WAF Member who runs a site for posting other peoples pictures

[Simon O.]

A bit of light reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[pbuchh7715]

Make a rule that states that : ALL photos are for private use for research for members only in the privacy of their own homes only , but cannot be published , printed or offered for sale or used for building a site with in any way shape or form. Any use for any public postings must be requested in writing, and can be used only with approval of both the forum, and the person who originally posted the photo on the forum, and without both agreeing that it is alright, any use publicly anywhere is prohibited, and will be an immediate grounds , not only for perminant expulsion, but be subject to litigation for copyright infringement. Then have the server who provides the internet access of the offendee be notified to shut him down, then bann him from the forum, but i feel he should be banned now, as he is abusing others en masse..and also anyone who shills photos for his site for him even if banned to get past the rule in the future.
He obviously should come forward on the issue.
What language is he jibbering anyway on his site?

You could also have all photos hooked to"" big string,"(what you never heard of big string?)' and when he uses them in such an abusive way, make them disappear from his site ? Its time to change the rules fellows, or stop posting photos altogether, that's why i post very few photos. There also may be some software available from the server to encript all photos so they can be viewed on site , but not downloaded, as im sure there is new technologies created now for such instances . Ill leave that to SB, and to whether they want to broach the issue or not.(i'm not holding my breath )

This has to be the most ridiculous post I have read to date. I'm not taking sides nor to I have a "pony in the race" but do you even know the legal definition of copyright infringement and how it would even remotely apply in this case? That's not an assault on your character or intelligence, just a simple question.

And what does the language he has to use on his site have any bearing on, well, anything?

[fknorr]

I think this all boils down to those of us who hold themselves to a higher standard, those who do not and the third group who see this all as a gray area and do not take a stand for what is right.

There is more here than whether or not it is legal and we need to take a stand as to whether is it OK for a member of this forum to do and for us NOT do something about.

[crfraser]

Simon - the fair use wiki was educational. Thanks

My major concern about posting photos and scans of documents is that the photos will be scanned and presented as originals, thus increasing the skepticism of potential buyers of the originals ans lowering value. That can presumably be handled via water marking.

On the documents side, I tend to worry that I am putting out example signatures and formats for potential forgers to copy, again reducing value for the originals and additionally introducing fictional material into the historical record.

But forgers will get their examples even if they have to buy the originals themselves or get scans elsewhere like official archives. On balance I prefer to post the stuff in the hopes it is interest to others and I hope others continue to do the same.

Colin

[JamesUS]

As photo collectors - no we should not.

It is either theft, which is a punishable crime, or it is not.
It is not, sorry to be the one to tell you.
Just being realistic here, hyperbole is not going to help address the situation.

[hornetsfan]

I wonder if Osprey books know if Mr.Khan is selling their publications as ebooks ? Perhaps I shall give them a ring to ask in the morning .If he is not paying them , I'm certain they will have something to say ..and perhaps they might take action .
There is potentially plenty of commercial activity being carried out on his site . Did someone suggest he was not making money from the images he is taking from this forum site ?

[Jareth]

here's another wonderful site that has stolen some of my photos http://www.ww2incolor.com/

[Simon O.]

I wonder if Osprey books know if Mr.Khan is selling their publications as ebooks ? Perhaps I shall give them a ring to ask in the morning .If he is not paying them , I'm certain they will have something to say ..and perhaps they might take action .
There is potentially plenty of commercial activity being carried out on his site . Did someone suggest he was not making money from the images he is taking from this forum site ?

Not that i understand the language but i didn't see where he was taking money for them.

However. He has books and films for download, for example inglorious basterds amd Stalingrad and that is outright illegal.

[W Petz]

I have noticed some of my photos on that site as well. Their gimmick is to provide 400 free photos for a donation of $19.95....however they advertise it.... they are still selling stolen images.

here's another wonderful site that has stolen some of my photos http://www.ww2incolor.com/

[R MICHAEL]

Wow, Just seen this thread and I have to say that even though anything posted on the web is open to copy, this over steps the bounds of good taste. If he is making money with these images well then it borders on the criminal and even though "legally" nothing can be doen I am one for booting him from the forum.

Mike (rmh collection)

[i.spring]

I have to say something.
What is more important, ignoring this problem and letting this person profit from other peoples investments and hard work or.... !
WAF stepping in and giving its long time members a little protection and saying yes, we will delete this guy off our system ! that involves one click !

Ian

[Akira Takiguchi]

Everybody has said what they have in mind, right?

As a photo collector, not that I don't dislike certain ways of my scans being reused on the web. Yes, certainly if this guy used those photos without email consent it's a very bad taste and he deserves the criticisim expressed here. Well, but I also don't like the way people talk about its monetary values based on the non-existing copyright they have. Whether a dollar or half million dollars (in my case) spent on a collection, copyright stays with the photographer (or legal heir thereof), or they are in public domain (note that copyright law differs from country to country, but no country gives you copyright based on ownership). Keep respect for those who took the photos during the difficult days.

I also don't like when people say "so I don't post any more". OK, I understand your position but then, why not disappear from here completely? Some have. They're consistent. Accept the reality and enjoy talking about photos through sharing, or silence. If you want to be part of here and if you have something to post, do it. If you just copy from here and don't want to become part of us, leave here too.

My position (NOT that I am not enforcing this to anyone) is simple. Anyone can copy what I have uploaded on the web as you wish, but always common courtesy - through email, twitter, or anything - is always appreciated.

[Simon O.]

And i share the same views as Akira FWIW.

[Mil-Archive]

Can we just clarify - where do the moderator posts leave us as regards a member who systematically downloaded our content from WAF photo forum and then hosted it elsewhere without asking for our permission?

The aspect of whether or not the person taking other content pofits from it is relevant but not the only factor. Also I don't think I mentioned monetary value or profit here except about the person who paid 1.5k for the negatives which immediately ended up on that site.

[Mark C. Yerger]

A bit of light reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

from the thread mentioned by Simon regards using limited parts of copyrighted material:


for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship

To replicate and sell for personal profit, financial or otherwise, without permission of the copyright holder isn't there. I doubt any judge who is awake would consider the type of perpetrators under discussion here to be news reporters, researchers, or teachers.