Bugatti Veyron review.

[mud]

the car is simply superb ! nuff said

[Boomy]

In this country, copyright law states that a photograph is owned by the photographer who took it, unless the rights have been sold to a third party. If any such photograph contains a recognisable person or animate object for example a dog, and the picture is going to be used for commercial gain, then a model release must be sought. This can also be true for some inaminate objects for example buildings etc where a property release may be required, but for such cases, prosecution is rare.

Surely the commercial gain part here is where the problems can arise though and not little Johnny showing his car loving mates some pictures, text and an original link to a car review.

There would be millions of people in court every single day of the week if that were the case and anyone was bothered.

If i grabbed all that text from a web page that showed no links at all to the original article, how can i be liable for anything for example?

Or do we simply adopt a policy where we post absolutely nothing, image article and video wise just to be safe?

Impossible to police if you ask me.

As for removing Zippy, do you mean the rainbow character?

If so, seriously, has the world gone raving mad.How could anyone ever end up being sued for having zippy as an avatar?

I think i would take my chances tbh, if that didn't get laughed out of court then lots of people need help quite obviously.

[Martin Keene]

I've heard a rumour that Clarkson is going to race one against a plane on TG tonight.

I wonder if JM will run this time!

[nlash]

Surely the commercial gain part here is where the problems can arise though and not little Johnny showing his car loving mates some pictures, text and an original link to a car review.

There would be millions of people in court every single day of the week if that were the case and anyone was bothered.

If i grabbed all that text from a web page that showed no links at all to the original article, how can i be liable for anything for example?

Or do we simply adopt a policy where we post absolutely nothing, image article and video wise just to be safe?

Impossible to police if you ask me.

Legal action is purely down to whether the rights owner wants to kick up a fuss. A lot depends on them if they want to pursue a case or not. I guess that if the rights owner feels hard done by, when their copyrighted work is reproduced without permission, then it is up to them to bring a case. This is why so much work gets copied without repercussion.

If you spent money and time to build a Westfield just for someone to steal so they could have a drive just for their own pleasure, then I guess you wouldn't be very happy.

[nlash]

Nlash , you must be an incredibly interesting person to drink with , NOT.

carl

Ouch! So Carl, what do you talk about when out drinking... let me guess, how fast you can drive a car, women and football.

Would you like to come out for a drink sometime so I can open my mind to your level?

[mud]

nice return !

[Boomy]

If you spent money and time to build a Westfield just for someone to steal so they could have a drive just for their own pleasure, then I guess you wouldn't be very happy.

What have i stolen?

Stolen would mean i have hacked his pc or burgled his house and got hold of the originals so he no longer has them.

[nlash]

If you spent money and time to build a Westfield just for someone to steal so they could have a drive just for their own pleasure, then I guess you wouldn't be very happy.

What have i stolen?

Stolen would mean i have hacked his pc or burgled his house and got hold of the originals so he no longer has them.

OK not a very good example... do you think it would be ok then, if I were to get a copy of say... a Harry Potter book. Copy it word for word then stick the whole lot on a website forum for all to see and download at their leisure?

I think not... how long before JK Rowling had me in court and sued me for every penny I had?

Copyright is copyright, no matter how small or insignificant the piece. If a writer or publisher doesn't want their material reproduced then why would they bother with a reproduction warning? They don't stick these copyright warnings on their websites, in their books etc etc just for the fun of it!

Just ask the owners of Napster what this means if you're not sure

[leighc]

ok, but with a boook or music etc. then downloading removes the need to purchase, then the owners lose out. All this man has done has provided a bit of free advertising for bugatti. which i'm sure they aint gonna kick up a fuss about. or the website, cause i sure as hell didnt know they existed, but will probably go on there in future.

if there is a website where you can download bugatti's please let me know, as it will get rid of the frustration of having a half built westfield in the garage!!

[Boomy]

OK not a very good example... do you think it would be ok then, if I were to get a copy of say... a Harry Potter book. Copy it word for word then stick the whole lot on a website forum for all to see and download at their leisure?

No, that wouldn't be a very sensible idea, but then that book is for sale to the public and i would be losing them money on sales.It would be much like pirate DVD's and games in that respect and relates to the commercial gain suggestions.

Posting a review of a car on the internet as they have done with the Bugatti review for absolutely anyone to look at totaly free of charge however is different surely?.

Don't get me wrong, i understand fully what you are suggesting, i just think it is such a massive grey area that it is virtualy impossible for situations such as this to end up with someone being fined in court.Slapping the article into a book on cars and selling it would be totaly different of course.

As i suggested earlier, what if i had just grabbed that report from any random web page and not from the original one, would i still be at risk due to not tracing the original piece?

Also where do you stand if you have actually linked to the original thread anyway as i did, surely the increased traffic to that page can only be good for them if people choose to view it?

I know you are correct though and i am not for one second suggesting i am right and you are wrong, i just can't see anything would ever come of it in this instance.

Much like your Zippy avater, would you really be tracked down by Rod Jane and Freddy?

[Renmure]

According to g/f there are a few issues raised by the original post.

1st, the copyright owner would probably take very little interest in the issue other than perhaps asking the offending post to be removed and asking for an undertaking from the poster that the offence not be repeated. There would be little or no likelyhood of an action being taken against the poster as an individual in a case like this. However, the WSCC website would still be the publisher of material which, however one would want to define it, was being published in contravention of the law. The likelyhood of action against the publisher of the material in this case would again be unlikely since no alteration, modification or misrepresentation had been published. That doesnt alter the fact that any action against either the individual who breached the copyright or the publisher of the breech could not be anything other than successful. Whether the copyright owner would persue the matter is one question. Whether or not they would be successful if they chose to persue it is not open to question.

Blatman's post drew attention to the copyright owners legal statement of use of the material. This would have been 'helpful' for the original poster in that it would help them correct their unintentional error in breaching the copyright. From a litigious point of view it opened the publisher of the copyrighted material, ie WSCC, to potentially greater penalty because they were now knowingly publishing copyrighted material. Again, the issue as to whether or not the owner of the copyright persued the matter or not is open to question of course.

The biggest 'danger' would be if, for example, other car based chat sites started threads along the lines of 'hey.. have you seen WSCC Boardroom where they have lifted article XYZ from publication ABC and it has been pointed out it is breaking the law.. isnt that one of these copyright / defamation / liable / misrepresentation type issues?'   Such a senario 'may' back the copyright owner into a corner forcing them to defend their legal position so that they are being SEEN to be bothered about 'publicised' copyright breech issues incase, by doing nothing, they were compromising their future position in event of a future (and more significant) breech.

wow.  Sometimes she is an interesting person to drink with too!  

[Boomy]

Actually very interesting reading that, cheers  

I guess my next question would have to be, does that mean then that you really should never post a single image, video

clip or sound wave onto the internet because if those items have been copyrighted you could be in breach?

Meaning no matter what the item is you wish to post, you are supposed to track down where it came from and contact the person who created it? Not only for permission, but also to try and find out if it has any copyright on it at all anyway.

If so, does that mean i can copyright say a picture of my Westy, post it on a web page (with a tiny disclaimer at the bottom) make sure it is spreads around the globe on various sites and then go for the jugular and retire a wealthy man?

[Renmure]

Her short answer was.

Yes  and..

Yes

You really wouldn't have wanted to sit and listen to the long answer!!  

I am off for a beer with Carl to talk about cars, women and football          

[nlash]

I am off for a beer with Carl to talk about cars, women and football          

Hey, mind if I join you.

(ps can you forward me your missus contact details just in case I ever need a good copyright lawyer.)

God help anyone ever reproducing any of my photographs, especially anyone rich  

[fastcarl]

i'm buying, lol.