Kawasaki - Club Citta' (Apr. 21, 2012) post-show

cornelius blaze said:
tumblr_m1gfwbnB9J1r9qdkno1_400.gif
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
Iona Mink said:
I'm afraid I disagree. The photo was that of a typed setlist which was publicly distributed without charge and little else (a thumb), it did not show a person, copyrighted image, brand or trademark. The person posted this picture on a publicly accessible website in the public domain without a watermark and without a disclaimer to inform that these images were private property and could not be reproduced in anyway without written permission. I did not change, save or upload the image from my own personal hard drive and that in fact the photo was linked to a page that should someone wish to source the image would lead them to the original posting. It is like saying a hyperlink has a copyright. It does not.

If I should use the image to be reproduced elsewhere and take credit for that image then you would be correct.

This whole credit should be given started by the frink harridans of yore. If we take it to it's logical conclusion, (one user went back to edit her post for fear of being called out on this), should we credit all our avatars? Youtube links? Should CB credit the person who made every gif he uses, should that credit extend to the copyright holder of the source material, including cameraman and year? This crediting people is at a maddening level by a few anally retentive people and I didn't appreciate the smug, matronly tone that was extended to me.
Click to expand...

An interesting view on crediting. Does the term 'giving credit where credit is due' need to be changed with this new age of media?

With all the info on the site coming from all directions I sometimes struggle with it. I personally give credit if I know where it is from and if I saw it from another site, I'll say something like 'via this other site'. I don't think of it as a copyright issue so much as an etiquette issue. If someone saw or took something from this site I think a mention / link would be nice and likewise if I see something I like to see the source properly credited.

For an avatar or animated gif in a discussion forum I feel it is not as important to credit as an informative bit of info such as a set list or photo.
 
davidt said:
An interesting view on crediting. Does the term 'giving credit where credit is due' need to be changed with this new age of media?

With all the info on the site coming from all directions I sometimes struggle with it. I personally give credit if I know where it is from and if I saw it from another site, I'll say something like 'via this other site'. I don't think of it as a copyright issue so much as an etiquette issue. If someone saw or took something from this site I think a mention / link would be nice and likewise if I see something I like to see the source properly credited.

For an avatar or animated gif in a discussion forum I feel it is not as important to credit as an informative bit of info such as a set list or photo.
Click to expand...

To be honest, it is murky water. The BBC and I think, AFP, are currently in lawsuits over this. My reasoning is if you put a link when discussing something, is that not enough? Uploading photos from a url is sourcing the content (assuming you haven't uploaded something from a personal flickr page or the like).

I think you are right about it being an issue of etiquette. Personally I feel if it is in the public domain then you relinquish all rights for reproduction (unless money is involved), especially if it posted on a public account on a social network. I also see the difference between a news organisation which for the most part would pay for such material and an individual using the image not for personal gain. To me it's like talking loudly at a party and then someone repeats what you say. You can't feign outrage when you've allowed everyone to hear.
 
klaus said:
tumblr_m2sj0uUUjC1r4wf1co1_250.jpg


from f***yeahmoz.tumblr.com
Click to expand...

Awwww. :sweet:

The Japanese have awesome snacks. I hope he's buying some. Not Squid Crackers though. :p
 
klaus said:
tumblr_m2sj0uUUjC1r4wf1co1_250.jpg


from f***yeahmoz.tumblr.com
Click to expand...


That photo has been circulating for the past few years. Notice that it is actually in a Borders Bookstore which, as some of you may know, went out of business several months ago. All stores were closed worldwide. Therefore, it is obvious that this photo was not taken recently let alone in Japan.
 
davidt said:
An interesting view on crediting. Does the term 'giving credit where credit is due' need to be changed with this new age of media?

With all the info on the site coming from all directions I sometimes struggle with it. I personally give credit if I know where it is from and if I saw it from another site, I'll say something like 'via this other site'. I don't think of it as a copyright issue so much as an etiquette issue. If someone saw or took something from this site I think a mention / link would be nice and likewise if I see something I like to see the source properly credited.

For an avatar or animated gif in a discussion forum I feel it is not as important to credit as an informative bit of info such as a set list or photo.
Click to expand...

You can have this for free davidt- I denounce morrissey.22/4/12.
 
Anonymous said:
That photo has been circulating for the past few years. Notice that it is actually in a Borders Bookstore which, as some of you may know, went out of business several months ago. All stores were closed worldwide. Therefore, it is obvious that this photo was not taken recently let alone in Japan.
Click to expand...

Lol! Is that a photoshopped David? I don't even know what he looks like. :D

Well anyway, Moz should go get some Japanese snacks. :thumb: While looking that cute.
 
That's the common misconception. The reality is that unless a work creator distributes his/her work through a Web site *with* a statement that the work is being licensed under a share-and-share alike (or similar) GNU license, the work (which in this case includes a picture of someone's thumbnail) is automatically copyrighted by and for the creator. Publishing an image on a Web site does not inherently reduce or eliminate the copyrights of the creator. If that was the case, then all the music that's ever been distributed across the Web would automatically eliminate the actual rightholders' [BMI/ASCAP/etc] rights. An image doesn't need a brand, watermark, or trademark either.

Hyperlinks are not the same as images.

The image of the setlist (which was made unique by the person's thumbnail) was very likely *not* distributed to the show's audience. Some members of the audience were given or took a physical copy of the various setlists. The information those setlists contained is not really protect-able because anyone could claim to just have written down the song sequence. But at issue isn't the attribution of the information--but the photo itself.

fwiw



Iona Mink said:
I'm afraid I disagree. The photo illustrated that of a typed setlist which was publicly distributed to the show's audience, without charge and little else (a thumb), it did not show a person, copyrighted image, brand or trademark. The person posted this picture on a publicly accessible website in the public domain without a watermark and without a disclaimer to inform that these images were private property and could not be reproduced in any way without written permission or authorisation. I did not change, save or upload the image from my own personal hard drive and that in fact the photo was linked to a page that should someone wish to source the image would lead them to the original posting. It is like saying a hyperlink has a copyright. It does not.

If I should use the image to be reproduced elsewhere and take credit for that image then you would be correct.
Click to expand...
 
alainsane said:
That's the common misconception. The reality is that unless a work creator distributes his/her work through a Web site *with* a statement that the work is being licensed under a share-and-share alike (or similar) GNU license, the work (which in this case includes a picture of someone's thumbnail) is automatically copyrighted by and for the creator. Publishing an image on a Web site does not inherently reduce or eliminate the copyrights of the creator. If that was the case, then all the music that's ever been distributed across the Web would automatically eliminate the actual rightholders' [BMI/ASCAP/etc] rights. An image doesn't need a brand, watermark, or trademark either.

Hyperlinks are not the same as images.

The image of the setlist (which was made unique by the person's thumbnail) was very likely *not* distributed to the show's audience. Some members of the audience were given or took a physical copy of the various setlists. The information those setlists contained is not really protect-able because anyone could claim to just have written down the song sequence. But at issue isn't the attribution of the information--but the photo itself.

fwiw
Click to expand...

Are you saying that by linking (and that is important, I haven't reproduced it nor has this site) to a publicly accessible page which contains an object that has been placed in the public domain, I have infringed copyright?

And I'm not saying that something has to contain a trademark for it to be copyrighted, they were merely examples of why I don't believe a photo of a setlist posted on Twitter has copyright. The difference with your music example is that by linking to that photo I am not attempting to profit from it, nor am I reducing that object's value. So in this instance, I would cite fair use.

Anyway once again, Kewpie creates a shitstorm and then is absent for the aftermath, leaving the remnants to bicker amongst themselves. Again, I have succumbed. No one's fault but my own.
 
Last edited:
Anonymous said:
That photo has been circulating for the past few years. Notice that it is actually in a Borders Bookstore which, as some of you may know, went out of business several months ago. All stores were closed worldwide. Therefore, it is obvious that this photo was not taken recently let alone in Japan.
Click to expand...

It's just a nice picture. Take it easy.
 
Re: Article: Sendai - Zepp Sendai (Apr. 19, 2012) post-show

Iona Mink said:
Thanks David.

I have a vague recollection that this was once used as a pre-show video. Or am I making that up?
Click to expand...

True. Shirley Basseys version of "To give" (live for italian television) was used as a pre show-video on the "Refusal" tour. Stunningly beautiful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

davidt
Tokyo - Zepp Tokyo (Apr. 24, 2012) post-show
2
Replies
29
Views
17K
Miss Garden
Miss Garden
davidt
"Suedehead" (Mael Mix) released (UK - April 21, 2012)
2
Replies
20
Views
18K
Satan rejected my soul
Satan rejected my soul
G
Re-releases: "Viva Hate" (Mar. 26, 2012) and "Suedehead" (Apr. 23, 2012)- true-to-you.net
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
39K
Anonymous
A
davidt
Tel Aviv, Israel date confirmed, on sale now - Bitan 1 club (July 21)
Replies
5
Views
7K
Anonymous
A
davidt
Fans of The Smiths invited to Salford Lads Club (Mar. 3, 2012)
Replies
4
Views
6K
Anonymous
A

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom