soloboxerboy's blog

Always figured that this “boiler plate” declaration was hokum.
Thank you for defining all!

You are welcome.

That’s ok if you’re insular and quote US law, but here in the U.K. and therefore, the EU apparently it does have enough clout to sue anyone pulling your info and using it.
People posting photos who are clearly from a corporation or even another individual, in my view, should be barred as they obviously have something to fire by posting fake photos.
Please though, remember - this site isn’t all about the USA!!

surrey71, UK and EU laws regarding photography are actually very similar. All have a Fair Use clause, so using it for research and educational purposes. Copyright laws similar in many parts of the world...So yes, I know very well that the world doesn't revolve around the USA, but the copyright laws here actually were constructed to to mirror those of the UK and EU, and when, for example, the UK and EU changed the time that photos remained copyrighted from 50 to 75 years, the USA followed suit, to keep things on par and fair.

I wasn’t taking a personal swipe at you, it’s just that so many American members think this site is created just for them - and that annoys me - you’re right... the world doesn’t revolve around the USA, so I was just pointing out that laws do differ in other countries.

Thank you. Trust me not all Americans think the world revolves around us, though a great many do, that is why stereotypes are so dangerous. With regards to copyright laws, they are pretty much the same is Europe/UK/US/Canada/Australia/and other nations where there is a large overlap of either cultures, economic ties, or where colonies used to be had, as many laws worldwide are derived from UK and other European Countries. I had to watch for copyright issues from other countries, not just the USA.
Again, I do agree that many over here thing that we rule the world instead of being just one of many countries and cultures, but that is not how I view things, feel, or ever hope to come across. Thank you for your comments.

I’m pretty sure posting that statement doesn’t prevent anybody from using what you post, not just for educational purposes. Just because you post something doesn’t make it automatically copyrighted.

bigchicago, that statement actually does nothing, but posting photos or other materials from other sites is a violation of copyright laws, as most sites have a copyright clause or are copyrighted to begin with.

I would look at some of the websites you use, and see if they have a copyright on their website, because if they do, then anything you post on the site IS copyrighted immediately for that particular site, but is still open to Fair Use laws.

Copyrights are a tricky thing, so the best advise, if you didn't pay for a copyright release, or other wise obtain one legally, and are not the photographer/artist, then don't use it.

No way. That statement is a magic incantation that guarantees no one uses your image.

If only....LOL.

So "US minded" !!!
😄

Maybe you should read all comments before you posted. It will save you from looking so “small minded”.

This from a guy who looked at my profile then blocked me for no apparent reason!

Oohhh Shade!! ☕️

ladron fr. for your information, I do realize that the USA is just one nation among many on the planet earth and is not the end all be all of everything. I would hope that since you think you are so much more enlightened than every single American that you would know better than to stereotype people, and would have the basic research skills of an educated person to verify what was stated in my blog and in what some of those who posted before, and maybe your snide and quite childish comment would not have been posted.

Having said that, check what your copyright laws are and compare them to all European countries, Canada, the USA, and other countries throughout the world, and you would find that I am correct.

One last thing, since your parents didn't teach you basic manners, if you can't say anything nice, then say nothing at all. Especially since you haven't a clue to what you are saying and it make you appear to be just like the Americans you are trying to put down. Pot calling kettle....Hypocrisy at its best....Are you sure you are not American?

Many hearts were broken today 😂

Soloboxerboy, I think your post is helpful and a reminder as to the complexity and risks of life online.

I can't imagine that the law in any jurisdiction can be reliably understood until it is tested in Court. But winning that sort of fight can be a pyhrric victory as anyone who has fought tort knows. You cannot know who is going to seek redress until they do, but you can be reasonably sure that if it turns serious then your foe will be well prepared for the fight, have the initiative and have pockets that are way deeper than most individuals could match.

Having said that, I wonder what the instance is of such litigation taking place where a person is posting in a purely social context and not for gain or profit?

Can I also just add that in the EU, the EEA and the UK (for the present; Brexit may change this) the General Data Protection Requirement and national legislation (int he UK, the Data Protection Act 2018) prevail. in that legislation, the lawful bases for processing personal data are set out in Article 6 of the GDPR. At least one of these must apply whenever a person processes personal data:

(a) Consent: the individual has given clear consent for you to process their personal data for a specific purpose.

(b) Contract: the processing is necessary for a contract you have with the individual, or because they have asked you to take specific steps before entering into a contract.

(c) Legal obligation: the processing is necessary for you to comply with the law (not including contractual obligations).

(d) Vital interests: the processing is necessary to protect someone’s life.

(e) Public task: the processing is necessary for you to perform a task in the public interest or for your official functions, and the task or function has a clear basis in law.

(f) Legitimate interests: the processing is necessary for your legitimate interests or the legitimate interests of a third party, unless there is a good reason to protect the individual’s personal data which overrides those legitimate interests. (This cannot apply if you are a public authority processing data to perform your official tasks.)

In the case of some student taking data from this site, that does not seem to be a lawful basis and you would have certain data subject rights which you can enforce via (in the UK) the Information Commissioner's Office.

I would add that certain types of personal data, one of which is sexual orientation, are subject to additional obligations on the person who controls or processes that data.

But the internet is international and I have no idea whether international treaties are in place to allow you to remedy a breach of your rights that has taken place in another jurisdiction.

Besides, being a plaintiff across borders is phenomenally expensive. I would budget £20,000 just to have the case assessed at a preliminary basis by a competent lawyer and £100,000 or more to fight a case like that. Bear in mind that if you lose you may also pay the other side's comparable costs.

So I agree with the post here: if you don;t want your images used by strangers, don't post them. Angry warnings such as those that appear on profiles at best will deter only the most casual and ill-informed data thieves.

P.p.s. yes I know it should have been the General Data Protection Regulation, not Requirement....😚

Ironbull, thank you for the responses. Education is the one area that can access information without permission, as it is not suppose to be available to the general public, and no profit will be make either. Basic copyright laws worldwide are easy enough to follow when posting...if you didn't create it, snap it, or get permission, then don't do it.

Photographers here are trying to have some changes made to how they can go after those who violate copyright laws. Currently there is is a long and expensive process, but if they get the laws changed then there would be an easier way to go after people but the amount of money gained would be much less, as it would be capped at much less than what they could be awarded under the current laws. But, they would be able to take the person into small claims court and could make each photo a separate case, and in the end it would cost less, and the possibility of actually collecting increases dramatically.

Copyright laws are something that everyone should make themselves aware of, as you never know when you are violating it, or when someone has violated your copyright to your image.

Thanks again!

Kia Ora Soloboxerboy ,
I may have that "dont use" intention some time back , on my profile mainly to give a fair warning , for the varied and intentional membership of the MF site and thanks for your and ironbull's reflections on owning ones, own photos,words used and creativty . Cheers, Box on , Wrestle on..

Always had my doubts about it especially when the profile warns of severe legal consequences. Could you imagine the court case?
Like with other sites, you do have “psychology” researchers or students prowling around and engaging with those who may have a fetish.
But an advisory warning them not to steal pics might appeal to their sense of common decency.

celtwrestle, any attorney worth their salt would tell people that no one will take the case, because of the Fair Use aspect of the Copyright Law. It is basically the definition of a frivolous lawsuit...lol. I think most researchers, if they were to use photos, would blur the faces, but the info in the profiles would be more suited to most research done. The advisory is worthless for sure, and it isn't done just on here, but on so many other sites as well. Take Facebook for example, as I have seen people post this kind of warning there, and in FB's terms of service you give them the right to use your photos and such, even though you still retain the copyright and they do not compensate you financially for the use of your material. People just don't look at Terms of Service and don't understand most of it when they do attempt to read it...lol