Photos of Naked Charity Calendars

[grandeweasel]

Originally Posted by jc666

What a strange comment.

From a physical or data point of view anyone can own a copy of any work. Just because something isn't your intellectual property doesn't mean you can't own a version of it.

Add to that the fact a photographer (or indeed anyone) can legally assign their copyright to other parties or not claim copyright in the first place.

All the same, he's raising a valid point about people's bullshit tendencies to expect more credit and prerogative for posting a picture than they gave to the actual owner in the first place. Not owning the intellectual property does mean that you don't have the right to distribute it, even if you own a copy of it.

[xxxxenophile]

Originally Posted by grandeweasel

All the same, he's raising a valid point about people's bullshit tendencies to expect more credit and prerogative for posting a picture than they gave to the actual owner in the first place. Not owning the intellectual property does mean that you don't have the right to distribute it, even if you own a copy of it.

Intellectual property law is heavily misunderstood, even though it's not rocket science.

Ownership and any of the protected rights of copyright are separable, and one person can own a thing while they contract to give others any or all of the other rights, such as distribution, reproduction, etc. None of the summaries above is strictly correct, but the key point is that the Internet is full of reproduced works with almost no ability to confirm or even deny that they are reproduced without permission.

Simply put (but there's always more to it, based on the fact pattern), it's often the case that one CAN make a copy of a work/picture/etc even though one MAY not do so legally based on the permissions they've secured, or lack thereof.

But it's STILL a wild west as far as asserting copyrights online, and expecting pics in forums to be handled the same way photos used in textbooks are handled, is kind of silly. Laws like the California revenge bill are more likely to be problems for places like this than the Copyright Act.

[winston18]

Sorry for any possible repeats.

[reading67]

Apparently the amateur performing rights for Calendar Girls have just been released for a 2 year period to the USA so we can look forward to some new publicity/production shots.

But how will they cope with the Yorkshire accents?

[schlubby]

Originally Posted by mrjombi

How does someone own a scan? The photo belongs to the original photographer, not the person who scanned them later.

If this is about the former member's scans, copyright law in the legal system isn't really the point. OCC respects his request not to let people repost his scans, and everybody here knows what they mean when we say "his scans": the images that he was responsible for converting from printed form to JPEG form. It doesn't matter whether or not he has a legal claim to those scans and could get the authorities to compel OCC not to post them. It sounds like OCC's just doing a polite thing and respecting a former member's request, regardless of whether they need to. If there is a copyright claim by the copyright holder(s) on the photos that were scanned (which could be part of that member's reason for his request), that would be a separate issue entirely.

[Fango]

Originally Posted by schlubby

It sounds like OCC's just doing a polite thing and respecting a former member's request, regardless of whether they need to.

Exactly.

Fango

[reading67]

Some new, some better quality than previously

[reading67]

A few more

[reading67]

Some caps from their promo vid

[reading67]

some more