Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2006 21:01:26 GMT 1
Matt did you get my PM??
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Feb 27, 2006 21:02:09 GMT 1
Assertions have been made about what is or isn't legal, but have they been tested in the courts?
The problem with this sort of thing is that it is the big rich coprorations against an individual, so the individual can't say 'sue and be damned' because he does not have the resources to go through the legal process.
So you have a fan who wants to share a few photos with a couple of hundred people at the most. He is making no money from the pictures and any money that is earned by the message board goes back to the club.
Who is being deprived of their rights or their income?
The examples of Arsenal merchandise being ripped off or illegal downloads of music are red herrings - in these instances rightful owners of brands or copyright are not getting the royalties due to them.
I also think that the regualtions have not kept pace with technology and are unenforcable. Most people these days have digital cameras in their phones and these will only get better. So we will be able to send pictures and video to each other and there is no way to stop it. Unless the stewards are going to confiscate 1,000's of mobiles that is.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Feb 27, 2006 21:04:29 GMT 1
Do west mercia police have a license for recording inside Gay Meadow?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2006 21:06:33 GMT 1
quite frequently ST.........and the corporation will always win
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 27, 2006 21:09:38 GMT 1
Do west mercia police have a license for recording inside Gay Meadow? yep, and they also have permission to film the crowd inside and outside the game....though if you film the bloke with he video camera they tend to get upset.
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Feb 27, 2006 21:21:44 GMT 1
Do west mercia police have a license for recording inside Gay Meadow? yep, and they also have permission to film the crowd inside and outside the game....though if you film the bloke with he video camera they tend to get upset. Thanks for answering my earlier query Ian They also get upset if they are filming for an hour in the narrows and some character is selling Fanzines and shouting Issue 9 B&A Fanzine ;D
|
|
|
Post by texmexshrew on Feb 27, 2006 21:25:25 GMT 1
yep, and they also have permission to film the crowd inside and outside the game....though if you film the bloke with he video camera they tend to get upset. Thanks for answering my earlier query Ian They also get upset if they are filming for an hour in the narrows and some character is selling Fanzines and shouting Issue 9 B&A Fanzine ;D especially when it was Issue 6 you were selling
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Feb 27, 2006 21:30:47 GMT 1
How bitter and twisted!!!!!!! People know what he has done but in your opinion should he walk around town with a notice round his neck and ringing a bell because he is a B&A outcast? ? i've seen fagin twice since the fanzine saga late one night in al piccolinos and once pre match in the crown where i was about to speak but he looked the other way and blanked me at al pics he'd ordered a pizza and was short of 40p i offered him the 40p which he took he then called me a "tw@t" for revealing the truth about the fanzine if not reading his write ups because of the fanzine saga makes me bitter and twisted then yes i'm bitter and twisted what did i do for him to ignore me ? and as for ian no i don't think you would grass us up and i apologise i know you'd send pms if it was 'serious' sorry i was just ranting
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Feb 27, 2006 21:59:43 GMT 1
Assertions have been made about what is or isn't legal, but have they been tested in the courts? You may think all this is petty but tell that to two snappers I know who were deprived of their income for 2 years. Also another agency had to fork out £18000+ in court costs to defend themselves after Michael Owen's agent claimed is sold an image to the Daily Telegraph as a 'poster' which is deemed a non-editorial picture. IE The Telegraph would be making money out of Michael Owen as kids would be buying the Daily Telegraph cause it had a poster of Owen in it. The big cheeses were out in force at Bolton the other week watching over them like Hawks. Just like the saftey officers go to GM every now and then to check things are running smoothly, if this week was STFC, people would be in the mire - end of story.
|
|
|
Post by cactusshrew on Feb 27, 2006 22:06:44 GMT 1
Assertions have been made about what is or isn't legal, but have they been tested in the courts? You may think all this is petty but tell that to two snappers I know who were deprived of their income for 2 years. Also another agency had to fork out £18000+ in court costs to defend themselves after Michael Owen's agent claimed is sold an image to the Daily Telegraph as a 'poster' which is deemed a non-editorial picture. IE The Telegraph would be making money out of Michael Owen as kids would be buying the Daily Telegraph cause it had a poster of Owen in it. The big cheeses were out in force at Bolton the other week watching over them like Hawks. Just like the saftey officers go to GM every now and then to check things are running smoothly, if this week was STFC, people would be in the mire - end of story. Petty and disproportionate KL8 made a mistake. I take a camera every game home or away. Hang me.
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Feb 27, 2006 22:18:16 GMT 1
so whits and john howarth getting the sack and B+A being closed down by DataCo is petty is it...? im not going to hang you. I was mearly alerting people to the potential consequenses and wanting to protect everybody - just like whits has been telling geoff in times gone.
|
|
|
Post by welshshrew5 on Feb 27, 2006 22:19:26 GMT 1
so whits and john howarth getting the sack and B+A being closed down by DataCo is petty is it...? im not going to hang you. I was mearly alerting people to the potential consequenses and wanting to protect everybody - just like whits has been telling geoff in times gone. Pics have been deleted and hopefully lessons learned
|
|
|
Post by cactusshrew on Feb 27, 2006 22:23:17 GMT 1
so whits and john howarth getting the sack and B+A being closed down by DataCo is petty is it...? im not going to hang you. I was mearly alerting people to the potential consequenses and wanting to protect everybody - just like whits has been telling geoff in times gone. Pics have been deleted and hopefully lessons learned
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2006 22:34:12 GMT 1
Lessons learned??
I've sat back and tried to listen to everything on this thread but let's not make out that what I did was a despicable crime of any sort.
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on Feb 27, 2006 22:38:28 GMT 1
Well, I learned that I should read the terms and conditions before I sign a contract
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2006 23:04:43 GMT 1
This has been a fascinating thread to follow. Better than watching Neighbours
|
|
|
Post by norway on Feb 27, 2006 23:07:15 GMT 1
Typical school day hours, haven't been back to watch Neighbours for 12 years. Which is a good thing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2006 23:09:18 GMT 1
I watch it in my lunchbreak
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on Feb 28, 2006 1:37:27 GMT 1
I think the law is quite clear on this. If I take a photograph than I automatically own the copyright of that photograph (unless I am taking it as part of my employment or I have signed it away to someone else), and that would apply if I took that photograph inside Gay Meadow. Now, Shrewsbury Town may have a no camera rule, in which case they would be in their rights to throw me out of the ground and bar me from ever coming again. However, that does not alter the fact that the photos I'd taken before that happened belonged to me and were my copyright. Similarly, the club could do nothing at all if I or someone else found a vantage point from outside the ground in a public area with a good zoom and managed to take pictures inside the ground. I wouldn't be breaking any law and I would own the copyright on the pictures. lets get back to the logistics and not fagin ! Steve - you are absolutley right.. except one thing. Its not 1975 down the meadow anymore, its 2006. Take it as if Town were playing Chelsea live on BBC and someone from ITV had got in and filmed again. Basically they would be thrown out and prosecuted because BBC brought the rights to film the game. There have been many arguments about shooting and filming in public arenas but in my book me taking pics at GM is the same as me coming to your private residence and taking pictures. Taking pics in a public place is one set of law.. but I am entering a private establishment that unless I pay as a fan, or have media access to, I can not enter. When you enter the ground, if the laws are up on the walls of the riverside or not remains a different issue - and DO YOU REALLY want to drink a hot coffee from McDonalds like in the USA with WARNING HOT DRINK so you cant sue them if you scold yourself - but STFC play in the Football League and are goverened by the League restrictions which are no filming, no pictures - games are covered by SKY, no other websites are allowed to report the match except the official ones or those who pay for dataco stats like BBC etc. Liverpool FC often moan at an agency as they stand in trees to shoot Gerrard training for the Daily Star, Mirror and Sun but subsequently they are banned from shooting actual games at Anfield. Talk Sport is a prime example in the BBC have rights to broadcast from the ground, and TS commentate from monitors in the studio getting around the rights issue. Technically if you rang Beacon Radio from the terraces and gave a report live from the ground you would be breaking severe rules as the BBC have broadcast rights from the ground. Its Shrewsbury Town's 'house' and what is filmed, recorded, photographed, advertised is up to them. Like Whits, I was simply pointing out the wrongs of what was done as I simply dont want Whits or the club getting into trouble - as they will if found out and the consequences are not nice. Shoot the Meadow and record your own memories for prosterity but just dont produce a 50 page unofficial publication as you will get done and STFC will get done by the League for allowing unaccredited people in the ground. Publishing laws apply to the internet too. The rules of a football club and the law of the land are two very different things. As I said, the club could ban me for life from the ground for taking pictures and publishing them, but those pictures would still be my copyright. The rules on videoing the match are more complex as the game could be seen as a production, thus there would be asigned rights. Still photos though, no problem. The rights are with the photographer, full stop in this case.
|
|
|
Post by dshrew on Feb 28, 2006 1:57:22 GMT 1
Good picture's.
|
|