|
|
Post by cemr5396 on Mar 25, 2024 9:38:57 GMT -8
Hey, if you're going to rip off my photo please have the decency to provide proper attribution and the context that it was posted with - this would have answered some of the follow-up questions. Photo particulars: CPAA 205003 shot on CP at London, ON April 18, 1998. Repainted KBX HAM 1998 along with CPAA 205002. Series CP/CPAA 205000-205025 built Greenville Steel Car 3-66. Most commonly used in Ford Windsor, ON engine service. Doug Stark Sorry? I wasn't "ripping off" anything, just sharing a pic of a freight car. I never claimed it was my photo. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ People share photos all the time, you gonna yell at them too? |
|
|
|
Post by protofrtcar on Mar 27, 2024 8:29:31 GMT -8
Hey, if you're going to rip off my photo please have the decency to provide proper attribution and the context that it was posted with - this would have answered some of the follow-up questions. Photo particulars: CPAA 205003 shot on CP at London, ON April 18, 1998. Repainted KBX HAM 1998 along with CPAA 205002. Series CP/CPAA 205000-205025 built Greenville Steel Car 3-66. Most commonly used in Ford Windsor, ON engine service. Doug Stark Sorry? I wasn't "ripping off" anything, just sharing a pic of a freight car. I never claimed it was my photo. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ People share photos all the time, you gonna yell at them too? By not giving accreditation to the photographer it is generally assumed that it is your photo---you posted it!! without mentioning any of the details that were with the photo. As far as "people share photos all the time" they are also not respectful of photo etiquette. How would you feel if someone took a photo of their loco on your layout and then posted it on some forum claiming it was their model on their layout? It has happened! Photographers and modelers take the time to share their hard earned results for the benefits of others. Please be respectful. |
|
|
|
Post by sd40dash2 on Mar 27, 2024 12:12:35 GMT -8
By not giving accreditation to the photographer it is generally assumed that it is your photo---you posted it!! without mentioning any of the details that were with the photo. As far as "people share photos all the time" they are also not respectful of photo etiquette. How would you feel if someone took a photo of their loco on your layout and then posted it on some forum claiming it was their model on their layout? It has happened! Photographers and modelers take the time to share their hard earned results for the benefits of others. Please be respectful. There is nothing disrespectful about sharing information or photos. cemr5396 did not "post" or claim ownership to anything, any more than millions of people do when they share links or other content every single day online. |
|
|
|
Post by protofrtcar on Mar 27, 2024 19:54:31 GMT -8
By not giving accreditation to the photographer it is generally assumed that it is your photo---you posted it!! without mentioning any of the details that were with the photo. As far as "people share photos all the time" they are also not respectful of photo etiquette. How would you feel if someone took a photo of their loco on your layout and then posted it on some forum claiming it was their model on their layout? It has happened! Photographers and modelers take the time to share their hard earned results for the benefits of others. Please be respectful. There is nothing disrespectful about sharing information or photos. cemr5396 did not "post" or claim ownership to anything, any more than millions of people do when they share links or other content every single day online. Then why did the original photographer object to it? You obviously didn't comprehend my comment. It is not about being disrespectful, I did NOT say that. I repeat, for your understanding, it is respectful to acknowledge a photographers work, after all he does own it! Correction---cemr5396 DID post it, he can't claim ownership as he does not own it, but by not saying either way it is interpreted it may be his. Plus, I did state that photographers and modelers share their efforts with others and that sharing of information or photos usually comes with accreditation by reasonable and respectful people who understand how it is meant to work. Please don't try your theories out in the "Real World" or you may get your  sued.  |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Mar 27, 2024 22:01:43 GMT -8
There is nothing disrespectful about sharing information or photos. cemr5396 did not "post" or claim ownership to anything, any more than millions of people do when they share links or other content every single day online. Then why did the original photographer object to it? You obviously didn't comprehend my comment. It is not about being disrespectful, I did NOT say that. I repeat, for your understanding, it is respectful to acknowledge a photographers work, after all he does own it! Correction---cemr5396 DID post it, he can't claim ownership as he does not own it, but by not saying either way it is interpreted it may be his. Plus, I did state that photographers and modelers share their efforts with others and that sharing of information or photos usually comes with accreditation by reasonable and respectful people who understand how it is meant to work. Please don't try your theories out in the "Real World" or you may get your sued.
Boo hoo call the 911 "he didn't even acknowlege me!" hotline.
It's not a crime to share photos for personal use or with friends. No one was harmed, there are no civil damages, so no relief.
Sharing photos should be encouraged, cited or not. I'd rather a photo of mine be shared without citation vs. not at all.
If you'd like photos cited, you'll get a better reaction by asking nicely rather than threatening to sue.
It's a hobby.
|
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Mar 28, 2024 8:31:26 GMT -8
Then why did the original photographer object to it? You obviously didn't comprehend my comment. It is not about being disrespectful, I did NOT say that. I repeat, for your understanding, it is respectful to acknowledge a photographers work, after all he does own it! Correction---cemr5396 DID post it, he can't claim ownership as he does not own it, but by not saying either way it is interpreted it may be his. Plus, I did state that photographers and modelers share their efforts with others and that sharing of information or photos usually comes with accreditation by reasonable and respectful people who understand how it is meant to work. Please don't try your theories out in the "Real World" or you may get your sued.
Boo hoo call the 911 "he didn't even acknowlege me!" hotline.
It's not a crime to share photos for personal use or with friends. No one was harmed, there are no civil damages, so no relief.
Sharing photos should be encouraged, cited or not. I'd rather a photo of mine be shared without citation vs. not at all.
If you'd like photos cited, you'll get a better reaction by asking nicely rather than threatening to sue.
It's a hobby.
That's right, just share and re-post photos willy-nilly without citation. After all, it's just a hobby!
Soon enough, no one will be posting their photos any more, and marking everything as private. Watch all those freight car sites and rail pics dry up.
|
|
|
|
Post by protofrtcar on Mar 28, 2024 9:05:01 GMT -8
If you pay attention "all those freight car sites and rail pics " have accreditation.
|
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Mar 28, 2024 9:22:31 GMT -8
If you pay attention "all those freight car sites and rail pics " have accreditation. Exactly. Although that wouldn't stop someone from saving the photo, cropping off the border and the photographer's name on the bottom, and re-posting it elsewhere. That would be a total douchebag move. |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Mar 28, 2024 9:36:18 GMT -8
Boo hoo call the 911 "he didn't even acknowlege me!" hotline.
It's not a crime to share photos for personal use or with friends. No one was harmed, there are no civil damages, so no relief.
Sharing photos should be encouraged, cited or not. I'd rather a photo of mine be shared without citation vs. not at all.
If you'd like photos cited, you'll get a better reaction by asking nicely rather than threatening to sue.
It's a hobby.
That's right, just share and re-post photos willy-nilly without citation. After all, it's just a hobby!
Soon enough, no one will be posting their photos any more, and marking everything as private. Watch all those freight car sites and rail pics dry up.
Fantasy. Because you can't do anything about people sharing. Plus it's legal for non-commercial use and almost no one cares. RR photos have an average value of approximately zero.
You'd rather take your photos to the grave comforted by the fact that few others saw them? Because pride?
Similar to some RR groups like the SP io group where "senior" members frequently tell people asking even simple questions to "buy the book" instead of simply sharing some info or even a link to a photo. Net result is it results in less info being shared, people say "screw it" and find friendlier places. Just the way it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Mar 28, 2024 9:47:09 GMT -8
If you pay attention "all those freight car sites and rail pics " have accreditation.
If people want to credit photos, fine. Actually, good.
But it's not mandatory.
Again, there's nothing you can do about it. Might as well be arguing about the Hegelian dialectic.
|
|
|
|
Post by gevohogger on Mar 28, 2024 10:07:49 GMT -8
Well, that saves me having to come up with something to post next week for Sunday Photo Fun. I'll just re-post something from the archives. Maybe I'll credit the original photographer, but what the heck, maybe I won't.
|
|
|
|
Post by protofrtcar on Mar 28, 2024 14:18:32 GMT -8
If you pay attention "all those freight car sites and rail pics " have accreditation. Exactly. Although that wouldn't stop someone from saving the photo, cropping off the border and the photographer's name on the bottom, and re-posting it elsewhere. That would be a total douchebag move. That's a very Malicious mind you have there, but I totally agree. That would be a douchebag move, but what would be a "Double Douchebag" move would be if they re-posted it elsewhere and claimed it as their own. Been Done! |
|
|
|
Post by protofrtcar on Mar 28, 2024 14:32:02 GMT -8
That's right, just share and re-post photos willy-nilly without citation. After all, it's just a hobby!
Soon enough, no one will be posting their photos any more, and marking everything as private. Watch all those freight car sites and rail pics dry up.
Fantasy. Because you can't do anything about people sharing. Plus it's legal for non-commercial use and almost no one cares. RR photos have an average value of approximately zero.
You'd rather take your photos to the grave comforted by the fact that few others saw them? Because pride?
Similar to some RR groups like the SP io group where "senior" members frequently tell people asking even simple questions to "buy the book" instead of simply sharing some info or even a link to a photo. Net result is it results in less info being shared, people say "screw it" and find friendlier places. Just the way it is.
" RR Photos have an average value of approximately zero" Reality Check  Slides regularly sell on Ebay for $50-$200 Example GM&O Autorack sold for $254.00 smackaroos. Over the past six months I have been sharing hundreds of my thousands of photos I took in the 70's 80's through to today on a site. I figured now in this digital age I can do it for the benefits of other railfans/modelers and I need to do it soon before I am called to that big classification yard in the sky.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Mar 28, 2024 15:16:51 GMT -8
Fantasy. Because you can't do anything about people sharing. Plus it's legal for non-commercial use and almost no one cares. RR photos have an average value of approximately zero.
You'd rather take your photos to the grave comforted by the fact that few others saw them? Because pride?
Similar to some RR groups like the SP io group where "senior" members frequently tell people asking even simple questions to "buy the book" instead of simply sharing some info or even a link to a photo. Net result is it results in less info being shared, people say "screw it" and find friendlier places. Just the way it is.
" RR Photos have an average value of approximately zero" Reality Check Slides regularly sell on Ebay for $50-$200 Example GM&O Autorack sold for $254.00 smackaroos. Over the past six months I have been sharing hundreds of my thousands of photos I took in the 70's 80's through to today on a site. I figured now in this digital age I can do it for the benefits of other railfans/modelers and I need to do it soon before I am called to that big classification yard in the sky.
Average doesn't mean what you think it means.
|
|
|
|
Post by 12bridge on Mar 28, 2024 15:19:49 GMT -8
I do not have a dog in this fight, nor do I want to get involved but..un-popular opinion time..
As an author, it is indeed a swift kick in the nuts, when you spend lots of money to write a book, article, website or whatever it may be, only to have somebody scan the book, etc. and share it online or worse yet, when you share a photo, and people start to copy it and sell it. This is a small hobby in the grand scheme of things, and nobody is getting rich off model railroad/prototype book sales. I have had it happen personally, and know plenty of guys that will not share anything online anymore because they were tired of things getting pirated. It goes beyond the simple sharing on forums, etc. when you see your photo now out there on ebay for sale or railpictures, with somebody else's watermark. Simple fact now is if you post it online, and do not want it shared without credit, you HAVE to watermark it, and to some people, that will only slow them down.
If you can save a photo on the internet, you can save the photographers name in the file and credit it. Its not a lot to ask for when people are sharing things. Lots of guys put their heart and soul into this hobby and share hours and hours of research, collections and everything else for free. A little recognition goes a long way.
When guys say to "buy the book", I get it, it does come off snarky, and lord knows guys can be absolute assholes about it (sorry to say, but especially some in the older crowd..). And of course, not everybody can own every book on every topic in this hobby. But remember, authors put hours and years into research for their pet projects. I put 8 years into my tugboat book project. I do not even want to think about how much time and money I have into it in research trips alone. We wont even talk about the issues of the slides and negatives I have bought over the years, and spent time tracking down photographers to credit said photos. I will never, ever see a return on it, I did it as a labor of love. So yeah, I of course would like to see guys buy my book, but I am also happy to share information I have researched, yet I am also not about to put up a scan of every page of it either.
A group I am in, recently a member shared a photo. This photo was saved from an online archive, photoshopped, and watermarked as said members own photo (with his name only, not the original photographer), because he edited it. It blew my mind that somebody could do such a thing.
This is no different then the threads we have had on here with sharing STL files for 3D printers.
I am genuinely not trying to be a dick here, but please look at it from the other side also.
|
|
|
|
Post by peoriaman on Mar 28, 2024 15:58:54 GMT -8
Sharing photos should be encouraged, cited or not. I'd rather a photo of mine be shared without citation vs. not at all. Try posting that philosophy on a photography site. They'll laugh you right back to the era of Daguerreotypes and glass plate negatives. |
|
|
|
Post by cera2254 on Mar 28, 2024 16:07:05 GMT -8
I guess I see both sides, but I didn’t feel like he was taking credit for the photo, if Tangent asked him to use the image and he took credit for it that would be wrong obviously. Personally I’ve never understood the fascination or why people will pay for slides.
|
|
pjm20
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by pjm20 on Mar 28, 2024 16:30:46 GMT -8
Personally I’ve never understood the fascination or why people will pay for slides. There wasn't digital cameras when I model, so I buy slides or I buy books with a bunch of pictures I don't need to find a few photos I would like to reference. Books tend to get expensive and heavy. |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Mar 28, 2024 17:47:17 GMT -8
I guess I see both sides, but I didn’t feel like he was taking credit for the photo, if Tangent asked him to use the image and he took credit for it that would be wrong obviously. Yep. And if a photographer asks the person who posted one of his photos to credit them, they should. I've posted a info & some of my own photos. I encourage people to share them. I appriciate a citation, especially for the stuff like spreadsheets that I put a lot of time in. Taking credit for other's work is always wrong. Commercial use is wrong. But digital media is hard to contol and attempts to lock it up or make it fee-based almost always fail for low-value items like typical railroad photos. It's so low-cost & fast to copy & paste photos people are going to do it, genie is out of bottle. Plus all the photos online that don't have citations. And memes, AI "art", etc. A goodly percentage of the posters on this forum use images for avatars without giving citaton. Whatta ya gonna do? Where do you draw the line? |
|
|
|
Post by el3672 on Mar 28, 2024 19:39:10 GMT -8
So far off track with this announcement of the original Tangent March release.
Just stop the nit pickin photo credit BS. Hey it's just a fun hobby we're all
trying to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by protofrtcar on Mar 28, 2024 22:40:00 GMT -8
So far off track with this announcement of the original Tangent March release. Just stop the nit pickin photo credit BS. Hey it's just a fun hobby we're all trying to enjoy. Got anything positive to add? hard to enjoy with that kinda B/S opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Baikal on Mar 28, 2024 23:55:30 GMT -8
So far off track with this announcement of the original Tangent March release. Just stop the nit pickin photo credit BS. Hey it's just a fun hobby we're all trying to enjoy. Got anything positive to add? hard to enjoy with that kinda B/S opinion.
You claim the photographer is "not noted".
Well isn't that special. |
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Mar 29, 2024 0:27:15 GMT -8
This stuff is why manufacturers stop posting here.
|
|
|
|
Post by peoriaman on Mar 29, 2024 2:51:30 GMT -8
But digital media is hard to contol and attempts to lock it up or make it fee-based almost always fail for low-value items like typical railroad photos. It's so low-cost & fast to copy & paste photos people are going to do it, genie is out of bottle. I had thousands of photos on Flickr but I made them all private because people - mainly bloggers, websites and actual businesses - were copying them and using them uncredited. Not the railroad photos, it was the other stuff. "Regular" photos, not trains. A newspaper in Ohio, for example, which theoretically should know better. But it caused the line to be drawn, won't be fooled again. You do it your way though, I'm sure you're always right. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 29, 2024 6:57:50 GMT -8
A reason to buy a slide, or a negative:
You can get a better picture. When I scan my stuff, I usually do it so I get (very approximately) a 100Meg file. The idea being that, if you can see the film grain, you've gotten all you can get. Kinda hard to get that online.
Some time ago, I bought a bunch of BIG negatives of SP&S steam. Oh, the detail!!!!!
And now a word about copyright, based mostly on the 1976 law, and my experience as a former professional photographer:
The creator of the work owns the copyright (meaning the right to copy or make a copy). He may sell that right. It is NOT the same as physical ownership, two different things. If I sell you a slide, I still own the copyright. I can sell that to you, also. You could conceivably buy the copyright and leave the original with me. Copyright does NOT flow from physical ownership.
Copyright is automatic. If someone violates your copyright, you can sue them and get all the money they made from using it (financial profit from the creation being the point of copyright). If they made no money, you get no money. You MIGHT be able to control usage--I'm not sure on that. Don't count on it.
IF you REGISTER your copyright, you can get far more than the amount described above. Sky's the limit, as they say. But you've got to convince a judge or jury. And pay your legal team.
When I was getting paid for this, I generally sold a picture as "one time use". Other times, like covering an event, I just did it as work-for-hire, and gave them the work product.
Once, one of my pictures was used again by someone else (don't recall how that happened). A phone call got me another few bucks and what sounded like an honest apology. Note the word "honest", there. Passing off someone else's work as your own is not only a violation of copyright, it's just plain sleazy.
There's also "fair use". It's been known to have been stretched, as when a University used photos in their self-published books for sale, claiming "educational purposes". Yeah, right. But posting a scan of a slide on Ebay to illustrate the sale of that slide WOULD be fair use.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by el3625 on Mar 29, 2024 9:03:17 GMT -8
How about someone starting your own thread or moving this on the subject of photo's. I think we need a separate category for all bitchen that goes on here. This has gotten all about nothing to do with Tangent's newest freight car. How about getting back on the subject.
Bruce
|
|
|
|
Post by ncrc5315 on Mar 29, 2024 10:41:17 GMT -8
A reason to buy a slide, or a negative: You can get a better picture. When I scan my stuff, I usually do it so I get (very approximately) a 100Meg file. The idea being that, if you can see the film grain, you've gotten all you can get. Kinda hard to get that online. Some time ago, I bought a bunch of BIG negatives of SP&S steam. Oh, the detail!!!!! And now a word about copyright, based mostly on the 1976 law, and my experience as a former professional photographer: The creator of the work owns the copyright (meaning the right to copy or make a copy). He may sell that right. It is NOT the same as physical ownership, two different things. If I sell you a slide, I still own the copyright. I can sell that to you, also. You could conceivably buy the copyright and leave the original with me. Copyright does NOT flow from physical ownership. Copyright is automatic. If someone violates your copyright, you can sue them and get all the money they made from using it (financial profit from the creation being the point of copyright). If they made no money, you get no money. You MIGHT be able to control usage--I'm not sure on that. Don't count on it. IF you REGISTER your copyright, you can get far more than the amount described above. Sky's the limit, as they say. But you've got to convince a judge or jury. And pay your legal team. When I was getting paid for this, I generally sold a picture as "one time use". Other times, like covering an event, I just did it as work-for-hire, and gave them the work product. Once, one of my pictures was used again by someone else (don't recall how that happened). A phone call got me another few bucks and what sounded like an honest apology. Note the word "honest", there. Passing off someone else's work as your own is not only a violation of copyright, it's just plain sleazy. There's also "fair use". It's been known to have been stretched, as when a University used photos in their self-published books for sale, claiming "educational purposes". Yeah, right. But posting a scan of a slide on Ebay to illustrate the sale of that slide WOULD be fair use. Ed Thank's Ed, that was interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by protofrtcar on Mar 29, 2024 11:02:58 GMT -8
Got anything positive to add? hard to enjoy with that kinda B/S opinion.
You claim the photographer is "not noted".
Well isn't that special. A Troll Exposed!!! But look again , that was NOT my post, I merely commented on it. The photos are there by the original poster. |
|
|
|
Post by SOMECALLMETIM on Mar 29, 2024 11:59:36 GMT -8
Thankfully someone posted what I see all the time on various Facebook slides/photo groups. Cockmunch scans a slide and then slaps their stylized-logo on it. No mention or credit anywhere for original photographer. A group I am in, recently a member shared a photo. This photo was saved from an online archive, photoshopped, and watermarked as said members own photo (with his name only, not the original photographer), because he edited it. It blew my mind that somebody could do such a thing. . |
|
|
|
Post by loco8107 on Mar 29, 2024 21:00:35 GMT -8
I do not have a dog in this fight, nor do I want to get involved but..un-popular opinion time.. As an author, it is indeed a swift kick in the nuts, when you spend lots of money to write a book, article, website or whatever it may be, only to have somebody scan the book, etc. and share it online or worse yet, when you share a photo, and people start to copy it and sell it. This is a small hobby in the grand scheme of things, and nobody is getting rich off model railroad/prototype book sales. I have had it happen personally, and know plenty of guys that will not share anything online anymore because they were tired of things getting pirated. It goes beyond the simple sharing on forums, etc. when you see your photo now out there on ebay for sale or railpictures, with somebody else's watermark. Simple fact now is if you post it online, and do not want it shared without credit, you HAVE to watermark it, and to some people, that will only slow them down. If you can save a photo on the internet, you can save the photographers name in the file and credit it. Its not a lot to ask for when people are sharing things. Lots of guys put their heart and soul into this hobby and share hours and hours of research, collections and everything else for free. A little recognition goes a long way. When guys say to "buy the book", I get it, it does come off snarky, and lord knows guys can be absolute assholes about it (sorry to say, but especially some in the older crowd..). And of course, not everybody can own every book on every topic in this hobby. But remember, authors put hours and years into research for their pet projects. I put 8 years into my tugboat book project. I do not even want to think about how much time and money I have into it in research trips alone. We wont even talk about the issues of the slides and negatives I have bought over the years, and spent time tracking down photographers to credit said photos. I will never, ever see a return on it, I did it as a labor of love. So yeah, I of course would like to see guys buy my book, but I am also happy to share information I have researched, yet I am also not about to put up a scan of every page of it either. A group I am in, recently a member shared a photo. This photo was saved from an online archive, photoshopped, and watermarked as said members own photo (with his name only, not the original photographer), because he edited it. It blew my mind that somebody could do such a thing. This is no different then the threads we have had on here with sharing STL files for 3D printers. I am genuinely not trying to be a dick here, but please look at it from the other side also. Very well said and there has been cases of ripped off pics that got used for a manufacturer advertisement and a lawsuit was filed and won by the original photographer so yes, it can end up being a legal case. Even if there is no ill intent, please always tell the name of the photographer or say unknown if it’s not known. Unfortunately even the railfan and model railroad world has too many scam artists anymore that don’t care to ruin it for everyone else. Too many people in society don’t care about the golden rule anymore- these others the way you would want to be treated. |
|
