Swindon Town v Tottenham Hotspur 16th July 19:00

[onlyme]

I assume he got paid by Swindon for taking the photos?

 

[spurspinter1]

It's not really about you, numb plums. But have a good girn, if you like.

It's the idea that some poor sod working for STFC has gone out and provided his client with quite decent quality images, expecting those images to be properly used on the Swindon site and in their editorial products. Nowhere, in any pro shooter's deal would it countenance the unauthorized use of those images on another site without proper permission or payment.

That poor photog is likely a striver hoping for better things in life and has gone out and leased a top quality camera system, like Nikon's D4 or D800, or Canon's D1X. They cost thousands of pounds. The big lenses needed to take those images cost even more. He's put himself out a bit to make these images and a visit from Spurs is probably the highlight of his season.

Now, Swindon, being the third-tier side that they are, likely haven't got the money to provide internet skills to properly protect those images from pilferage. A shame, but not the photog's fault.

Now, in the absence of any mitigating information, I can only assume our humble moderator, Jordinho, has nimbly nipped in to the Swindon site and nabbed 'em without any prior permission, posted 'em to this site and no one seems to care that an act of theft has taken place.

The poor bastard who took them originally has received nothing for the additional usage.

I take issue with that. And I hate to think they'll be doing this with Spurs own club photog's. Surely this site is better than that.

You clearly are less than that.

If this is something you feel strongly about then actually talk to the moderators about it in the appropriate manner rather than spamming this thread.

 

[braineclipse]

It's not really about you, numb plums. But have a good girn, if you like.

It's the idea that some poor sod working for STFC has gone out and provided his client with quite decent quality images, expecting those images to be properly used on the Swindon site and in their editorial products. Nowhere, in any pro shooter's deal would it countenance the unauthorized use of those images on another site without proper permission or payment.

That poor photog is likely a striver hoping for better things in life and has gone out and leased a top quality camera system, like Nikon's D4 or D800, or Canon's D1X. They cost thousands of pounds. The big lenses needed to take those images cost even more. He's put himself out a bit to make these images and a visit from Spurs is probably the highlight of his season.

Now, Swindon, being the third-tier side that they are, likely haven't got the money to provide internet skills to properly protect those images from pilferage. A shame, but not the photog's fault.

Now, in the absence of any mitigating information, I can only assume our humble moderator, Jordinho, has nimbly nipped in to the Swindon site and nabbed 'em without any prior permission, posted 'em to this site and no one seems to care that an act of theft has taken place.

The poor bastard who took them originally has received nothing for the additional usage.

I take issue with that. And I hate to think they'll be doing this with Spurs own club photog's. Surely this site is better than that.

You clearly are less than that.

Any internet forum in the world comparable to gg that pays for the right to use images comparable to these?

Do you take the same issue with articles being copy-pasted (with links)?

 

[greatwhitenorf]

I assume he got paid by Swindon for taking the photos?

Never assume. First day of journalism school.

 

[Jordinho]

What digital theft actually is I guess we won't agree on, but I didn't steal them or even copy them, I merely hotlinked them. Did Swindon's site lose any traffic from this, thus income from ads: 99.99% certain no. These are just my personal opinions, but I wouldn't put stuff online and expect nobody to link to it or download a copy.

 

[greatwhitenorf]

Any internet forum in the world comparable to gg that pays for the right to use images comparable to these?

Do you take the same issue with articles being copy-pasted (with links)?

It's not about any other site. It's about this one, the one I read and participate in. I want standards.

Yeah, I take issue with all sorts of sites. A lot of my colleagues are doing the same. The profession is under huge stress. You love the work we provide but don't want to pay for it.

How scummy do we have to be here to make you happy?

 

[greatwhitenorf]

What digital theft actually is I guess we won't agree on, but I didn't steal them or even copy them, I merely hotlinked them. Did Swindon's site lose any traffic from this, thus income from ads: 99.99% certain no. These are just my personal opinions, but I wouldn't put stuff online and expect nobody to link to it or download a copy.

Did you pay for the use of the images? Did you arrange for prior permission to use the images on this site?

You didn't even have the decency to give the shooter a name credit.

Just stop. Subscribe to higher values.

 

[onlyme]

Never assume. First day of journalism school.

So are you suggesting he did not get paid?

 

[greatwhitenorf]

If this is something you feel strongly about then actually talk to the moderators about it in the appropriate manner rather than spamming this thread.

Sorry boychuck. Apart from taking this issue out to the people who should be involved - SWFC and their photogs - this is far and away the most effective tactic to bring the issue to light.

It won't end with this discussion or this game. I respect my colleagues and my profession too much to let this slip any further.

Deals can be made. Only the lazy or inept refuse to make the effort.

 

[greatwhitenorf]

So are you suggesting he did not get paid?

Doesn't matter who paid him or how he's paid. If this site didn't pay for them, or arrange for their usage, they shouldn't be appearing.

A lot of shooters get paid per usage. If the images get used outside of the original deal, that's billable. If it's pirated, that's indictable.

 

[braineclipse]

It's not about any other site. It's about this one, the one I read and participate in. I want standards.

Yeah, I take issue with all sorts of sites. A lot of my colleagues are doing the same. The profession is under huge stress. You love the work we provide but don't want to pay for it.

How scummy do we have to be here to make you happy?

So what is common practice doesn't matter?

Expecting a relatively small non-profit forum to pay for image rights for photos seems completely unrealistic to me. If this is the solution to the stress your profession is feeling then the best of luck to you - you need it.

 

[greatwhitenorf]

So what is common practice doesn't matter?

Expecting a relatively small non-profit forum to pay for image rights for photos seems completely unrealistic to me. If this is the solution to the stress your profession is feeling then the best of luck to you - you need it.

When did theft become common practice? It's a crime and can't be tolerated.

So here I am, baby. Signed, sealed, delivered.

I'm Spurs through and through. We love to boast about our standards.

Somewhere, somehow, those standards have to be implemented. If theft and plagiarisation are what you need to enjoy Spurs, best of luck to you. But the issue is now out there for our moderators to deal with. Hopefully, they're up to the task.

At this point , it's in their hands to make matters work honourably. If they can't do that, don't run the images. The quality of discussions and commentary is still a cut above.

 

[braineclipse]

When did theft become common practice? It's a crime and can't be tolerated.

So here I am, baby. Signed, sealed, delivered.

I'm Spurs through and through. We love to boast about our standards.

Somewhere, somehow, those standards have to be implemented. If theft and plagiarisation are what you need to enjoy Spurs, best of luck to you. But the issue is now out there for our moderators to deal with. Hopefully, they're up to the task.

At this point , it's in their hands to make matters work honourably. If they can't do that, don't run the images. The quality of discussions and commentary is still a cut above.

Here you are, asking questions you know the answers to, generalizing and hyperbolizing.

To me pictures posted on a forum isn't all that different to a pub cutting out a picture from the paper and hanging it up on the wall. Of course pubs are run for profit whereas most forums aren't.

Asking for pre-internet models of payment to be implemented really hasn't worked well online for any content type I can think of off the top of my head. Don't let that stop you, it's probably from of a lack of trying from the music and movie industries.

 

[greatwhitenorf]

No, here I am asking legitimate questions about the morality of this site and it's operators.

Why do the operators of this site have to join you and other selfish others as standard-free bottom feeders?

Spurs fans love to spout about the morality of the club, what a properly-run club it is compared to money-grubbing oligarch plaything rivals. So why do those standards get chucked out when it comes something more basic like photo rights?

These images weren't taken on the fly by a fan with some cheap little phone cam. If they were, I wouldn't care. Instead, they were created by a skilled operator using some pretty expensive cameras and lenses and weren't created to be pilfered. Same goes for the images from next week's games and the week after and so on.

Why does G-G have to be an entity subscribing to lesser morals? And again, I assume lower morals are in play here in the absence of any proper explanation of how the images were obtained.

A little integrity goes a long way.

 

[spitshine]

So the paparazzi are complaining about an alleged intrusion ? Have I got this right.,,!!?
STFC have played their biggest game of the season and fans were their to witness one of modern day greats.

 

[Spursalot]

No, here I am asking legitimate questions about the morality of this site and it's operators.

Why do the operators of this site have to join you and other selfish others as standard-free bottom feeders?

Spurs fans love to spout about the morality of the club, what a properly-run club it is compared to money-grubbing oligarch plaything rivals. So why do those standards get chucked out when it comes something more basic like photo rights?

These images weren't taken on the fly by a fan with some cheap little phone cam. If they were, I wouldn't care. Instead, they were created by a skilled operator using some pretty expensive cameras and lenses and weren't created to be pilfered. Same goes for the images from next week's games and the week after and so on.

Why does G-G have to be an entity subscribing to lesser morals? And again, I assume lower morals are in play here in the absence of any proper explanation of how the images were obtained.

A little integrity goes a long way.

I have a question. Would the photographer have made more money if we were to view them on the Swindon site?


Oh, and welcome to the internet. Copyright has very little meaning here.

 

[THFC6061]

I have a question. Would the photographer have made more money if we were to view them on the Swindon site?


Oh, and welcome to the internet. Copyright has very little meaning here.

Tell me about it!

My footy stats are always being lifted and very rarely is any permission asked or credit given.

But that's the nature of the beast, unfortunately.

 

[greatwhitenorf]

I have a question. Would the photographer have made more money if we were to view them on the Swindon site?


Oh, and welcome to the internet. Copyright has very little meaning here.

Copyright means the same wherever an original artwork or manuscript is used. It's usually a matter of willingness to enforce it. Usually, when a prompt, polite request to cease and desist is made, the images are removed.

But I've have to enforce mine and have earned tidy sums taking violators to court. I'm working on another violation, an American artist who has pilfered one of my famous ice hockey pictures, used as a magazine cover.

I would assume the shooter was hired by the club to provide the images. Photogs are often under a contract to the club or an agency that provides them for the club. Usually a series of game fees are agreed. It's not massive money and the club usually acquires the rights to do as they wish with the images. Photogs are generally not allowed to earn extra money by bootlegging the images to other clients.

By simply putting up a link as to where the images can be properly viewed, the increased traffic on the Swindon site would lift their viewing stats. While that wouldn't provide a direct pay rise to the photog, it might well please his employers. If that helps generate additional revenue for them, then the photographer may well benefit from a going forward.

It might seem like a fun job but it's a hard way to make a living. And the equipment needed to do top sports work is bloody expensive. Swindon's shooter(s) did a fine job and I raise this issue out of respect for them.

 

[markysimmo]

Looking forward to the game tomorrow night, not often I can get to watch Spurs play and be home 15 mins after KO

 

[Spursalot]

Copyright means the same wherever an original artwork or manuscript is used. It's usually a matter of willingness to enforce it. Usually, when a prompt, polite request to cease and desist is made, the images are removed.

But I've have to enforce mine and have earned tidy sums taking violators to court. I'm working on another violation, an American artist who has pilfered one of my famous ice hockey pictures, used as a magazine cover.

I would assume the shooter was hired by the club to provide the images. Photogs are often under a contract to the club or an agency that provides them for the club. Usually a series of game fees are agreed. It's not massive money and the club usually acquires the rights to do as they wish with the images. Photogs are generally not allowed to earn extra money by bootlegging the images to other clients.

By simply putting up a link as to where the images can be properly viewed, the increased traffic on the Swindon site would lift their viewing stats. While that wouldn't provide a direct pay rise to the photog, it might well please his employers. If that helps generate additional revenue for them, then the photographer may well benefit from a going forward.

It might seem like a fun job but it's a hard way to make a living. And the equipment needed to do top sports work is bloody expensive. Swindon's shooter(s) did a fine job and I raise this issue out of respect for them.

So the answer is no. Thanks for that.