Sailor backdrop from 2009 tour inquiry - @RobertAtherto12

Tweets from @RobertAtherto12 / Twitter:

who can I talk with about something to with the tour of 2009... it is more than the the tour... well copy right has been .broken with the .backdrop that was used...I have the negative s of the foto shoot, get back to me

robertatherto12.jpg







Related item:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's just a small thing, what's the big deal? People take without credit all the time, especially on the internet, right?

The person who owned the 'football boys' photo used in a backdrop also contacted me long ago mentioning never being contacted / asked permission for its use. Seems to be a pattern, surely someone seriously considering running for Mayor of London will want to make sure these 'oversights' are corrected and give credit where it is due.

:lbf:

Hilariously nonsensical.
 
I didn't intend to come out as any regulator of copyright, I'm saying if I were going to use someone's photo in that way I'd give credit / contact the source for permission.

As far as the site is concerned, I will take down any violations if there is a valid request.

Simple question: So some copyright might have been broken. What does that person want from YOU then? Honestly, it stinks. And, of course, instead of privately replying to that person that he has to turn to Morrisseys people who clear copyrights for him (because he obviously doesn't do it himself. Nobody does. And people who own copyrights usually know this) you decide to post it here. Sorry, I fail to see how this helps anybody.
 
very true, if someone is running for mayor of london we should hold him to a certain ethical standard. ffs if he is going to berate us for eating a cheese burger the least he can do is to give proper credit to those whose work he used in an unauthorized manner. nobody is expecting him to actually pay, we know that cant possibly happen.
 
Simple question: So some copyright might have been broken. What does that person want from YOU then? Honestly, it stinks. And, of course, instead of privately replying to that person that he has to turn to Morrisseys people who clear copyrights for him (because he obviously doesn't do it himself. Nobody does. And people who own copyrights usually know this) you decide to post it here. Sorry, I fail to see how this helps anybody.

I think that sums it up quite well.
 
Simple question: So some copyright might have been broken. What does that person want from YOU then? Honestly, it stinks. And, of course, instead of privately replying to that person that he has to turn to Morrisseys people who clear copyrights for him (because he obviously doesn't do it himself. Nobody does. And people who own copyrights usually know this) you decide to post it here. Sorry, I fail to see how this helps anybody.

Yet again, yet again, yet again, here you are, suspending logic, and riding in to decry all nay-sayers. You're a trier, I'll give you that. Wrong on every occasion, but a trier.
 
Simple question: So some copyright might have been broken. What does that person want from YOU then? Honestly, it stinks. And, of course, instead of privately replying to that person that he has to turn to Morrisseys people who clear copyrights for him (because he obviously doesn't do it himself. Nobody does. And people who own copyrights usually know this) you decide to post it here. Sorry, I fail to see how this helps anybody.

You fail to see it because you're blinded by stupidity. The real story would be that you could see anything at all.

- Miniskinny
 
The copyright stuff I actually didn't even think much about, yeah not really much I'm going to do about it but maybe someone else can help. It was more interesting that the photo posted included some different shots of the sailor I don't recall being posted before. The discussion of backdrops I like also as I like the different photos and appreciate those who provide some insight on them. I had totally forgotten about the Derek Ridgers post that Detritus posted earlier.

Simple question: So some copyright might have been broken. What does that person want from YOU then? Honestly, it stinks. And, of course, instead of privately replying to that person that he has to turn to Morrisseys people who clear copyrights for him (because he obviously doesn't do it himself. Nobody does. And people who own copyrights usually know this) you decide to post it here. Sorry, I fail to see how this helps anybody.
 
Last edited:
Derek Ridgers, who took the photograph of the skinhead girls used during the Your Arsenal tour, wrote a lengthy blog post some years ago detailing a similar experience. He had given Morrissey permission for one-time use of the photo as a backdrop at a show in France, and when he saw it turning up on tour programs, t-shirts and tour passes, which breached their agreement, he unsuccessfully attempted to seek some sort of reimbursement; he was given the run-around.

It was a long, elaborate story, but unfortunately the blog post is no longer online. Some of the details can be read here: http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/w0003614.html

Isn't this what you are looking for/talking about?: http://www.derekridgers.com/blog/skinhead-girls-bank-holiday-brighton-1980
 
The copyright stuff I actually didn't even think much about, yeah not really much I'm going to do about it but maybe someone else can help. It was more interesting that the photo posted included some different shots of the sailor I don't recall being posted before. The discussion of backdrops I like also as I like the different photos and appreciate those who provide some insight on them. I had totally forgotten about the Derek Ridgers post that Detritus posted earlier.

Shouldn't this site start to beep when you back up like that. ;) I think it was pretty obvious from your previous reference towards mayoral candidacy (not exactly talking Jeffrey Archer here are we) what your motivations were.

If either Derek Ridgers or the Twitterer had or have any legal right to recompense then the story might become interesting. But sending an illiterate tweet to a fansite 7 years after the event is hardly the way to go about it.
 
Shouldn't this site start to beep when you back up like that. ;) I think it was pretty obvious from your previous reference towards mayoral candidacy (not exactly talking Jeffrey Archer here are we) what your motivations were.

If either Derek Ridgers or the Twitterer had or have any legal right to recompense then the story might become interesting. But sending an illiterate tweet to a fansite 7 years after the event is hardly the way to go about it.

The motivation of this anonymous "claim" is so obvious... Some people are very concerned about Morrissey's candidacy! Hurra!! Politics is a pigsty
 
Yes - Morrissey stole the image for the backdrop, but unlike the Derek Ridgers case, I don't recall them selling any T-shirts, mugs, etc with this image on at the merch booth during the tour. So, it would be hard to prove Morrissey actually made any money out of it - though one would still expect a courtesy payment for using someone's photo without permission.

But, we live in an internet world now, where copyright is ignored on a daily basis, as people just Google Image search and nick anything they like the look of. Does Morrissey have permission from the copyright holders for all those manipulated Sam Esty Rayner monstrosities that are posted online every week? Do all the musicians (New York Dolls, etc etc) he plays on his intro videos before his shows earn a penny for the public performance of their work? Of course not.

I'm not saying it's right, but this is the world we find ourselves in.
 
Many years ago, the Happy Cow web page misappropriated one of my photos. I appreciate their site and didn't want any money for the use of the photo. I just didn't like that they gave photo credit to one of their editors and stamped their logo into it. But the good news is they stopped! I finally checked after many years and they are no longer misappropriating my photo. Here are the photos they use now:

http://www.happycow.net/reviews/pokez-san-diego-3376

Another story. Way back in the 90s, a Morrissey fan who contributes to this site (I won't say his name otherwise my post will likely be censored) took an original Moz concert photo from my web page and used it on his web page. He didn't give photo credit. I thought that was rude. On top of the fact that I had never met him and people were telling me he was poop-talking about me and he actually had the opportunity to say something to my face because someone pointed him out to me once. Weird, huh?

#MeatIsMurder

Yes - Morrissey stole the image for the backdrop, but unlike the Derek Ridgers case, I don't recall them selling any T-shirts, mugs, etc with this image on at the merch booth during the tour. So, it would be hard to prove Morrissey actually made any money out of it - though one would still expect a courtesy payment for using someone's photo without permission.

But, we live in an internet world now, where copyright is ignored on a daily basis, as people just Google Image search and nick anything they like the look of. Does Morrissey have permission from the copyright holders for all those manipulated Sam Esty Rayner monstrosities that are posted online every week? Do all the musicians (New York Dolls, etc etc) he plays on his intro videos before his shows earn a penny for the public performance of their work? Of course not.

I'm not saying it's right, but this is the world we find ourselves in.
 
Talking more seriously, there's a big misunderstanding here about what copyright is. Even more, about what stealing is. Since intelectual rights are territorial rights, internet has complicated things. Basically, we can say there's a copyright violation only about a specific jurisdiction. As much as some people dream about a worldwide government with global regulations, the jurisdiction is territorial and regulated by domestic law. America is not the world. We shouldn't make accusations until a court says there's a violation of a right in a particular situation.
That's why it's said intelectual property protects mainly rich people and companies: they can pay the cost of international acces to courts of justice.

Of course there's a moral right as the author of some material. But we all know that when our creation reachs the internet, anything can happen. The only way to protect something completly is to preserve it between four walls. Some years ago I posted some pics of a hotel in Trip Advisor and they used them on their website. I'm glad they found them useful, I don't feel like they should have mentioned me. I published those photos voluntarily on internet and I didn't make any reservation about their use.
 
i did about the fot being used on the 2009 tour and the tee being for up for sale, the foto came from a book called UNiforms by fotofactory..the foto was not the online.....i payed for male model--- and for the two day foto shoot..and i do have all the paper work..the foto is copyrights from book and from myself...the fotoi have the negs..i have to lawyers..i dont want do this..i would like be know how this came about..i am upset ,if they had my name why not e-mail-or call me..if this was done to you would be piss off. he has done this to one other person.....i dont knwo about--how would i ???
 
my foto has copyright, it was not online...the fot is from a foto-shoot that i pay for.. the foto come from a book Uniforms by fotofactory..the book is also has copyright..i pay for male model and the come from model one...i worked in a foto lab to print the foto.. robert
 
that all i am saying. come on it it just for the fun it some money for my famly... my name all over website talking about it and the book ...and the tour..
 
my foto has copyright, it was not online...the fot is from a foto-shoot that i pay for.. the foto come from a book Uniforms by fotofactory..the book is also has copyright..i pay for male model and the come from model one...i worked in a foto lab to print the foto.. robert

Hi there,

Your photo is great...truly one of the more striking backdrops Moz has used IMHO.

Unfortunately, I don't believe you have grounds for a copyright infringement case for two reasons:

1) In the USA, there is a three-year statute of limitation for civil cases related to copyright infringement. Since the last public use of your picture was 2009, your chance to file a copyright infringement suit ended in 2012.

2) And...even if you had filed within the appropriate timeframe, I don't think you would have had a case, because I am sure that Moz's lawyers would have argued that the use of your photo as the concert backdrop fell within what is known as "fair use". That is when someone uses a copyrighted photo in a limited context to comment upon, satirize, or critique said work. No permission is required from the copyright holder to use a work in a "fair use" context.
It certainly could have been argued he was using the photo to comment upon masculinity, compulsory heterosexuality, gender roles, etc...
 
Last edited:

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom