Thank you for all the replies! I'm reading through now.
I will clear up that I didn't just mean legal rights and legal contracts, I meant more philosophical contructs of the terms.
Paddy89 wrote:
sweetlove666 wrote:
Doug wrote:
shame thats not how it works in life though. Now you HAVE to copyright everything even ideas. If you have an idea and someone else hears about it and claims it as theirs, it is, nout you can do. And interlectual propertie (ideas) is massive money
Ideas alone are not copyrightable. ideas and themes have to be "fixed" i.e written down, stored electronically, on film or audio before any copyright is protected.
for any of us who do reviews we have copyright in those reviews.
not everything written is given a copyright protection, it must be of quality ( deemed by the judge at trial) or of artistic merit.
Not wanting to spin this thread off on a tangent, but do you? I haven't read all LH's T&Cs, but I'd have thought they'd have a clause that gave them ownership of any and all reviews and freedom to use them for marketing purposes. Most places seem to, but I could be wrong here.
i'm not sure on this one and im a but tired to actually check tonight, but as its a review it should be protected in some form or other.
i love studying Interlectual property (IP) law. it's fascinating and thanks to a few agreements most the principles in uk law are EU or world wide! unfortunatley i don't have a philosophical brain as such but one that ticks over on logic and ideals of fairness and justice so law is really suited to it.
WandA wrote:
Thank you for all the replies! I'm reading through now.
I will clear up that I didn't just mean legal rights and legal contracts, I meant more philosophical contructs of the terms.
hiya WandA i know you meant more philosophical, but my mind just dosen't work that way personally, and my views are more or less that the law constructs. Sorry if its misled people or derailed your thread!
KittyPurry wrote:
Nope I don't think you own pictures of your stuff - just work you have created art/written work. I think appearence is different because...well ... it is! I can't explain why...maybe the uniqueness? I'm really not sure it's more a feeling than anything I can explain properly. I think it's vaguely to do with consent too. I will rack my brains some more.
With models it's different because they sign contracts to sell their rights over to the photographer/newspaper. The fact that they do that infers to me that they own the rights to begin with to be able to sell them...if that makes sense?
xxKPxx
I know talk of your own stuff is slightly absurd, and that is partly the point. It would feel wrong to stop someone taking piccies of your tree but perhaps less so if you invest lots of time in it, perhaps made it a super duper arty thing. On the face of it it only feels like the difference is we have invested in it, which perhaps should not actually alter the situation but it does.
We don't always do or think rationally and I see no problem with that as long as we're aware of it and act accordingly, it allows us to gain a wider perspective.External Media
It's been suggested that philosophy, even if it talks bullcrap at times, is a form of therapy. It helps irons out the kinks in our flawed reasoning allows various takes on different things. I mention this because I agree with you about having some 'sacred' ownership our own image, yet rationally know there may not be a strong reason for this in relation to a table, pen or tree... but there may be a reason if we appeal to some other principle, perhaps we view privacy in this example as beneficial to life as people and so is in one sense rational?
SL I do believe LH own the reviews. I always have two version of a review - the one I submit to LH and the one I pop on my blog just in case. I'm not sure of the exact Ts and Cs but I'm sure it's been mentioned that they belong to LH. I don't mind having 2 versions of a review because I write in different places for different purposes - on LH my review is intended as informative especially for potential buyers (whether positive or negative) on my blog I'm writing for a different purpose so I can add more waffle etc.
Adx
sweetlove666 wrote:
WandA wrote:
Thank you for all the replies! I'm reading through now.
I will clear up that I didn't just mean legal rights and legal contracts, I meant more philosophical contructs of the terms.
hiya WandA i know you meant more philosophical, but my mind just dosen't work that way personally, and my views are more or less that the law constructs. Sorry if its misled people or derailed your thread!
Certianly don't be!
There is much moralising behind our laws and laws must have some basis in philosophy or a philosophy. I just think it's important to bear in mind that even if we keep the letter of the law in mind we must still be able to challenge it's moral/philosophical basis. There are plenty of crappy laws!
Tar for the legal insight, and to BB, it provides a useful springboard for debate.External Media
In a moral sense, I think the photos should belong to the person who is in them, and if a relationship breaks down they should be returned. Of course, this would have been fine in the old days but in the computer age there can be infinite copies of a photo and you have no way of knowing if the other person still has a copy or if they've passed it on to the rest of the world.
The legality of it is actually completely the opposite way around though :P
As for pictures of your own stuff, I was under the belief that you do own photos of them. There are grey areas in it though. One of my old graphic design tutors warned us to be careful of one certain area. For example, the Mona Lisa isn't in copyright since the original artist died centuries ago. However, photos people take of the Mona Lisa will be copyrighted to that person so you do have to be careful.
BashfulBabe wrote:
Is there a valid reason the photographer shouldn't be able to do what they want when the same objection wouldn't be met concerning a snap of you in the street?
It's the level of intimacy. People can see you every day as much as they like, but that doesn't mean they have the right to come peeking in your windows at night. Same is true of pictures, some are taken in the public domain, and thus are public property (to a degree, I know there are some legal issues with rights to your own image and junk), but those taken in private are subject to certain privacy rules.
What is the shape of the informal contract when you pass on pictures (is non-sharing an unwritten clause?)? If there are unwritten clauses what form do they take?
I don't think so. I do treat photos shared with me with a default of "my eyes only", and try my best to delete or destroy them as soon as I'm able to after a relationship ends if it's in that context. But I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone thinks the same way, and if something goes horribly wrong, I don't want to feel like it's my own fault for not being clear: this way, I'll know it's because the guy is a dick, and enough of a dick that I'd feel ok about kicking up ten kinds of shit about it.
I like these two points especially!
1. The public domain is a big factor in all this and this leads me to 2.
2. I think most stuff we say has informal clauses, not in a legal sense, but in a 'well, you know what I meant sense'. The act of taking a picture has a context and that sets up the informal clauses, a public picture says 'this is public', a private picture not so. All language must be interpreted and very rarely do we feel the need to clarify given the context... but how often do we say 'well I meant that, it was obvious at the time!'?
Alicia D'amore wrote:
Doug wrote:
erm being famouse isn't really a job (except big borther type things) and i disagree with that totaly. People like actors who don't have to do what they do, they are providing entertament, same with music artits, they deserve the same degree of privacy, yes what they do is in the public eye, but that doesn't give us the right to know 24/7 every little detail of their lifes. Yes they earn a lot of money but for every "Lady Gaga" (random example) there are thousands of people who haven't quite made it and are struggerling to make ends meet, same with any job, the top earn a lot but there are relitivly few of them compared to the number underneth. Just because they are succsessful does not mean that the public can pry on their life and know everything they do
I class it as a job - you earn money by being famous. Sure you might get famous from another job but once you're there, being famous earns as much money as any other job would be.
If you know the conditions before you start, then it could be argued that you were aware and consenting when you started. I'm not sayin I necessarily agree. I'm not sure what my opinion is, but it could be argued.
Adx
ok agree to disagree over "being famous" is a job, how arrogent must you be as a person to class your job as just being famous (not caling you arrogent, thought it might come across as that)
Ok so say you really good sports person in a minorty sport (eg any winter sport in the uk) and you manage to get to a level were you get a medal in the oylmpics, suddenly your famous and in a situation that you have never been in or expected to be in. You can't claim that a person like that "know what they are getting themselfs into" (E.G. Amy Williams)
sweetlove666 wrote:
So when you consent to your photo being taken what control should you have over the images afterwards?
The idea of consent is a tricky one both legally and morally. the law is that someone must have consent to take the pictures intially. If the picture is being used for commercial purposes such as being sold the subject does have a right under copyright law to stop the use of images if they are derogatory or will damage the subjects chance of work.
I assume these rights are not upheld at some stage? There are plenty of famous people who have later had dirt digged up and published even though it would hurt them now.
Doug wrote:
Alicia D'amore wrote:
Doug wrote:
erm being famouse isn't really a job (except big borther type things) and i disagree with that totaly. People like actors who don't have to do what they do, they are providing entertament, same with music artits, they deserve the same degree of privacy, yes what they do is in the public eye, but that doesn't give us the right to know 24/7 every little detail of their lifes. Yes they earn a lot of money but for every "Lady Gaga" (random example) there are thousands of people who haven't quite made it and are struggerling to make ends meet, same with any job, the top earn a lot but there are relitivly few of them compared to the number underneth. Just because they are succsessful does not mean that the public can pry on their life and know everything they do
I class it as a job - you earn money by being famous. Sure you might get famous from another job but once you're there, being famous earns as much money as any other job would be.
If you know the conditions before you start, then it could be argued that you were aware and consenting when you started. I'm not sayin I necessarily agree. I'm not sure what my opinion is, but it could be argued.
Adx
ok agree to disagree over "being famous" is a job, how arrogent must you be as a person to class your job as just being famous (not caling you arrogent, thought it might come across as that)
Ok so say you really good sports person in a minorty sport (eg any winter sport in the uk) and you manage to get to a level were you get a medal in the oylmpics, suddenly your famous and in a situation that you have never been in or expected to be in. You can't claim that a person like that "know what they are getting themselfs into" (E.G. Amy Williams)
There are levels of celebrity though. For example, I doubt Amy Williams gets hounded by the paps, as for starters I haven't heard of her.
To get to be mega-famous, an A-lister getting papped all the time, you generally have to have worked towards it. Nobody gets to be that way by accident.
Then you have the D-listers who might also get papped from time to time, but it tends to be a trend thing, if they've done something noteworthy recently. These people are more likely to have landed in that category by accident without working to become famous.
Paddy89 wrote:
Peronally I'd say it's the same rules as a dvd; you own the actual, physical material, but not what's on it. So if you have photos of someone else you would own the bit of paper, but not what is printed on it. I'm not 100% but I think that is pretty much what the legal system would say if the receiver of the photos started posting them around everywhere and being malicous. Obviously depends on the individual scenario.
As for general copyright, yeh it's automatic. I do a little scriptwriting and whilst what I write is legally mine, it's proving it that can be a potential problem.
Well then this seems such an oddity. I agree that when simplified that is pretty much what owning a DVD is but regardless it does seem odd to me. I guess this is a semantic issue I'd be happier if when I bought a DVD I bought the physical disk and 'loaned' the film.
sweetlove666 wrote:
i don't have a philosophical brain as such but one that ticks over on logic and ideals of fairness and justice so law is really suited to it.
Fairness and justice are kep parts of philosophy and they're attempted to understood via logic!
What is fairness and justice? Who holds the responsibly for the little deviant not on a murder charge who was abandoned by society, if we don't determine this how can any judgement be fair? What system is fair (socialism, freemarket capitalism etc?)?
Ecksvie wrote:
In a moral sense, I think the photos should belong to the person who is in them, and if a relationship breaks down they should be returned. Of course, this would have been fine in the old days but in the computer age there can be infinite copies of a photo and you have no way of knowing if the other person still has a copy or if they've passed it on to the rest of the world.
The legality of it is actually completely the opposite way around though :P
As for pictures of your own stuff, I was under the belief that you do own photos of them. There are grey areas in it though. One of my old graphic design tutors warned us to be careful of one certain area. For example, the Mona Lisa isn't in copyright since the original artist died centuries ago. However, photos people take of the Mona Lisa will be copyrighted to that person so you do have to be careful.
But why to the person in them? And can you ever sell or give up that right to be in them?
I am surprised no one has suggested when you take a picture it is joint ownership with the subject yet and trees cannot own stuff...External Media
Doug wrote:
ok agree to disagree over "being famous" is a job, how arrogent must you be as a person to class your job as just being famous (not caling you arrogent, thought it might come across as that)
Ok so say you really good sports person in a minorty sport (eg any winter sport in the uk) and you manage to get to a level were you get a medal in the oylmpics, suddenly your famous and in a situation that you have never been in or expected to be in. You can't claim that a person like that "know what they are getting themselfs into" (E.G. Amy Williams)
Of course you deserve some privacy but is 'fame' not just a hazard of the job as fire is for a fireman? You do not have to take that job but if you do then you must accept the consequences that come with it.
WandA wrote:
Ecksvie wrote:
In a moral sense, I think the photos should belong to the person who is in them, and if a relationship breaks down they should be returned. Of course, this would have been fine in the old days but in the computer age there can be infinite copies of a photo and you have no way of knowing if the other person still has a copy or if they've passed it on to the rest of the world.
The legality of it is actually completely the opposite way around though :P
As for pictures of your own stuff, I was under the belief that you do own photos of them. There are grey areas in it though. One of my old graphic design tutors warned us to be careful of one certain area. For example, the Mona Lisa isn't in copyright since the original artist died centuries ago. However, photos people take of the Mona Lisa will be copyrighted to that person so you do have to be careful.
But why to the person in them? And can you ever sell or give up that right to be in them?
I am surprised no one has suggested when you take a picture it is joint ownership with the subject yet and trees cannot own stuff...External Media
I think that because the photo has something of you in it, whereas the person who took it, all they've done is press a shutter.
Then again, that applies to casual snaps, but if it was something a bit more organised and set up, where the photographer had put considerable effort into creating something for the 'model' to come in to, then that could be more difficult because both parties have something considerable of theirs in it.
I know personally, if I had intimate photos of someone and they wanted me to delete them, I'd respect that and do so, and in an ideal world everyone else would do the same.
Ecksvie wrote:
I know personally, if I had intimate photos of someone and they wanted me to delete them, I'd respect that and do so, and in an ideal world everyone else would do the same.
See - if I'd had permission to take the photo - I wouldn't. If I really liked a photo especially if there were two of us in it, or it was a memory of a holiday we shared or something or even just of them alone but a lovely memory of a time we shared then I'd keep it.
I have photos of WandA that I'd never want to lose - he's a massive part of my life and to delete photos of that would be like asking me to forget that time had happened!
Adx
Alicia D'amore wrote:
Ecksvie wrote:
I know personally, if I had intimate photos of someone and they wanted me to delete them, I'd respect that and do so, and in an ideal world everyone else would do the same.
See - if I'd had permission to take the photo - I wouldn't. If I really liked a photo especially if there were two of us in it, or it was a memory of a holiday we shared or something or even just of them alone but a lovely memory of a time we shared then I'd keep it.
I have photos of WandA that I'd never want to lose - he's a massive part of my life and to delete photos of that would be like asking me to forget that time had happened!
Adx
Pictures that feature both you and another person is another grey area, because you both have an investment in that photo.
When I said intimate photos, I did mean sexual ones rather than holiday snaps or whatever. Not sure if I made that clear.
No I got that - but our sex life is a huge part of our relationship. It'd still feel like wiping out a chunk of our relationship imo. Whilst I agree photos of a person are *generally* their own, I still think, photos taken whilst you're in a relationship are more than *just* copies of an image displayed on paper or on a computer. It's a memory. Every photo I have of WandA triggers a memory of a happy time we've shared! Even sexual ones. Even silly ones where he covers his face.
When your memory is as shot as mine is too, it's lovely to have something that triggers a memory.
Adx
WandA wrote:
I am surprised no one has suggested when you take a picture it is joint ownership with the subject yet and trees cannot own stuff...External Media
I was about to say that! And it would be joint with the owner of the subject - people, of course, own themselves; parents "own" children, etc.
I think the images in intimate photos where they are given in the context of a relationship should be treated as loans conditional on the continuation of that relationship. They should be taken as placeholders for the subject - a photo of your OH's bum, for example, should be treated with the same degree of privacy as she would treat the real thing. So when you no longer have access to the real thing, the placeholder should be destroyed or returned - it has no legitimate purpose any more.
Here's a tangent to get you worked up - if someone takes an otherwise innocent photo of you, which they find appeals to a personal fetish, is it still as big an invasion of your privacy? If that photo on the beach had been of the person's feet, say, would she still have been creeped out? Is indecency in the eye of the beholder?