Website Photos

[johnallg]

So though I've always understood using RIC content (clipped and pasted model specs and/or model pics) in an eBay ad is wrong, we now cannot post a pic from the RIC site here showing an old model or feature we are discussing on a forum dedicated to Rickenbacker admiration? I'm not trying to rouse things up, I want to understand this, as this is what I am understanding from Joey's and John's posts here. Anyone?

[nukebass]

As an extension of this discussion, should we also cease posting youtube videos of ourselves or others playing copyrighted material?

[rickenbrother]

As an extension of this discussion, should we also cease posting youtube videos of ourselves or others playing copyrighted material?

If the person who uploaded their video(s) would not want them displayed on forums or Facebook, etc, they can choose a setting option that blocks anyone from embedding their videos. The person can even pick and choose just certain individuals or no one at all to view their vids. Whoever infringes on uploading material that was copyrighted by someone else, may have to deal with the issue through Youtube. Lately, try ripping off a Tom Petty tune and uploading it on Youtube. You'll get flagged right away.

[admin]

So though I've always understood using RIC content (clipped and pasted model specs and/or model pics) in an eBay ad is wrong, we now cannot post a pic from the RIC site here showing an old model or feature we are discussing on a forum dedicated to Rickenbacker admiration? I'm not trying to rouse things up, I want to understand this, as this is what I am understanding from Joey's and John's posts here. Anyone?

John, both Joey and John Hall have made comments about using information from their sites. Joey has made it clear that acceptable use for his site would allow for using information about Rickenbackers if they were discussed in a specialized forum such as this one.

At the end of the day, there would seem to be extensive information elsewhere on line (where permission granted) and in the holdings of our members and the Register that would provide for just about every conceivable discussion here. It is understandable and more than reasonable that those who wish to protect their intellectual property would want to do so.

After discussing most things Rickenbacker for more than a decade it is hoped that those who have visited our site have understood that from the beginning we have always had the best of intentions with regard to our discussion and potrayal of Rickenbacker products and those affiliated with RIC.

[jdogric12]

I would imagine that RIC is perhaps cracking down on people posting their photos here, so they don't lose the right to prohibit other forums from doing so inappropriately or in a way they wouldn't like. Kind of like the whole argument about protecting their trade dress vigorously so they don't lose rights like Fender and Gibson did by not going after them. Just guessin'. Can't say I blame them, but I can understand how frustrating and confusing it may seem.

[ken_j]

I recently saw a news article on TV that stated that Youtube was going to start cracking down on people that upload videos of copywritten music that sing or play along with them. Don't quite know the reason, maybe because they are modifying them by adding vocal tracks or instrument tracks.

[johnhall]

As an extension of this discussion, should we also cease posting youtube videos of ourselves or others playing copyrighted material?

This might give you some perspective on that:

http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/ ... kspin.html

I would imagine that RIC is perhaps cracking down on people posting their photos here, so they don't lose the right to prohibit other forums from doing so inappropriately or in a way they wouldn't like. Kind of like the whole argument about protecting their trade dress vigorously so they don't lose rights like Fender and Gibson did by not going after them. Just guessin'. Can't say I blame them, but I can understand how frustrating and confusing it may seem.

There is no change of policy here, just the ongoing one as published in the "legal" section of our website probably more than a decade ago.

[iiipopes]

This might give you some perspective on that:
http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/ ... kspin.html

Reminds me of an old W. C. Fields quote: "I don't drink water; fish **** in it."

It is time for confessional: if this violated "fair use," I apologize. I'll withdraw the picture I found, take a picture of my own Sunbeam-brand toaster, and post my own pix, in the thread where I posted it talking about real toasters and the toaster nickname for RIC pickups.

[jdogric12]

I would imagine that RIC is perhaps cracking down on people posting their photos here, so they don't lose the right to prohibit other forums from doing so inappropriately or in a way they wouldn't like. Kind of like the whole argument about protecting their trade dress vigorously so they don't lose rights like Fender and Gibson did by not going after them. Just guessin'. Can't say I blame them, but I can understand how frustrating and confusing it may seem.

There is no change of policy here, just the ongoing one as published in the "legal" section of our website probably more than a decade ago.

Forgive me if I seem to have implied that the policy changed. I did not intend for that to be inferred. By "crack down" I was referring to what I can only conjecture is a change in the enforcement or application of any existing policy, not any change to the policy itself.

[johnhall]

Forgive me if I seem to have implied that the policy changed. I did not intend for that to be inferred. By "crack down" I was referring to what I can only conjecture is a change in the enforcement or application of any existing policy, not any change to the policy itself.

Neither the policy nor the enforcement has changed; we deal with this kind of issue almost daily.

The one thing that HAS changed is that we're now actively billing infringers for attorney's fees incurred, when they don't respond to the "friendly notices" (and/or particularly egregious cases) which require referral to counsel.

[iiipopes]

Forgive me if I seem to have implied that the policy changed. I did not intend for that to be inferred. By "crack down" I was referring to what I can only conjecture is a change in the enforcement or application of any existing policy, not any change to the policy itself.

Neither the policy nor the enforcement has changed; we deal with this kind of issue almost daily.

The one thing that HAS changed is that we're now actively billing infringers for attorney's fees incurred, when they don't respond to the "friendly notices" (and/or particularly egregious cases) which require referral to counsel.

My late uncle was an attorney in house for Farmers Insurance as a claims specialist and also worked in subrogation, in the San Fernando valley. I know how much those fee statements are. Ouch. A word to the wise....

[egosheep]

After reading this discussion, one thing immediately sprung to mind: the Register. It's absolutely chock full of unattributed photos, in high resolution, many culled from auction sites or guitar stores by our members(myself included). We never get permission to use these photos. Where does this fall under fair use?

We are just enthusiasts who love to discuss the guitars we are passionate about. I don't expect a huge legal disclaimer when I come here, as it just seems out of place... however necessary it may actually be.

[johnhall]

I think few of the source for photos like those . . . eBay, Craiglist, etc. . . are likely to have copyright notices or disclaimers.

Dealers may be somewhat more protective of their photos or at least ones they plan to reuse in advertising or websites. Individual, specific instrument photos are much more ephemeral and probably of little intrinsic value after a sale is made.

Historical photos, on the other hand, such as we have in our gallery or others you see on guitar history pages, have great long term value and are likely to be protected.

I think we've decided that we're going to compromise; rather than turn off the gallery to stem the rampant misuse, we'll add visible watermarks in addition to the embedded digital copyright notice already present. It's not so attractive but it at least forces attribution so that these photos can continue to be accessed and used.

[Grey]

I think we've decided that we're going to compromise; rather than turn off the gallery to stem the rampant misuse, we'll add visible watermarks in addition to the embedded digital copyright notice already present. It's not so attractive but it at least forces attribution so that these photos can continue to be accessed and used.

Legal discussions aside, the people who would misuse the photos on the Corporate site already have them, the only people that will be affected are the enthusiasts who defer to the Rickenbacker site for citing specific instruments.
No matter how many notices and letters you send out, once something is out on the internet it's there to stay, and trying to cull the spread of pictures that have been avilable for years by making changes now only hampers those who have been using them without ill intentions.

[johnhall]

Well, actually, for a small fee, those that are on the internet can be tracked down, due to the digital watermark, but that doesn't take care of those already on someone's hard drive.

Our concern isn't so much for the photos already out there, as opposed to the 50,000 or so we haven't enabled for viewing in the gallery. (Researchers and others with a legitimate requirement are often permitted to log in to see these.)

As it happens, we have been testing some new gallery software for awhile now, with "only" about 10,000 photos online but this whole discussion is making me rethink that project.