Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2006 22:32:24 GMT 1
Pictures removed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2006 22:34:54 GMT 1
As above.
|
|
|
Post by telfordSHREWS on Feb 25, 2006 22:38:31 GMT 1
Tolleys nose looks ok, nice pics Terry they should be used in the matchday program.
|
|
|
Post by derek johnson on Feb 25, 2006 23:13:29 GMT 1
where is your football league license..?
|
|
|
Post by somersetshrew on Feb 26, 2006 0:47:34 GMT 1
Excellent photos Geoff
|
|
|
Post by shakers on Feb 26, 2006 1:47:51 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by peteintokyo on Feb 26, 2006 2:36:43 GMT 1
Thanks for the pictures....can't believe we lost though.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 26, 2006 10:49:44 GMT 1
geoff you really sure you want that work experience in the summer?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2006 11:02:50 GMT 1
Well done. Nice photos on both sites. Must have some good kit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2006 11:28:08 GMT 1
geoff you really sure you want that work experience in the summer? Ian, I don't understand what the problem is? Please confirm. Regards,
G
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 26, 2006 13:28:49 GMT 1
yes you do as i've explained it many times before.
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Feb 26, 2006 16:50:07 GMT 1
totally out of order geoff you will have no one to do work experience with if whits gets sacked by STFC for allowing in a non-bonafide snapper who has no license and then them getting published on a site rivalling the premium tv sites which also generates money from advertising. Ant and co could get into trouble too for housing them. it may seem petty but its serious business FIFA are arguing with the WNA about website publication for images at the world cup. SKy dont pay millions to get non-rights footage. Whitters didnt leave his comfortable job in London to come up here to work for STFC getting paid by Dataco and FL income generated from the official website. I never see your dad at Everton shooting pics..? Why dont u show us some of his premiership stuff.. Prob because he knows he cant get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Feb 26, 2006 16:56:31 GMT 1
totally out of order geoff you will have no one to do work experience with if whits gets sacked by STFC for allowing in a non-bonafide snapper who has no license and then them getting published on a site rivalling the premium tv sites which also generates money from advertising. Ant and co could get into trouble too for housing them. it may seem petty but its serious business FIFA are arguing with the WNA about website publication for images at the world cup. SKy dont pay millions to get non-rights footage. Whitters didnt leave his comfortable job in London to come up here to work for STFC getting paid by Dataco and FL income generated from the official website. I never see your dad at Everton shooting pics..? Why dont u show us some of his premiership stuff.. Prob because he knows he cant get away with it. So is it illegal to take photos inside the ground? or is it just illegal to publish to a web site? or both? serious question
|
|
|
Post by somersetshrew on Feb 26, 2006 16:58:54 GMT 1
How does someone get a license?
As far as Im concerned, these aren't competing with "bona fida" photographers, they are snapshots by a fan, although I dont know the legal ins and outs of it. I'd like to know the position though.
good quality pics though, with excellent use of depth of field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2006 17:02:03 GMT 1
This Message Board isn't competing with Shrewsworld as it's not a website purelya place for discussion.
I could see the arguments if we were using geoff's pictures on the B&A website - but we're not.
Anyways - there are never any photos on Shrewsweb, what's all the fuss about?
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 26, 2006 17:04:03 GMT 1
technically both..match action is covered by dataco licence and match action can't be taken..it's a tough one to be police.
dunc had a load of problems a while back at some grounds with the stewards doing their jobs and telling him to cease taking photos.
basically i should forward this thread to dataco.
all match action whether images, stills or commentary are covered by different licences from the fl so they look to protect what is basically their intellectual property.
with geoffs shrewsworld theft the other week i'm not going to report him but just highlight it to him, i know flptv are looking to bring prosecution against a load of people who are hosting their clips illegally.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 26, 2006 17:06:13 GMT 1
Anyways - there are never any photos on Shrewsweb, what's all the fuss about? Link------> no can put up full galleries after each game but no ones ever asked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2006 17:11:36 GMT 1
The argument about PTV revenue is not a valid one. The club maid £5k (that's FIVE thousand) out of Internet/ TV agreements in the financial year ending 31/05/05.
That said the club could be utilising their match action.
A page on the club's website with 20 seperate links to 20 photos = 20 hits. A page on the club's website with one article of 2,000 words = 1 hit
Why this has never been incorporated I don't know, very much a waste of potential.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2006 17:12:43 GMT 1
Anyways - there are never any photos on Shrewsweb, what's all the fuss about? Link------> no can put up full galleries after each game but no ones ever asked. That's incorrect Ian. I have told you the benefits of putting up full galleries on a number of occasions since the PTV deal began but it has never been tried.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2006 17:14:26 GMT 1
Anyways - there are never any photos on Shrewsweb, what's all the fuss about? Link------> no can put up full galleries after each game but no ones ever asked. Whitters matey - why does someone need to ask to have a gallery put up? Surely it makes sense that if you have a load of photos taken for you that you should use them? There are a massive four photos on that report
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2006 17:15:10 GMT 1
Calm down- Please.
My dad took his camera yesterday for the first time in months and I just thought I'd share his pictures..
As for the video I made recently, I didn't, Nor did I plan for it to be posted on here.
I will refrain from doing this in future.
G
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on Feb 26, 2006 17:31:05 GMT 1
I can see the arguments for not taking photos and publishing them on any website. Whether that's right or not is a different question. But, as a subscriber to ShrewsWorld, I buy access to commentaries and video-clips. One of the options is to download the video-clips, presumeably ptv, or any other owner of copyright, then have given up any right to say what I can and can't do with what I have bought and legally downloaded. Reminds me of the bootlegged tapes and concert photographs that were so prized. Oh, and Ian, how did you meet Mattsnapper ?
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 26, 2006 17:56:43 GMT 1
i am calm, just pointing out a few points of the media to you, if you want to work in the media in the future last thing you want on your record is an injuction from dataco. and you know all about the photos as we've had this discussion on a number of occasions.. and the video was created by yourself and posted on here so the blame is with yourself.
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on Feb 26, 2006 17:58:58 GMT 1
But, as a subscriber to ShrewsWorld, I buy access to commentaries and video-clips. One of the options is to download the video-clips, presumeably ptv, or any other owner of copyright, then have given up any right to say what I can and can't do with what I have bought and legally downloaded. Just read the terms of use and coyright info - I stand corrected - personal use on personal computer type language.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 26, 2006 18:01:22 GMT 1
The argument about PTV revenue is not a valid one. The club maid £5k (that's FIVE thousand) out of Internet/ TV agreements in the financial year ending 31/05/05.. that's not true, if it's on the accounts then it's well wrong.. hits don't count to the revenues on the websites anymore to putting up a gallery wouldn't help. www.salopixs.co.uk was created ages back but hasn't been updated due to the lack or real feedback on it. most things have been tried but only things which people want are the ones i focus on. i tend to work on feedback from the fans as i'm only one person so only have a certain amount of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 26, 2006 18:04:39 GMT 1
But, as a subscriber to ShrewsWorld, I buy access to commentaries and video-clips. One of the options is to download the video-clips, presumeably ptv, or any other owner of copyright, then have given up any right to say what I can and can't do with what I have bought and legally downloaded. Reminds me of the bootlegged tapes and concert photographs that were so prized. Oh, and Ian, how did you meet Mattsnapper ? my mum sent me the star and i scanned them to accompany the articles once html came to standard which allowed the img tag.. matt got in touch and said 'oi you've nicked my photos without my permission' i said sorry and have never used a photo without permission (or retro permission) since, say 8 years ago. you can download shrewsweb clips for personal use, but to edit them together into a 'goals of the season' and pass it off as your own work is against the copyright on shrewsworld.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2006 18:10:22 GMT 1
The accounts state £5k from 'television and internet portal income'
Maybe I should be sending this thread to companies house ;-)
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Feb 26, 2006 18:33:16 GMT 1
Not necessarily a comment on the " debate" between KL8 and Whitters/Matt but I'm getting a bit cheesed off with the constant "intellectual property rights" argument in sports, music, films etc, which is yet another annoying Yank-ism that has made it over here I'm happy that for photos it applies to unauthorised pictures that are then on-sold for profitable gain but I cannot support it being applied to a few pics taken by a fan in the ground and posted to show his mates. Just yet again shows how the focus on football now is more about money and not sport By the way, just out of interest, if a licenced photographer takes a picture of a crowd scene, what about the intellectual property rights of the people in that crowd - surely dataco's rights only apply to the players, officials and club staff in the ground, I don't ever remember signing anything to say they could use my image?? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 26, 2006 18:33:30 GMT 1
The accounts state £5k from 'television and internet portal income' Maybe I should be sending this thread to companies house ;-) think you should as the website makes approx £12k per annum.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 26, 2006 18:36:02 GMT 1
By the way, just out of interest, if a licenced photographer takes a picture of a crowd scene, what about the intellectual property rights of the people in that crowd - surely dataco's rights only apply to the players, officials and club staff in the ground, I don't ever remember signing anything to say they could use my image?? Just a thought. it's in the ground regs, same as if you goto a concert where it says on the back of the ticket than by gaining entry you are agreeing to be used in any audio/visual medium that may be released after the date of that concert/game. in all post to geoffrey i've never asked him to take any pics/videos down, just pointed out the legal position he's putting himself in, a bit of freindly advice.
|
|