My MOTOWN Pictures!

[paul_nixon]

...wasn't your Velvelettes pic featured on the cover of one of the Chatbusters magazines ...Paul ...and I'm sure I've seen it on other sites previously ...on one occasion put up by yourself?

Grape

Exactly it was put up by myself and given to Chatbusters by ME...there are two things common to that and they are both ME

[grapevine]

Marv 2,

While I think you are obviously a dedicated Motown fan I also believe that you have let your enthusiasm run away with itself here, technically you cannot collect other peoples property and many of these pictures are obviously copyrighted by the owners. In fact the 'today' shot of the Velvelettes belongs to me, was taken by me and is my copyright. Just downloading them is technically an offence and republishing them without the owners consent is an action that you can be taekn to task by law for. I would consider versy seriously before publishing other peoples property again. You could get into an awful lot of trouble over it. I am interestested to know how you got hold of it.

...wasn't your Velvelettes pic featured on the cover of one of the Chatbusters magazines ...Paul ...and I'm sure I've seen it on other sites previously ...on one occasion put up by yourself?

Grape

Exactly it was put up by myself and given to Chatbusters by ME...there are two things common to that and they are both ME

...Paul ...I'm a little confused ...?

...many Motown fans looking for images of their favourite artists online ...will surf the net ...take The Velvelettes as a good example ...let's try looking in Google Images ...

http://tinyurl.com/3352web

...they find an image they like ...right-click to save to their PC ...keep it for their own use ...or post here for all to see ...as below ...a perfectly innocent action I would have thought ...and not liable for the threatening stance you take above ...or maybe not...?

I often wonder ...if artists and photographers do not want their work sampled from the net ...then I would have thought ...they shouldn't put them up for all to see ...and download ...in the first place ...but then again ...as usual with these matters ...I am most probably 100% wrong...?

...as Brian Wilson sung ...I Just Wasn't Made For These Times

Grape

[paul_nixon]

Grape I will answer your question with another example.
By your stance on this subject you obvioulsy condone bootlegging. For this is surely what goes on when an individual copies an author or artists work without permission and publishes it again themselves for or not for profit - there is no difference. As far as it being up there for all to see and take does that apply to everything, you can walk into a record store or any store and there are goods 'up there for all to see and take' are the store saying help yourself for free, use it as you will we don't care we are not in this to make a living? Of course they are not your reasoning is flawed and is protected by law. Any picture posted here or indeed piece of writing or music track if it is not owned by the poster/publisher could land them in an awful lot of trouble. I once heard of a newspaper who took a picture offline and used it without the owners consent and they settled out of court for several thousand pounds.

...Paul ...I'm a little confused ...?

...many Motown fans looking for images of their favourite artists online ...will surf the net ...take The Velvelettes as a good example ...let's try looking in Google Images ...

http://tinyurl.com/3352web

...they find an image they like ...right-click to save to their PC ...keep it for their own use ...or post here for all to see ...as below ...a perfectly innocent action I would have thought ...and not liable for the threatening stance you take above ...or maybe not...?

I often wonder ...if artists and photographers do not want their work sampled from the net ...then I would have thought ...they shouldn't put them up for all to see ...and download ...in the first place ...but then again ...as usual with these matters ...I am most probably 100% wrong...?

...as Brian Wilson sung ...I Just Wasn't Made For These Times

Grape

[grapevine]

Paul ...I don't condone bootlegging ...but on this matter ...are we saying that every poster here is the 'author' or 'artist' of the pics they have posted ...and if not ...they may be persued in the courts...? ...I don't think so...!

...many of these pics here have been seen over and over ...and become after time 'public property' ...IMHO

...we obviously don't see eye to eye on this one...!

Grape

[jillfoster]

Grape I will answer your question with another example.
By your stance on this subject you obvioulsy condone bootlegging. For this is surely what goes on when an individual copies an author or artists work without permission and publishes it again themselves for or not for profit - there is no difference. As far as it being up there for all to see and take does that apply to everything, you can walk into a record store or any store and there are goods 'up there for all to see and take' are the store saying help yourself for free, use it as you will we don't care we are not in this to make a living? Of course they are not your reasoning is flawed and is protected by law. Any picture posted here or indeed piece of writing or music track if it is not owned by the poster/publisher could land them in an awful lot of trouble. I once heard of a newspaper who took a picture offline and used it without the owners consent and they settled out of court for several thousand pounds.

From a strict moral standpoint [[not legal) the difference is that when taking a photograph, you are capturing a moment in time using a machine, and not creating something from your own mind, or with your own hands, or with own voice. Does the cameraman on a TV show own the rights to such show? Of course not. All photography, IMO should be a "work for hire" proposition... but for some reason, many people want to do something once, and get paid for it for all eternity over and over again. Cal Street could be sued by you if SHE sold that photo, but of course, you wouldn't dare. It's my opinion that at the very least, copyright law should be changed so as to grant unlimited rights to use of a photograph by the people who are actually IN the photograph, but you won't see that happen anytime soon. So what he saying, Grape... is he want us to pay him to look at his pictures of the Velvelettes. I wonder if the gals get a cut. You can bet they don't.

[paul_nixon]

But I wouldn't sue Cal - not only is she a friend but I took the picture for her and gave her permission to use it wherever she wanted but being a firiend she always ask if she can use it for promotion and that's the point she ASKS and please don't give the the bull that photography is pressing a button - tell that to Lord Snowdon will you.
And where have I mentioned paying for looking at a picture?

From a strict moral standpoint [[not legal) the difference is that when taking a photograph, you are capturing a moment in time using a machine, and not creating something from your own mind, or with your own hands, or with own voice. Does the cameraman on a TV show own the rights to such show? Of course not. All photography, IMO should be a "work for hire" proposition... but for some reason, many people want to do something once, and get paid for it for all eternity over and over again. Cal Street could be sued by you if SHE sold that photo, but of course, you wouldn't dare. It's my opinion that at the very least, copyright law should be changed so as to grant unlimited rights to use of a photograph by the people who are actually IN the photograph, but you won't see that happen anytime soon. So what he saying, Grape... is he want us to pay him to look at his pictures of the Velvelettes. I wonder if the gals get a cut. You can bet they don't.

[jillfoster]

But I wouldn't sue Cal - not only is she a friend but I took the picture for her and gave her permission to use it wherever she wanted but being a firiend she always ask if she can use it for promotion and that's the point she ASKS and please don't give the the bull that photography is pressing a button - tell that to Lord Snowdon will you.
And where have I mentioned paying for looking at a picture?

Ah, I see... she can use it for promotion, but nobody else can. Since these are elderly women with only two hit records under their belt [[more than 40 years ago), I'd think they'd need all the exposure they can get. A "friend" might realize that and be glad their work is being admired and helping to promote the career of said friend. When I design a landscape, if someone copies a design I've done in their own yard, I'm flattered they think my taste is something to be emulated. I don't ask for royalties..... and I have no legal basis to, because landscape designers don't have lobbying power in congress to get laws passed. But I wouldn't care if there were laws, as I'm a generous spirit. I believe when you are generous to others, it comes back to you.

[paul_nixon]

Ah, I see... she can use it for promotion, but nobody else can. Since these are elderly women with only two hit records under their belt [[more than 40 years ago), I'd think they'd need all the exposure they can get. A "friend" might realize that and be glad their work is being admired and helping to promote the career of said friend. When I design a landscape, if someone copies a design I've done in their own yard, I'm flattered they think my taste is something to be emulated. I don't ask for royalties..... and I have no legal basis to, because landscape designers don't have lobbying power in congress to get laws passed. But I wouldn't care if there were laws, as I'm a generous spirit. I believe when you are generous to others, it comes back to you.

Exactly you have proved my point and I'm sure is she is reading this she will be pleased to be described as elderly