In the news today...

[Woodsey]

I'm a bit reticent about all this.

When I post pics on blonde, they either belong to me - I took them - or blonde, which is fine, or, & most frequently, I go to google Images & lift one from there. It never occurs to me to pay anyone for them.

The blondepedia photos - the ones used by the Mail & Telegraph - were presumably lifted from google images, rather than directly from blonde, or THM.

Are not photos on google Images - unless they specificaly say "you may not use without permission", or are "wartermarked" - free to all to use?

If I "lift" a photo from google Images that came from the Daily Telegraph, for example, what is the difference?

The Telegraph didn't rumble you? 

[kukushkin88]

I'm a bit reticent about all this.

When I post pics on blonde, they either belong to me - I took them - or blonde, which is fine, or, & most frequently, I go to google Images & lift one from there. It never occurs to me to pay anyone for them.

The blondepedia photos - the ones used by the Mail & Telegraph - were presumably lifted from google images, rather than directly from blonde, or THM.

Are not photos on google Images - unless they specificaly say "you may not use without permission", or are "wartermarked" - free to all to use?

If I "lift" a photo from google Images that came from the Daily Telegraph, for example, what is the difference?

I know exactly what you´re saying but any money that can be squeezed out of Dacre is less money for him to spend on his war against everything that is decent in the world, so it must be worth a try.

[luckyblind]

All image on Google images have the disclaimer "Image may be subject to copyright".

[Laxie]

They make significant money selling the paper and unless otherwise agreed must compensate for contributions towards publication.  

Big difference between that and some guy rambling in his online diary.

[kinboshi]

I'm a bit reticent about all this.

When I post pics on blonde, they either belong to me - I took them - or blonde, which is fine, or, & most frequently, I go to google Images & lift one from there. It never occurs to me to pay anyone for them.

The blondepedia photos - the ones used by the Mail & Telegraph - were presumably lifted from google images, rather than directly from blonde, or THM.

Are not photos on google Images - unless they specificaly say "you may not use without permission", or are "wartermarked" - free to all to use?

If I "lift" a photo from google Images that came from the Daily Telegraph, for example, what is the difference?

Definitely not.  Just because someone uses a photo/image in one place (a website, newspaper, etc.) doesn't mean it's royalty free for anyone to use.  The photographer or the person who commissioned the photo usually owns the license for that image's use.

Have a look at this image:

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/130024526/Chelsea-FC

that you might see on various news sites.  Those sites are using that image under license, and for you to use it, you need to adhere to the licensing terms.  Of course, an individual posting it on a poker forum isn't going to bother them too much, but if you're going to use it to try and sell newspapers it might attract their attention.  You could argue that blonde is using such images to attract visitors and then make money from the display advertising on the site.

Do a search on google for "john terry anton ferdinand video" and have a look at those videos on YouTube.  You can't, because they've been pulled due to copyright.

[luther101]

I'm a bit reticent about all this.

When I post pics on blonde, they either belong to me - I took them - or blonde, which is fine, or, & most frequently, I go to google Images & lift one from there. It never occurs to me to pay anyone for them.

The blondepedia photos - the ones used by the Mail & Telegraph - were presumably lifted from google images, rather than directly from blonde, or THM.

Are not photos on google Images - unless they specificaly say "you may not use without permission", or are "wartermarked" - free to all to use?

If I "lift" a photo from google Images that came from the Daily Telegraph, for example, what is the difference?

Definitely not.  Just because someone uses a photo/image in one place (a website, newspaper, etc.) doesn't mean it's royalty free for anyone to use.  The photographer or the person who commissioned the photo usually owns the license for that image's use.

Have a look at this image:

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/130024526/Chelsea-FC

that you might see on various news sites.  Those sites are using that image under license, and for you to use it, you need to adhere to the licensing terms.  Of course, an individual posting it on a poker forum isn't going to bother them too much, but if you're going to use it to try and sell newspapers it might attract their attention.  You could argue that blonde is using such images to attract visitors and then make money from the display advertising on the site.

Do a search on google for "john terry anton ferdinand video" and have a look at those videos on YouTube.  You can't, because they've been pulled due to copyright.

Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0LNlU0zYSg

[kinboshi]

I'm a bit reticent about all this.

When I post pics on blonde, they either belong to me - I took them - or blonde, which is fine, or, & most frequently, I go to google Images & lift one from there. It never occurs to me to pay anyone for them.

The blondepedia photos - the ones used by the Mail & Telegraph - were presumably lifted from google images, rather than directly from blonde, or THM.

Are not photos on google Images - unless they specificaly say "you may not use without permission", or are "wartermarked" - free to all to use?

If I "lift" a photo from google Images that came from the Daily Telegraph, for example, what is the difference?

Definitely not.  Just because someone uses a photo/image in one place (a website, newspaper, etc.) doesn't mean it's royalty free for anyone to use.  The photographer or the person who commissioned the photo usually owns the license for that image's use.

Have a look at this image:

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/130024526/Chelsea-FC

that you might see on various news sites.  Those sites are using that image under license, and for you to use it, you need to adhere to the licensing terms.  Of course, an individual posting it on a poker forum isn't going to bother them too much, but if you're going to use it to try and sell newspapers it might attract their attention.  You could argue that blonde is using such images to attract visitors and then make money from the display advertising on the site.

Do a search on google for "john terry anton ferdinand video" and have a look at those videos on YouTube.  You can't, because they've been pulled due to copyright.

Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0LNlU0zYSg

See how long that one stays up

[Bongo]

Are not photos on google Images - unless they specificaly say "you may not use without permission", or are "wartermarked" - free to all to use?

Obv not, just Google doesn't shout about that as it wouldn't help it's destroy copyright agenda

[kinboshi]

I'm a bit reticent about all this.

When I post pics on blonde, they either belong to me - I took them - or blonde, which is fine, or, & most frequently, I go to google Images & lift one from there. It never occurs to me to pay anyone for them.

The blondepedia photos - the ones used by the Mail & Telegraph - were presumably lifted from google images, rather than directly from blonde, or THM.

Are not photos on google Images - unless they specificaly say "you may not use without permission", or are "wartermarked" - free to all to use?

If I "lift" a photo from google Images that came from the Daily Telegraph, for example, what is the difference?

Definitely not.  Just because someone uses a photo/image in one place (a website, newspaper, etc.) doesn't mean it's royalty free for anyone to use.  The photographer or the person who commissioned the photo usually owns the license for that image's use.

Have a look at this image:

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/130024526/Chelsea-FC

that you might see on various news sites.  Those sites are using that image under license, and for you to use it, you need to adhere to the licensing terms.  Of course, an individual posting it on a poker forum isn't going to bother them too much, but if you're going to use it to try and sell newspapers it might attract their attention.  You could argue that blonde is using such images to attract visitors and then make money from the display advertising on the site.

Do a search on google for "john terry anton ferdinand video" and have a look at those videos on YouTube.  You can't, because they've been pulled due to copyright.

Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0LNlU0zYSg

Yep

[snoopy1239]

Just to update on this, as it could be a good sweat

The images appeared in five places (two photographs)

Mail On Sunday Print
Daily Mail Print
Mail Online
Daily Telegraph print
Telegraph Online

None sought permission

One of the images was on blondepoker only, the other on THM database and blondepoker so it could have been sourced from either

THM licences a number of our photos from updates (generally where they have gaps in their photo database that we can fill) for its superb results database

Together we are chasing the publications above for payment

But if it wasn't for the creator of blondepedia, they would never have got the picture unless they randomly trawled through every update. Even The Hendon Mob extracted our images from the database. Forget Chili and tikay; they have enough money. Let's chop this one up Tighty. Will take cash or cheque.

[Chili]

Just to update on this, as it could be a good sweat

The images appeared in five places (two photographs)

Mail On Sunday Print
Daily Mail Print
Mail Online
Daily Telegraph print
Telegraph Online

None sought permission

One of the images was on blondepoker only, the other on THM database and blondepoker so it could have been sourced from either

THM licences a number of our photos from updates (generally where they have gaps in their photo database that we can fill) for its superb results database

Together we are chasing the publications above for payment

But if it wasn't for the creator of blondepedia, they would never have got the picture unless they randomly trawled through every update. Even The Hendon Mob extracted our images from the database. Forget Chili and tikay; they have enough money. Let's chop this one up Tighty. Will take cash or cheque.

lol argument fail.  I took it, I ship it!  All you did was lift my image and place it into blondepedia.......

Hehehe only messing darling snoops, I couldn't give a toss about the money (I was working for blonde at the time anyway) but I give a toss about blonde getting some off the sloppy thieving papers.  Maybe towards future updates???

[Robert HM]

I'm a bit reticent about all this.

When I post pics on blonde, they either belong to me - I took them - or blonde, which is fine, or, & most frequently, I go to google Images & lift one from there. It never occurs to me to pay anyone for them.

The blondepedia photos - the ones used by the Mail & Telegraph - were presumably lifted from google images, rather than directly from blonde, or THM.

Are not photos on google Images - unless they specificaly say "you may not use without permission", or are "wartermarked" - free to all to use?

If I "lift" a photo from google Images that came from the Daily Telegraph, for example, what is the difference?

Definitely not.  Just because someone uses a photo/image in one place (a website, newspaper, etc.) doesn't mean it's royalty free for anyone to use.  The photographer or the person who commissioned the photo usually owns the license for that image's use.

Have a look at this image:

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/130024526/Chelsea-FC

that you might see on various news sites.  Those sites are using that image under license, and for you to use it, you need to adhere to the licensing terms.  Of course, an individual posting it on a poker forum isn't going to bother them too much, but if you're going to use it to try and sell newspapers it might attract their attention.  You could argue that blonde is using such images to attract visitors and then make money from the display advertising on the site.

Do a search on google for "john terry anton ferdinand video" and have a look at those videos on YouTube.  You can't, because they've been pulled due to copyright.

Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0LNlU0zYSg

See how long that one stays up

Not quite in 60 seconds but it has gone.

Daliy Mail have a habit of sometimes putting "Copyright: Internet" on their pilferred pics.

[luckyblind]

Looks like a cropped version of it being used on P13 of today's Sun.

[TightEnd]

Looks like a cropped version of it being used on P13 of today's Sun.

thanks Mike

[DaveShoelace]

Yeah take that fleet street, watch out Tighty they may tap your phone.