia

This issue comes up from time to time. I think it arises because WAB is more than just a forum. As I understand it, the aim of WAB is to be a non-commercial, online resource for anybody interested in British wildlife. In this, it is very different to other web forums (all the ones I visit, at least), but this distinction may not be immediately apparent if you've just stumbled on WAB by chance, hence the occasional misapprehension.

WAB is a Registered Charity and, as such, a non-profitmaking organisation; thus the question of "touting for profit" doesn't (or shouldn't) arise. By posting to WAB, whether text or photo, you are effectively donating both to a charity, and to a community resource. What you choose to contribute is entirely up to you; I'm sure nobody would expect a professional photographer to donate their livelihood.

T2

[mickmassie]

If I can't delete or at least re-label my photos, I am going to very careful about uploading anything in future. M.

[Hedge Witch]

Re-labelling images in the Image library is not a problem:
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...-edit-pic.html

Deleting images is not something that you can do yourself. More information here:
Deleting images

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by acherontia

This is even more worrying - nowhere on that 'agreement' does it say that WAB will use images for profit yet obviously they do!

As a point of law - if anyone found out that WAB was touting their image for profit WAB could be sued. It's not good enough that someone ticks a box to agree to the terms of the site. It has been proven in a court of law that this does not fulfil all that is required as far as use of another persons images is concerned.
I'm not telling you this to be awkward or contentious - I'm pointing out that there is a serious flaw in what WAB is trying to do here. Perhaps the organisers should examine the system in place?

Acherontia

Just to clear up another one. WAB doesn't sell anyone's images.

99% of our income now comes from google adverts on the site. For several years before that, I funded virtually everything by either paying for it or lending (interest free) for the cost of the web hosting (over $700 a month), software etc.

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by acherontia

Cheers m'dears!

This is bad news though -


and worse still - I'm pretty sure it wouldn't hold up in a court of law unless a document had been drawn up and signed in person with witnesses. Therefore - you're putting yourselves in a vulnerable position.

There are very stringent laws about using or trying to take over other people's images.

I don't mind putting my images anywhere at all from an external source with no such 'contract' (!) like this as they would be protected but I really don't like the idea of this statement and the fact that I would have to hand them over to your Gallery first!
We both sell and know quite a lot about these things.

I'm not sure if you're doing yourself any favours here as you may be lowering the standards of your photographic contributors - and I don't mean to offend by this.


Eh bien - it started well - perhaps I can enjoy just having a chat instead?
I hope you don't mind me raising these issues? I was quite shocked when I read that 'agreement'!

Acherontia

Hi Acherontia,

Welcome to WAB. If you take a look through many websites you'll usually find a similar clause, we just tend to make it more obvious than most. Here's the one on the Law Society's website...see section 27

Terms and conditions | The Law Society International Division

It'll be pretty embarassing if their T&Cs don't hold up in court

Obviously, the Internet doesn't work via signed documents in the traditional manner, but agreements are binding by digital signatures

We realise it's not for everyone, but the alternatives are that people post their images, use the site to promote their photography, go semi-pro and then want hundreds of photos deleted which breaks hundreds/thousands of links on the site

As always, please don't post any photos if you're not happy with the T&Cs

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

Hi Acherontia,

Welcome to WAB. If you take a look through many websites you'll usually find a similar clause, we just tend to make it more obvious than most. Here's the one on the Law Society's website...see section 27

Terms and conditions | The Law Society International Division

It'll be pretty embarassing if their T&Cs don't hold up in court

Obviously, the Internet doesn't work via signed documents in the traditional manner, but agreements are binding by digital signatures

We realise it's not for everyone, but the alternatives are that people post their images, use the site to promote their photography, go semi-pro and then want hundreds of photos deleted which breaks hundreds/thousands of links on the site

As always, please don't post any photos if you're not happy with the T&Cs

The reference to the law society is not relevant to the laws protecting images.

My point is that many people (an example on this thread) do not read the small print.

My concerns have not been for myself ( I know what's what) - but for the possibly vulnerable position your Charity is putting itself in.
From the first time images were business (and before - Fox Talbot as a prime example) the law has been mostly tied up on the side of the photographer.

Besides that - I don't think it is fair that the maker of an image cannot delete his/her images.

I know that as time goes by I find that, as far as my images are concerned, what I once thought was good is now seen as average or worse. I wouldn't like to think that these first images could not be retrieved in order to better represent my present standards. Just one example of the lack of control this system appears to to impose.

But - as has been said previously - if I don't like it I can leave

Many thanks all for the welcome - and my apologies if my pointing out the legal loopholes of a system like this (and the possible ramefications on WAB) have upset anyone!

Acherontia

[Kayleigh]

Hi and welcome to WAB...

Its good you point this out it just goes to show to read the and understand the small print..
I don't think you have offended anyone.
But I am glad of somewhere to show off my images I don't intend selling any they are not good enough for that, but if I did maybe I would just upload them to my own website like lots do on here..
Nobody is bending your arms people don't have to upload if they are not happy..
Lots of sites and photo competitions have this sort of clause in the rules.

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by acherontia

The reference to the law society is not relevant to the laws protecting images.

I checked with the law society a while ago and it does apply to images, covered by the 'upload' part of section 27

Originally Posted by acherontia

My point is that many people (an example on this thread) do not read the small print.

I take it when you say 'small print' you're not referring to the massive bright orange and red text at the top of our image upload page

Wild About Britain Images Upload

as well as the prominent TandCs posted on the registration page and linked on the bottom of every page on the site

Originally Posted by acherontia

My concerns have not been for myself ( I know what's what) - but for the possibly vulnerable position your Charity is putting itself in.
From the first time images were business (and before - Fox Talbot as a prime example) the law has been mostly tied up on the side of the photographer.

Besides that - I don't think it is fair that the maker of an image cannot delete his/her images.

I know that as time goes by I find that, as far as my images are concerned, what I once thought was good is now seen as average or worse. I wouldn't like to think that these first images could not be retrieved in order to better represent my present standards. Just one example of the lack of control this system appears to to impose.

The same applies for almost every type of publishing, other than the internet, as you can't remove images from magazines and books etc once you've submitted them

Originally Posted by acherontia

Many thanks all for the welcome - and my apologies if my pointing out the legal loopholes of a system like this (and the possible ramefications on WAB) have upset anyone!

No worries, it's always good to get feedback and it helps us improve things.

It would be great if you could post a couple of links to your images on other sites so I can see what sort of T&Cs they have in place.

Stu

[Jez]

Hi & Welcome

Sorry to go off the topic but how was the Star Trek movie...Any good?

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Jez

Hi & Welcome

Sorry to go off the topic but how was the Star Trek movie...Any good?

We thouroughly enjoyed it.
It had all the feel and humour of the originals with the added benefit of brilliant special effects and CG. It was great in the days when our standards of special effects and sets were low and we were easily impressed! Nowadays those oldies are risible- unless your willing suspension of disbelief (or as Black Adder said willy suspension) is working overtime.
I really don't like it when the CG guys cheat and use ridiculous contrast to cut corners on detail - the last Indie movie and yesterdays Primevil were classic cheats in that way. It looks so unreal when the CG is bad that the 'exciting' effect is totally lost on me.
Even the LotRings films have started to look bad....

So - to cut to the quick - I recommend Startrek. It's a brilliant 'feel good' film, witty script, has visual humour and lots of exciting action that is well executed. I was as pleasantly surprised as when I watched Casino Royale as a non Bond fan!

Acherontia

[Jez]

I'll cut to the quick to for the not wanting to hijack the thread!

Thanks very much, that very encouraging to know!