Jim Alfredson Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 Hi everyone. I received the following email today: Dear Webmaster, It has come to our attention that one of your forum users "JSngry" has posted one of our copyrighted images in your forum. It is an image of Babe Zaharias and is CLEARLY watermarked "Historic Golf Photos". This is in violation of Federal Copyright law. Please remove this photo IMMEDIATELY and block all future posting of Historic Golf images to your web site. Please contact us when this photos has been removed. If the photos are not removed immediately, we will be forced to take other action to protect our copyright. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Brenda Bragg Sales/Operations Manager Historic Golf Photos 800-868-9155 850-244-0222 Here is my response: Brenda, I removed the image but I'm just curious what part of federal law we're breaking considering that our website is free and does not charge anyone for anything and was not actually hosting your image on our server, merely linking to your website where the picture is freely visible. Could you quote the section of law for me please? And may I suggest that if you don't want people to link to your images than you should instigate remote link blocking on your website. It would save all of this hassle. Talk to your webmaster about it. Also, I'll be sure to tell all 400 of the forum members not to come to your website at all, especially to link to publicly displayed photos. Thank you, -----Jim Alfredson Here is my reason for deleting this thread: I do not have the time nor the patience to deal with this. All of the images posted in that thread are potential liabilities, although I doubt most of the hosts would have a problem with it unlike Brenda "Don't Link Me!" Braggs. But I'd rather not find out. Just to calm the conspiracy theories, they could've found out about the link by checking their website stats and seeing that they were getting an awful lot of hits on that one picture from some weird ass site named www.organissimo.org/forum since the picture that Sangrey put up was a link, not an attachment. This means that everytime the thread is viewed, that picture is loaded from the Historic Golf website and registers as a hit. Or some lame ass could've tattled. Personally I don't give a shit, but like I said, I don't have the time to deal with this so... let's lay off posting pictures of women and keep discussing jazz which is so underground no one would give a rats ass if we linked to pictures of Lee Morgan or Herbie Hancock, ok? Thanks... Quote
bertrand Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 B3-er, I liked your response to this moron. Indeed, no federal law is being broken by linking to a photo on their site! These lawyer types make me hurl. One discographer I know was threatened with legal action for listing boots on his site. He pointed out that it is not illegal to discuss bootlegs somewhere, or even list their contents, it is only illegal to offer them for sale. Bertrand. Quote
Jim Alfredson Posted August 13, 2003 Author Report Posted August 13, 2003 Good to know. The thread could make a return. Quote
Claude Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 (edited) As far as I know linking (not copying) a limited number of photographies or articles from other websites does NOT constitute copyright infringment. Links can only be considered an act of unfair competition under specific circumstances, if done on a larger scae and if the two websites concerned are competitors. However, the legal sutuation is different if a photography/article is linked in a way that it is visible within the other website (for example by using of IMG tags in this message board, or by framing a page from another website). This has been considered copyright infringement by a german court. (copyright infringement) http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/dr...e13458uf0fd.jpg (no infringement) But that's just one interpretation of the law by one (non-US) court. Copyright law is not that detailed as far as forbidden acts are concerned, it relies on interpretation. I would recommend to remove such pictures when the copyright owner complains about it. Anyway, a webmaster can take technical measures to prevent his pictures from being embedded in other websites. There are also ways for the board administrators to hide the board address from the webmasters, by routing direct links through public proxies. This requires a special add-on script for the board software. Edited August 13, 2003 by Claude Quote
BERIGAN Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 (edited) Good God Gertie, what's next, Blue Note getting mad that album covers have been posted without the express written consent of Blue Note or major league baseball? Man, if it isn't one person complaining on the another current board months ago saying don't post photos of women(And just like here, we are NOT talking nude women, or a site that Children frequent) its some lamer from Historic Golf Photos having a hissy fit. They should be glad anyone checks them out at all. Did they take the photo? I wonder if they even own the photo, probably just bought it on ebay a few months ago, now it's theres, all theres. Thread destroyed not because some Cindy Margolis type had a fit, but someone with the photos of a long since dead Golfer, completely clothed! Watch out everyone! Don't post an article, a photo, or quote an author, jazzman, politician, anyone! Don't say the word "Spike" without Spike Lee's premission! Don't say Fair and Balanced without the Fox network's permission! Intellectual property is everywhere! Mr Sangrey, didn't you say "Doggy Fizzle Televizzle." the other day? Oh, you are in big trouble now......Lets all just sit quietly in front of the computer, without typing....watch what kind of thoughts you are having to, buster...you are infringing on something, somehow, no doubt Edited August 13, 2003 by BERIGAN Quote
brownie Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 Well, I was wondering when that would happen after seeing all those photos being posted on this and other Boards! There is a lot of talk at photo agencies/organizations about the limits of copyrights. In many European countries, the agencies are very protective about the copyrights. And France - where many photo agencies are based - is superprotective about this. I bet that the people at Magnum - whose main offices are in Paris - have not realised yet that the photos by Guy LeQuerrec (a Magnum photographer) are displayed on this and other jazz boards. Even if the images are not offered for sale, there might be more trouble ahead. A reminder that the laws about music which state that recordings that are more than 50 year-old fall in the public domain and are not protected by copyrights are different from the laws that protect the photo images. Quote
Dan Gould Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 (edited) Presented with such an obnoxious yet extremely dubious threat, I'd say you did do the right thing, Jim. Nevertheless, I'd be interested to see her response should you receive one. And for what its worth, its clear that this is an American company since they have an 800 number, so American copyright law would control. In fact, looking at the regular phone number listed, she's right here in my state of Florida, might very well be in my old college town of Tallahassee, as 850 is the area code for the Florida panhandle. Edited August 13, 2003 by Dan Gould Quote
mikeweil Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 B3-er's response was very appropriate. My comments: 1 - is it really that necessary to post babes on this (mainly) jazz forum (of course I'm aware I participated - ) 2- if they don't want their photos to be linked, why don't they block it, as B3-er said - these web programmers are real pros 3 - if they (or anyone else) doesn't want a photo to be spread on the web, please consider not putting it there! When I put something on the web, I HAVE to be aware i might get copied and posted somewhere, that's what the web is made for, spreading information! 4 - conventional copyright laws where invented for printed media and have to be reworked or better reconsidered for application on web publishing. 5 - laywers must eat..... Quote
Joe Christmas Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 ...one of your forum users "JSngry" has posted one of our copyrighted images in your forum.... Way to go, Focker! Quote
catesta Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 (edited) I thought the thread was ridiculous anyways. Seriously, I'm sorry to see it go, hopefully we can have one again in the near future. Minus any Zaharias images of course. They should just be happy people even remember or know who she was, and leave it at that. Edited August 13, 2003 by catesta Quote
jazzbo Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 (edited) Are we sure that these people really were from the site they claim to be from? COULD they be imposters who are just jealous of the open nature of this forum and the ability we have here to communicate on many levels without problem? Could they be frustrated forum owners of an inferior site who just wish they had the chutzpa to moderate the forum the way this one is? I smell a deception, a conspiracy, an international cabal of uptight bulletin board administrators. . . possibly even tomatbluenote! Could tomatbluenote be Mnytime and behind a passel of problems we're having? :rsmile: B) Edited August 13, 2003 by jazzbo Quote
Man with the Golden Arm Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 (edited) Ya should've given her a niblick right in her spoonie! (or the other way around) ...and you should have corrected her English as well. It's gotta be another hoax. Sheesh! Edited August 13, 2003 by Man with the Golden Arm Quote
catesta Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 Someone call the 800 number under her name, and ask for Heywood Jablowme. Quote
catesta Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 The profound statement above marked my 1000th post and changed my member status to"Groove Merchant." This is going to be a great day. Quote
bertrand Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 Dmitry, I'm no expert. I just agreed with b3-er that there probably is no legal reason that we can't link to photos on other sites. If this came to a problem, an attorney would be have to be consulted, something I'm sure b3-er does not want to have to do. He complied with her request - he just pointed out to her that she was very likely in error. His response was excellent. What law is she invoking? Bertrand. Quote
catesta Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 If needed be, I'm sure mnytime could be that attorney. Quote
JSngry Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 ...one of your forum users "JSngry" has posted one of our copyrighted images in your forum.... Way to go, Focker! That's FOKKER, if you don't mind... Seriously, I smell Musicboy. Quote
JSngry Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 Geez, I'm a middle-aged suburban white guy with cable. You'd think I'd be JUST the type they'd want to attract to their site. Oh well, marketing ain't what it used to be! Quote
JSngry Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 Oh yeah. sorry to have caused you this inconvinience, Jim. Seriously. Quote
Rooster_Ties Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 Seriously, I smell Musicboy. I suspect we'd all smell him less if he'd kept his shirt on. Quote
Rooster_Ties Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 Oh yeah. sorry to have caused you this inconvinience, Jim. Seriously. Yeah, what the hell were you thinking, Sangry?? I mean, of all the pictures you could have linked to, you just HAD to go and pick THAT one, didn'tcha??? I hope you've learned your lesson!! Quote
shawn·m Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 Why, I’ve half a mind to start a new thread like, “Items extricated from humorless women associated with golf.” Just think of the possibilities. Fortunately the other half is winning. Quote
slsmcgrew Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 Historic Golf Photos should be pleased that somebody even remembers who Babe Didrikson Zaharies was and maybe because of the picture those who viewed it would want to find out more about her and what she accomplished. Quote
shawn·m Posted August 13, 2003 Report Posted August 13, 2003 And with that, my other half has won the battle. Now let’s all contemplate the deeper meaning of this image. Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.