henry6 Yes, news or other event or description or explanation of the thread discussion only. Not a photo contest or dump. Not that it takes up room, but that it is not needed as there are quite a few other photo oriented sites..
Yes, news or other event or description or explanation of the thread discussion only. Not a photo contest or dump. Not that it takes up room, but that it is not needed as there are quite a few other photo oriented sites..
....I echo Zardoz's opinion. {The 5:14 pm one}.
Quentin
zardoz henry6: Yes, news or other event or description or explanation of the thread discussion only. Not a photo contest or dump. Not that it takes up room, but that it is not needed as there are quite a few other photo oriented sites.. I can't help but notice that your avatar is a photo....
henry6: Yes, news or other event or description or explanation of the thread discussion only. Not a photo contest or dump. Not that it takes up room, but that it is not needed as there are quite a few other photo oriented sites..
I can't help but notice that your avatar is a photo....
Further back or above I believe I admitted to stealing and using....
...and to Erik, I think, nobody said anything about "=BLEEP=" photo's as you put it...there is a concern about ownership of posted photos, ownership of negatives and original slides, and copyright laws though. That's not =BLEEP=, that is stealing or misusing something one has no rights to to do. Not only can the poster be in trouble, but so can the hosts. I've been involved with too many railfans who have wanted to duplicate tapes, photos, and publications and sell them without any thought to the fact that it would be a federal violation of copyright laws. Another is a point of ettiquete in that one will post a picture without crediting the proper photographer or the like. This will cause anger and upsets, too.
EDIT: PLEASE folks, do not use this type of language on the forums. Kalmbach / MR is very serious about wanting to keep this a "Family-Friendly" environment. If you wouldn't say it to your kid, your mom or your pastor, don't say it here!
I'm putting this here directly in the thread because this is about the fourth or fifth time I've edited it out of the thread. If it shows up again, I'm simply going to delete the thread!
John
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
But, if the photos posted are the property of the poster, have not been sold or had first rights sold or assigned, then the poster is well within established laws.
I was under the impression this was a forum for everyone, professional railroader and railfan, professional photographer and amateur alike to post photos, ask questions and generally discuss, cuss and debater railroading.
Did not realize it had become such a specialized and elite site that only specifically skilled photographers were welcome.
Where do we get a copy of the chosen few list?
And what are the criteria required?
Are there specific cameras that are not allowed?
If it is a "builders elevation" style shot, does that count, or do we only allow wedge shots?
After all, if the forum owners didn't want amateurs to post photos, they would not have included that feature in the forum, and would have included a prohibition about it in the rules.
As long as the person posting the photos makes it clear in the thread title that "photos are included" in order to warn those who don't want to look or have trouble with slow loading, I don't see why anyone would care about the whole issue.
Goodness, this is a fan based site; it should have fan taken photos.
I would also like to point out that quite a few historic photos of rare locomotives are in fact amateur snap shots, that survived by accident, but it turns out they are the only example or photos of that particular series of locomotive or railcar, depot or tunnel portal.
23 17 46 11
Sorry Henry,
I guess now- I am a victim of a post edit.. LOL ("=BLEEP=") LOL.. I must admit that was a funny term I have never heard for this dynamic before until I read it last night. I pondered should I reply or not and I did.. I do apologize; not exactly my favorite term either.
Ownership in my case well I shot the photos therefore the copyright is in my lap on that one. Amazing how these threads go wild.. As I mentioned I tend to agree with the guys that do not like "RailPic" site guys posting in these forums. I am new to the "RailPics" site thing and used it much like Photobucket or Flikr and link to the URL inside the post. I thought I would save the effort of loading the photo double online and use the "RailPic" site as my host in this case. It took my many years to convince the "RailPic" site to accept my work and after enough rattling they accepted more likely to get me to pipe down not based on my work....
I can easily delete the photos I have posted here on Trains and will comply if asked. So far I have not heard anything from any moderators or Admins yet. I assume they are OK and not that offensive. Then again too each his or her own and I will not add any photos to this Blog.
I enjoy the topics of the posts and hope to continue to read them.
Again fellas my thanks for the kind words and sorry to those who I offended.
It is all good! Let's have fun and share great posts to read!
Good night.
http://erikclindgren.com
Edblysard...stop this "elite" stuff...all I am saying is that there has to be a burden of responsibility taken by someone and wonder if Kalmbach is willing. Too often people use and post pictures which they have no rights to posting and it could put Kalmbach out on a limb. It is not being elitist in anyway, but being practical and cautious. You are being absurdly petty, picayune, and juvenile, in your "chosen few list", "specific cameras that are allowed" and "do we only allow wedge shots" comments nd not facing the fact that there has to be some responsibility assumed and a certain policing. What if you gave me a picture and I posted it on such a web site saying it was mine. And what if someone asked me if they could use it it a book...and I might or might not be paid...you'd have a legal bone to pick with me, could even sue me and win because I used your property without authority or permission. Unfortunately I know several who have done such things and caused problems. I'm not being petty but pragmatic. Stop calling people names and understand the legalities of such an endeavor. You simply cannot use a picture taken by another without the original photographer or owner's permission. Yes, there are some things that are public domain, but the difference has to be known before using. If you take a picture you have the right to publish it, reprint it, sell it. But I don't have the right to publish, reprint, or sell your picture unless you give or sell me the rights. It is not a matter of professional or amateur photography but of ownership. Whoever takes the picture is the first owner and permission of usage begins there.
EDIT: PLEASE folks, do not use indecent language on the forums. Kalmbach / MR is very serious about wanting to keep this a "Family-Friendly" environment. If you wouldn't say it to your kid, your mom or your pastor, don't say it here!
I have edited that word out of this thread at least five or six times now-- probably more-- and if it shows up again, I'm simply going to delete the thread!
John,
Please accept my sincerest apologies for the use of this word and any other inappropriate things, I think the extent was my quote of what was already written. I was frankly stunned when I saw the first post last night that has without no surprise has been edited by the postee . I personally urge you to please delete this thread as it looks to have done nothing but caused serious problems.
I apologized again for trying to reply last evening; my "self check" mode last night came TOO LATE when another postee replied my first post in quotes.. I tried to delete it... TOO LATE.. As you can see I tried to stop it there. My first mistake was replying at all. So I have been stuck in this round robin thing all day.
Please know.. I have heard some very encouraging things from some very nice members on and off forum. I have also heard some very not so nice things off forum from some not so nice members. All in all I will wait for a long while for the dust to settle and perhaps repost some photos.
I would love to go back and edit out my first reply among all of them. I must admit I was a little upset since this is a railroad forum and as long as the subject was railroading the walls here in this room could use some pretty pictures of trains. Sadly some felt otherwise; offended perhaps, I understand this and I am willing to play along.
Again John, I sincerely apologize for getting involved in this thread and any rude disrespectful language use.. . "AGREE" This is simply NOT acceptable under any circumstances.
Thank you for the privilege to post on Trains Forum.
Erik
Erik,
As far as I'm concerned, you post all the pictures you want, knock yourself out, be happy.
My only issue with the thread has been the use of an inappropriate word-- I've even lost track of where it started. I edited it out of a couple of posts earlier today and then when I got back here this evening to peek in on the thread, it had up and blossomed all over-- it was worse than kudzu! So I figured I needed to take some drastic action to get it gone.
I don't have a problem locking / deleting the thread if you all are finished with it. So far, aside from the language, it's had an actual purpose.
Henery,
The point is, who among us gets the right to choose which photos merit being posted?
You?
Me?
Silly all the way around...come on folks, it's a picture of a train.
If the thread header says "train photo" in it, and you don't want to look, then don't look.
But setting a pre-requisite about content and quality is absurd.
As for legal ownership of photos, I used to take them as a side profession, so you don't have to try and explain copyright law or photo ownership to me, I got it already.
Point is, why are a few folks here so worked up about photos?
Like I said, it's a train forum, designed and marketed to rail fans, so why shouldn't fans post their photos here, be they common snapshot types or outstanding work like Chris does?
If anyone here feels a particular photo is beneath them to look at, then wow, you're really on the wrong forum.
Unless of course you would like the amateur rail fan to go away and leave the forum solely to the use of professional fans?
Because stating a photo is not good enough or there are too many of them or they lack an explanation discourages the amateur, as I see you guys have already managed to do.
Great job there, now a guy who was posting photos of stuff some of us here may not have seen before is calling it quits because of all the whining.
Happy with yourselves?
I'm not talking about who has "rights" and I certainly don't want amateur photogs to go away: I never said anything to the contrary, so stop putting words and thoughts in my postings...stop making nonsense suggestions and accusations toward me or anybody else who has posted in this thread...anybody can and many do post photo's. As long as the photo belongs to the poster there is no problem and no reason to be against it.
Henry, I was not trying to put words in you postings, I was simply replying to the general tone, although you did bring up the "burden of responsibility" issue, which doesn't exist here.
To reply directly to that statement,
Kalmbach has no burden, it rest completely with the poster.
Kalmbach makes no money directly from any photo posted here, therefore they are free of liability.
As for the "clutter" issue, the person who has a problem with it will just have to tolerate it.
If his personal preference is to have captions, text, warning about the content, anything other than a simple photo showing off a train, rail car or railroad related building or device, well shucks, he is stuck out there, because I will post whatever photos I like, with or without any text, because that's what this forum is for, sharing info, photos, stories, creating and causing, along with participating in debate and discussion.
If he doesn't like my photos, or the way they are presented, he is quite free not to look at them...if he chooses to look and doesn't like what he sees, he is free to comment in the negative, I have real thick skin.
If he likes what he sees, he is just as free to say so, or not, if that is his choice.
Which is the whole point...
No one here should have the right to force anyone to post things in a manner that only suits that one person's personal taste.
Not me, not you, not him or anyone else.
I have nothing against you, or anyone else, but it bothers the heck out of me that a guy comes here, post some of his photos, and gets trashed, and gives up in one day, simply because his lack of text for those photos caused such an uproar.
I mean, come on folks, it's a railfan site.
If you absolutely have to have calendar grade photos and reams of text, join a calendar forum.
If you don't like something you see here, don't look at it again.
Tell you what, let's just let it lay right here and call it a tie, and hopefully agree that if we could, we should all use the manners we were raised with, namely, if you can't say something nice about someone,(something) don't say anything at all?
You've got to realize that if Kalmbach allows me to post somebody elses picture as my own and that somebody doesn't like it, he can make waves for me and for Kalmbach as well. There is a burden on Kalmbach. Money being made is not the issue but rather the public use and if one owns a picture used in public without his knowledge, approval, whether for pay or not, the owner of the picture can go after everybody in sight.. That's my point straight and simple.
I give.
You refuse to listen or understand.
You have misunderstood/ misinterpreted the law about using and ownership of photographs.
Have a nice weekend.
Ed, I think henry6 is just having a bad day; usually he is much more....conversational. I think I understand the point he is trying to make, but I won't be presumptuous and try to interpret.
Big Z,
I think I understand his position also, concern that Kalmbach could be held liable for a stolen photo being posted here, and I have tried to explain that Kalmbach has no legal requirement to check the ownership of any photo posted here.
If a photo is stolen from some other site, other photographer, anywhere and posted here, with or without the poster claiming the photo is his, Kalmbach has no liability.
It would have to be shown Kalmbach solicited stolen photos, paid or offered compensation for the stolen photos, and knowingly published the photos for gain to be held liable.'
They don't, of course.
They do solicit photos, both for their magazines, and for the forums.
For the magazine, you have to sign a release of first right and a affidavit of ownership and release.
For the forums, nothing is required.
This is a internet accessible site, open to the public, for public use.
Anyone can post pretty much anything they choose.
Kalmbach can remove anything they choose.
Yes, you have to join to post photos, sign up and create a screen name, and if you read the agreement you accept when you sign up, you can read the disclaimer.
No one can sue Kalmbach for a stolen photo here.
The owner of the photo can request Kalmbach remove the photo, which they will, but that's about the most they can do or request of Kalmbach.
They can, if they choose, try and sue the poster, but it would be difficult.
If the photo is not copyrighted, and it was posted in another public forum, then they are pretty much out of luck.
I know, I went through this with a smaller railroad forum a few years ago.
I posted a photo of the MK1500Ds we use.
A few months later, while visiting another (different) site, I ran across my photo, but with someone else claiming photo credit.
I immediately contacted the sites owner, was redirected to their legal department.
I was told they would remove the photo, and that the poster would have their use rights revoked.
I asked for the posters real name and a contact number, which was promptly refused, and I was informed I would have to contact an attorney, and file a subpoena in regards to legal action before they could release that information.
I went to see my attorney, and learned to my dismay the following.
As my attorney pointed out, the particular photo had no real monetary value, the cost of pursuing legal action against the person would be far and beyond any value the photo might ever have, and short of satisfying my ego, not worth doing much more that reporting it to my local District Attorney.
Which I did, and got the same basic rundown, and was also told that for a crime, beyond a class c misdemeanor, to have been committed, the photo in question would have had to been purchased by the second web site, and I would have to show they knowingly purchased and or published stolen material and profited in some manner and that the person who "stole" my photo had to also profit in some manner.
They also informed me that, in essence, when you post a photo to a public site, and the photo is not clearly marked as copyrighted, then you are releasing your exclusive rights to that photo, and placing it in the public domain, which means that say, the photo I posted of a traction motor in another thread could be copied, and used by a kid in his school project, or you could copy it and use it for computer wallpaper, you could even have it printed in poster size and hang it on your wall, you can do just about anything you want to with it except sell it or profit from it in some manner.
If I posted a photo that was not mine, and claimed it was my photo, and it was not copyrighted, the most the original owner could do is try and sue me for theft, and to do that, the legal owner would have to prove the photo was theirs, it had value, and that they could have sold it or profited from it.
If it was copyrighted, the owner would have to prove the same, plus establish there was a true copyright and that I knew about it.
They could then sue me for theft of copyrighted material, but they would also have to show where I profited from the theft.
To sue Kalmbach, they would again have to show Kalmbach knowingly allowed stolen material to be posted, that they solicited such material, they paid for it and or profited from it.
It is Kalmbach's responsibility to remove "stolen" material from their site as soon as they are made aware of it, along with material that is illegal, obscene, pornographic or in Kalmbach's opinion inappropriate.
Once Kalmbach is made aware, their "burden of responsibility" is simply and only to remove the material.
Period.
It's really that plain and simple.
edblysard Big Z, I think I understand his position also, concern that Kalmbach could be held liable for a stolen photo being posted here, and I have tried to explain that Kalmbach has no legal requirement to check the ownership of any photo posted here. If a photo is stolen from some other site, other photographer, anywhere and posted here, with or without the poster claiming the photo is his, Kalmbach has no liability. It would have to be shown Kalmbach solicited stolen photos, paid or offered compensation for the stolen photos, and knowingly published the photos for gain to be held liable.' They don't, of course. They do solicit photos, both for their magazines, and for the forums. For the magazine, you have to sign a release of first right and a affidavit of ownership and release. For the forums, nothing is required. This is a internet accessible site, open to the public, for public use. Anyone can post pretty much anything they choose. Kalmbach can remove anything they choose. Yes, you have to join to post photos, sign up and create a screen name, and if you read the agreement you accept when you sign up, you can read the disclaimer. No one can sue Kalmbach for a stolen photo here. The owner of the photo can request Kalmbach remove the photo, which they will, but that's about the most they can do or request of Kalmbach. They can, if they choose, try and sue the poster, but it would be difficult. If the photo is not copyrighted, and it was posted in another public forum, then they are pretty much out of luck. I know, I went through this with a smaller railroad forum a few years ago. I posted a photo of the MK1500Ds we use. A few months later, while visiting another (different) site, I ran across my photo, but with someone else claiming photo credit. I immediately contacted the sites owner, was redirected to their legal department. I was told they would remove the photo, and that the poster would have their use rights revoked. I asked for the posters real name and a contact number, which was promptly refused, and I was informed I would have to contact an attorney, and file a subpoena in regards to legal action before they could release that information. I went to see my attorney, and learned to my dismay the following. As my attorney pointed out, the particular photo had no real monetary value, the cost of pursuing legal action against the person would be far and beyond any value the photo might ever have, and short of satisfying my ego, not worth doing much more that reporting it to my local District Attorney. Which I did, and got the same basic rundown, and was also told that for a crime, beyond a class c misdemeanor, to have been committed, the photo in question would have had to been purchased by the second web site, and I would have to show they knowingly purchased and or published stolen material and profited in some manner and that the person who "stole" my photo had to also profit in some manner. They also informed me that, in essence, when you post a photo to a public site, and the photo is not clearly marked as copyrighted, then you are releasing your exclusive rights to that photo, and placing it in the public domain, which means that say, the photo I posted of a traction motor in another thread could be copied, and used by a kid in his school project, or you could copy it and use it for computer wallpaper, you could even have it printed in poster size and hang it on your wall, you can do just about anything you want to with it except sell it or profit from it in some manner. If I posted a photo that was not mine, and claimed it was my photo, and it was not copyrighted, the most the original owner could do is try and sue me for theft, and to do that, the legal owner would have to prove the photo was theirs, it had value, and that they could have sold it or profited from it. If it was copyrighted, the owner would have to prove the same, plus establish there was a true copyright and that I knew about it. They could then sue me for theft of copyrighted material, but they would also have to show where I profited from the theft. To sue Kalmbach, they would again have to show Kalmbach knowingly allowed stolen material to be posted, that they solicited such material, they paid for it and or profited from it. It is Kalmbach's responsibility to remove "stolen" material from their site as soon as they are made aware of it, along with material that is illegal, obscene, pornographic or in Kalmbach's opinion inappropriate. Once Kalmbach is made aware, their "burden of responsibility" is simply and only to remove the material. Period. It's really that plain and simple.
Actually, that's not completely correct. It WOULD be correct if Kalmbach was NOT already a "Publisher", a specific, legal definition that has specific implications with respect to its duties, obligations and liabilities.
A run-of-the-mill web site (aka "discussion board") WOULD be subject to the model you indicated in your post, which is typically referred to as the "Common Carrier" model. However, Kalmbach, who is a PUBLISHER, *must* subscribe to a different legal model and is held to a different legal standard. ANYTHING that is published through ANY medium that Kalmbach owns or controls is KALMBACH'S responsibility-- regardless for how it got there-- and regardless of whether or not there is or could be secondary liability consequences for the individual who put it there. Kalmbach, as a publisher, is solely responsible for the "content" and "color" of everything made available to the public-- whether it was on-purpose or by accident, and irrespective of how it got there, or "when" they supposedly knew about it. As a "Publisher", they are LEGALLY assumed to know about everything that is published via a medium they control-- regardless of whether they actually do or do not.
You could read Lance Rose's "Syslaw" book, if you like, about the various online models that traditional Authors, Editors, and Publishers find themselves in today. And also about how the concept of the "Common Carrier" added, changed, and extended various aspects of those traditional roles. Starting with the telephone companies and Major broadcast television networks, and then later extended to include the cable companies and content provider companies, and finally to today's media conglomerates such as Viacom, Newscorp, etc.
His book has been revised several times-- and I think there are several subsequent rewrites that have clarified some things as well as expanded to include MySpace, Facebook, etc. But the fundamental models are still pretty much the same. In the common carrier model, if you touch the content in any way you become responsible for it. In the publisher model, ANYTHING that is produced by your organization you are assumed to have had a hand in and thus are responsible for. Just those two models are completely opposite from each other. There are several variations, but to my knowledge, Kalmbach fits squarely into the "Publisher" model, because they already are one and have been for nearly a century.
Ya all and me gotta unnerstand that ole farts like me who have dealt with these here things and talk from 'speerience, really don't know nutten at all so are good for pages and pages of rants against. Yeah, I have my bad days,too...
You know, I was not trying to be rude and insulting, but you on the other hand are.
I guess stereotyping isn't only for racist bigots after all.
By the way, you spelled Ya’ll wrong.
Sorry for you.
I thought it was y'all ?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
East Texas, West Texas...In Dallas, its You all
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.