Wigan Album

Ron, when you repost photos from other sites you are required to acknowledge their source !!
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1706820

Keep um coming Ron. David who???

© Copyright David Ashcroft and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

Says it all!

I know where David is coming from here. He chose to have the photos protected by copyright. He's entitled to do so, he took the picture. I don't think I would like any pictures of mine (not that they would!) appear on some website without some acknowledgement as to their source and that's all he is asking.

Whilst Ron is to be congratulated for sourcing so many interesting photographs for us to enjoy here, David and Joseph are right to point out that Copyright is involved here - as well as the personal feelings of the original photographer or poster.
Until these photographs of David's work appeared and were commented upon, I assumed Ron was spending his time searching antique shops and car boots etc. for his material, and was very much in admiration of his achievements in bringing forward so many images for us all to enjoy. Even when he sent a copy of a pic I'd already sent to the Album, I still assumed he had found the original, perhaps discarded by the family I sourced it from.
Even if many of Ron's contributions are from other websites, his skill in tracking them down is still to be admired, and I'm grateful to him for bringing them to our attention... BUT, their source and Copyright ownership should be acknowledged. Who knows what interesting avenues we may be led down if we visit those sites and find the context from which the pics have been taken?
So, Ron, thanks for all you've done - and keep doing it, but please play by the rules - which are, incidentally, the rules for posting on this site.

This photo along with some other train and bus photographs were sent to me by someone who for some reason cant upload them themselves.
I went through all the copyright situation a few years ago and was informed that once something is put on the internet it is deemed to be in the Public Domain and therefore free for anyone to access?

I thought this section was for old photos of Wigan. As much as I like Steam locos, I was there that day about 5 years ago... Just my OP but there's too many modern train photos on here too - I come here to see photos of Wigan years & years gone by, not a whole page of class 87 etc .. from 20 years ago where the scene is exactly the same as it is now... They're boring for everyone except the spotters...

Good Lord, Ron! No! Publishing on the internet is just like publishing elsewhere. Look at the trouble some famous folk got into by re-sending messages about a famous Tory peer recently. Take a look at this site to see why you should be careful what you copy and re-use: http://www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk/
I have a steady stream of requests for folk to use my Geograph and Panoramio pics - last year one was used in a film, and I duly signed a release form for the American producers to permit them to do so. In actual fact, I don't mind my pics being re-used (that's why I only protect them through 'Creative Commons') - the more widely they're seen, the better, but it's only common courtesy to have one's efforts recognised by an acknowledgement. Otherwise, someone else might think that my pic had been the work of the person reusing it.

Well said Ron..please get off his back.

Just to add "grist" to the mill, in November 2013 this was published…."Google has prevailed in a long-running lawsuit over the millions of books the company has digitally scanned without permission from authors and publishers. A U.S. Circuit Court judge has ruled that it's "fair use" when Google scans portions of books for public to use."

Hi Rev I can see where you are coming from, but don't you need to take out some sort of copyright agreement like a patent? Lets face it every photograph on the site has been taken by someone.. I have uploaded more photos to the site than anyone, most of themfrom my own collection of postcards, which I have paid a lot of money for, but who owns the copyright???? Me or the original photographer who is now long gone. No doubt people have copied them from the site, and I have seen them appear in numerous publications over the years but by putting them on the web I understand them to be available for anyone to copy.
I had some badges made a few years ago, from my own design, a limited edition of 200. I noticed that a year later someone was selling the same design of badge on Ebay (Not mine but copies) I contacted him to say that they were my design He asked to see the documentation of copyright( Which of course I didn't have,) so in the end he said 'TAKE ME TO COURT' Which of course I didn't/couldn't as I am only an individual and would have cost me a fortune to persue through the courts and in the end what would I have gained???? So unless you have thousands of pounds to take someone to court, for the common man, in my opinion claiming copyright isn't worth a carrot.

I suspect, JohnB, that Google may not have the last word on this.
You're right, Ron, it's not worth it for most people to try to defend their copyright, but there are big players out there (like Getty, and, as far as postcards go, Friths) who can afford to be aggressive in defence of their rights - which they will count in monetary terms. Can you afford to take such litigants on?
If you look up copyright expiry on the net you'll find that, as most of your postcards are pre-1923, copyright has expired on them, but life becomes more complicated after that.
For me, however, the issue I'd emphasise in this is simple good manners, and 'keeping the record'. Why not declare your source and acknowledge the art of the original photographer? It only costs a little time, and means anyone seeking information about an image or its subject knows where to go.

Ron, don't get involved with the Rev, he likes preaching. Give Ron a break you lot, anyone would think your all perfect.

If I paid money for ie a book or photos, they now belong to ME, so I can do what-ever I like with them.

Rev. David, as I said, they were sent to me to put on the site, as are a lot of other photos I put on under my name. If I had to keep e.mailing the people who send them asking for details of where they got them from. It would be a FULL TIME job<g>
and as you say, only big companies would have the financial clout to take someone to court but would it be worth it? All the other party would need to do would be remove it from the web site after receiving the initial protest. hence it's cost the company money with no return.

You may own the book, Garry, but believe me you don't own the contents i.e. photos etc that have an copyright.

Thats exacally right Joseph, and what Ron has been trying to tell you lot. Ron, doesn't own the Scots Guardsman or indeed Wigan North-West station as you put it (contenths) just up loaded a photo.

David Ashcroft

If someone has sent or uploaded those photos to this website, how does Ron or anyone else know who has the copyright to those photographs?
I have had photographs that I have taken and posted on the internet, that have been used by other people on the internet, one I took of the Wigan Little Theatre, is being used by a travel guide website, but I am of the opinion that once a photograph is posted on the internet, then that is it, it is in the public domain and you cannot really do anything about it, if the photograph is reproduced elsewhere.

SJB, well said. In my opinion, Ron is putting far too many photo`s in Album which are repetitive in content.

Ernest Pyke

I disagree, I love the Choo Choo photographs and I wish to see many more of them and today Steam Hauled Railway Tours are big business.

I agree Rev. the Lord is good but Google not necessarily so - when a company forces the Government of the land to change its laws in an attempt to make it pay more tax then forcing a change in copyright laws is probably small beer.

keep them coming Ron

All photographs are the copyright of the photographer. Links to a photograph are usually accepted by the photographer in lieu of payment as long as the person linking has not made any profit from them. I have photos on a very active website
http://www.davidheyscollection.com/page5.htm they are about 3/4 down the page and were taken with a very basic Box Brownie 127. Later photos, taken with Nikon equipment have been published in the Warrington Guardian. You will see in one of my photos, Scots Guardsman on it's last official run. Yes, all my photos are copyright which I will defend by law. Personal use is acceptable provided no monetary demands are made and references are linked.

George McKie

I really enjoyed looking at your pictures on that page.

ditto

Ron has not put any of these photos on Wigan World for commercial gain, not to acquire or obtain profit in any way.
If one did make money from someone's publication, then I can understand their bitterness and annoyance. But this is Wigan World that's totally free, this site is not here to make any sort of reward in anyway. This is a great site for all to see, lets look after it.

Well said Colin, couldn't agree more - keep up your excellent work Ron.

I was one of the men that fired many of the engine that people took photo of, a round the 50 and 60s , and i am glad that the engines are still rememberd i fired many of the scot class i wonder sometimes will we be rembered like the engines a fireman from springs branch

I don't care who took the photograph, who owns the copyright, it's a great photo of a beautiful rebuilt Scot ! can't a little pleasure be shared without resorting to legalities ?!

Colin, you don't look after things by letting weeds grow in them. Not respecting Copyright is such a weed.
Okay - so no one posts here for profit, but anyone posting someone else's work here as if it were their own is gaining by it - maybe not in monetary terms, but in terms of having people think the image is theirs - either taken by them, with all that implies in artistic terms, or in ownership terms - that they physically hold the original image, which they have generously shared with us.
Sadly, my view of Ron, whom I'd admired for his enthusiastic searching for rare images of Wigan to be found on old postcards etc., has been diminished by his unquestioning reposting of someone else's purloined images.
As you'll know from the Antiques Roadshow, provenance is all-important as to the value of anything. Unfortunately, re-posting usually results in information attached to the original posting being lost. Take, for example, the pic of the Wigan clippie which Ron reposted here - none of the information I'd included with my posting of the same image was included with his repost - so those seeing the repost only got a poor version of the original posting, and provenance was lost. It may have been an innocent posting, but its results are obvious.
The least re-posters can do is acknowledge that the image is not theirs - either not taken by them, or not physically in their ownership - and say where they sourced the image.
If they want to take the risk of incurring financial penalties by breaking someone else's Copyright, they can do so, but I don't think anyone should encourage another to do anything illegal. Breaking Copyright is illegal. Whether you like it or not.
It is also against the rules of this site. Maybe we should hear from the site's owners?

Bloody hell Rev can you not read?????? I have said twice that these photos along with numerous other photographs I have posted in the past have been sent to wiganworld by various people to put on the site along with an accompanying piece of text. One of the people who regularly send them only has an tablet or something similar, and it won't allow him to upload photographs hence he sends them to me to put on the site. I have hundreds on my computer which I have downloaded from people and as they are in one file I have no idea who or when they were sent I just put them on the site when I have an hour to spare. and I have NEVER claimed to have taken the photographs as you accuse me of doing in a round about way.

True trewyth,

Why can't we just look at these rare and wonderful photos on this site without the arguments about copyright. It's a shame very few good photos like this exist outside the 'copyright' domain, especially back then. If I had this photo in my old collection it would be of poor film quality for a start, grainy, darkly-lit, out of focus and all manner of anomalies in it, ie people in the shot (a very common thing for most pre-digital photos, mainly because people just hadn't a clue about photography and camera settings and where just using those cheapo 25mm film formats - those tiny negative strips that were popular in the 80s. This is what WW should be about: steam trains, long gone buildings/landscapes, places, town centres, etc, not a photo of some family you've never known of and likely never to have not known; wish people would stop posting photos of 'Mr and Mrs Smith' from Newtown who lived in the early 1900's. Let's see some photos of Wigan and Wigan places/events.

Speaking of steam trains, I'm surprised a chap called John Fernley hasn't got photos like this. I believe he is a train photography fanatic and often travels to places with his camera and develops them himself. He lives in Bryn I believe. Anyone heard of him?. I heard he's one of these who likes to get the right shot. I think he's in his 70s.

Ron - I don't question your altruistic motives, but if you unquestionably repost someone else's pics here, you run the risk of breaking Copyright, unwittingly or not. That's your decision. If your source does not tell you where they got the image from you should beware resending it. It is you, as the poster (and the site owner as the publisher) who break any Copyright involved - not your source.
I appreciate what you're saying, and, along with many others, enjoy the pics you've posted - but they have all appeared under your name. You have not stated who sent them to you to be published. If someone wants to pursue their Copyright, it's YOU they'll be coming to.
Two of us have gently pointed out to you that you have broken our Copyright. It isn't our fault that your source has failed to inform you that they stole the pics from us - but it is you who have committed the breach of Copyright.
The simple solution is not to post anything that you don't know the provenance of yourself. If you declare the provenance even of Copyright pics I think most Copyright holders would be sympathetic to your desire to share images as you do. But, as the Copyright holders, that's down to their generosity. Nothing else. Even if 99% of posters here wish it were different.
It's no good folk saying they think Copyright should be ignored - it's the Law.
Happy to have your homes broken into?
So, yes, Ron - keep posting, I love your contributions, but keep inside the law.
What really puzzles me, though, is why no moderation of postings seems to take place. There are Rules about submitting pictures here, but even when Copyright issues are raised, the images remain.

Blimey !!!
I uploaded a photo to the Geograph webiste under the "Creative Commons Licence". The terms of this licence state : Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
So, I'm more than happy for anyone to reuse these photos but the licence requires credit to the originator.
Ron,I enjoy your many photos on this site, keep up the good work !

Who said ww wasn't entertaining! A "lively" debate or what! Keep up the good work everyone. I know the photo shows steam but nothing compared to some of the comments, which are all respectful.

I am the person who has sent Ron the rail and bus photos over the last couple of years. I make no excuses I got a lot of them from other web sites. In my opinion if they are on the internet on one site what's the problem if they are on two sites?
By the way Reverend David I notice YOU have put some photographs on the site, which obviously you didn't take, but YOU haven't credited the photographer or stated that you didn't take them, yet you are Having A Go at Ron for doing exactly the same thing...
Obviously you are well acquainted with the saying
"HE WHO CASTS THE FIRST STONE"

Well said Al
Stop picking on Ron you lot he is doing a difficult job ie trying to please everyone, no one living or dead can do that, why do people take photo's??? I take them so either myself or others can enjoy them and for posterity. did you get permission to take them,was permission given by B.R. or the Springs Branch fireman, did he give permission for people to take his picture, I suspect not, from another ex Springs Branch Fireman! of these great Locomotives.

I think you'll find, Wiganer, that any images I haven't directly attributed to the original photographer I have posted as the Vicar of St Mary's, and the originals have been given to the church, not me. Wherever possible, they are attributed to their source. Many, however, have no attribution, so none can be given.
They have been posted for the first time on this site as a contribution to the local history of Wigan and district. As you say, they cannot possibly be my original work, but, legally, as proxy for the original photographer, their Copyright lies with me in my corporate capacity. That's a bit of jargon simply to say that, even if they appeared under my name, their Copyright lies with the PCC of St Mary's Church, not myself - and it is the PCC's rights I am defending here.
That's why I always use my title, and always append my email address. If anyone wishes to challenge my posting of a picture, they have a direct line to express themselves. I do not hide under a pseudonym, and I do not post anything other than original scans of fresh images.
Keep to the Law, and you'll not go far wrong.

I'm with you Rev when it comes to copyright - none of us are going to get rich from seeing our pictures in use but I like to be acknowledged as the creator of an image. Sadly the site owners turn a blind eye when it comes to copyright - pictures have appeared previously on WW which are obviously scans from books but the attitude is "We'll only do something about it if the publishers kick up a fuss". At that point I stopped submitting images and had all my pictures on WW removed as I didn't want to be associated with a site that pays no attention to its own rules.

Trench, Rev, if you would like to volunteer to vet EVERY photo that is put on the site to ensure it isn't copyright
Your welcome, get going only 22,693, for a start.

The task would be very easy, Ron, if everyone who has posted a pic here would look at their contributions and withdraw every image they have had published here which they have copied off a website, or scanned from a publication.
I'm sure that's not going to happen - but at least we should all resolve to stick to the site's rules and not post Copyright material from now on. If in doubt - don't send it in.
It would help clarify the situation if everyone gave the source of any images they send - it only takes seconds to add a few words to a caption. This is, in any case, useful information to be given.

I wish I was a vicar.

David you are talking about an impossible task. People over the years have posted photographs and probably don't come on the site anymore and to prove copyright is nigh impossible. Who is to say if they own the copyright? The only proof of copyright of a photograph would be to own the negative, which now with digital cameras don't exist, You could put on a photograph you have taken, and someone could say that they took the photo. How do you prove who is telling the truth????? If you or volunteering to go through every photo on the site and then contact the uploader( which you can't do unless they have left an e.mail address) then fine.
As I said to take legal action against someone is Impossible for the average man and would cost the plaintiff a great deal of money. For example someone puts a photo on the site which you claim is yours You go to see a solicitor and get him to send a letter. Cost to you £50? The person then removes with , the offending photo an apology. What have you gained? Nothing but it's cost you £50. Next week the same thing happens so it costs you another £50, and on and on. I would think that every web site has pictures which have been copied from other web sites yet you don't see many court cases for breach of copyright.
If people don't want their photographs copied then the best way would be to watermark the photo. Problem solved...

wow world war three ,just about scots gaurdsman. this loco has had a chequered carreer since return from the dead.none too reliable.dont know wether its a poor fireman or shes steaming bad, but no need for so much smoke going down the bank.? i for one love these pics and i dont goive a fig re copyright or not.stop being pedantic and ENJOY.

Surely if anyone feels that their artistic endeavours have not been recognised it is a simple matter to post a comment on this site making their feelings known. What is the problem?

Is this photograph going into the "Wigan World Album" book of records, for the most comments placed?.

Posted by Gaffer on the communicate topic

The UK’s Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act has been passed, putting controversial new copyright laws regarding what’s known as “orphan works” into place for photos put online. The changes mean that if there’s no clear identifying meta data in images, anyone can use and sub-license them and the owners have little recourse to complain.

Of course, the internet being what it is and working how it works, copyright watchers are claiming this new law is tantamount to legalising corporate image theft, as it’s extremely easy to nick a photo off a social network or image search, then claim it had no identifying data and was therefore considered free to use.

According to legal site Out-Law, those who wish to use these so-called orphan works are expected to perform a “diligent search” in an attempt to find the actual owner, also setting aside a “market rate” payment to be handed over should the original copyright owner realise his work is being used and go through the effort of tracking down the culprit.

Given that meta data is routinely stripped when uploading shots to many social networks, the changes to the law seem designed to make nicking everyone’s Instagram photos entirely legal. [The Register]

you talk about copyright i upload my footage on youtube steam or diesel and if i got wind of someone trying to rip me off i would be all over them like a rash ALL my footage has my name in the bottom left hand side of my clip complete with copyright notice i do get e-mails from other DVD train publishers asking me can they use my footage for a fee and a free DVD for my troubles SO the moral to this story is it pays too ask

The Rev at it again, he's said his point but goes on and on and on and on and on zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Gentlemen, I think the "Battle of Wallgate Bridge 2014" is over, an honourable draw I believe - shake hands and move on.

Thank heaven for "The UK’s Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act" - seems like "someone" has thrown the towel in and bowed to the modern day means of communication that the internet has brought to all of us.

Your all wrong, none of you have got a clue.

Mache, you seem to be an expert, please enlighten the plebs.

baker boy your comment about the smoke when running down hill the drivers on these rail tours have not served there time on steam engines I travelled on one up to carlisle and back last year, being a fireman at spings branch for nine years in the sixties I cringed at the sound of the engine when going up the slightest incline, we were on the second coach from the loco we were constantly bombarded with cinders from the chimney thus the reason for firing the engine down hill to regain pressure in the boiler

I would just like to add this, why under the "contact us" does the first name up, Brian Elsey, ask people who want to use photos ask permission first? Most likely as the site protects it's own copyright. It would be interesting to know. If anyone uses a photo that is not there own they should state that it was "taken by" or "author unknown" It appears the world of copyright is misunderstood or ignored and will remain so until the day a photographer kicks off and sues the poster. Remember that some photographers are members of the Royal Photographic Society and they have legal depts who will sue for un attributed use for their members. The music industry is covered by the copyright law by way of the performing rights society who regularly prosecute those without a Public Performance licence issued by they to places such as pubs, bars, shops etc so that the performers copyright is covered.

Lets give it a rest now and move on...some morners on here.
too many whingers.

Helping yourself to other people's work is ok is it? So if I buy a book, re=package it and call it mine it would be alright? Ron you MUST acknowledge where the pictures came from. It is the LAW.

Sorry Garry, this is a point of law. Copyright is just that Copyright. If I see my photos used without consent I will sue.

Hi roland, do we no each other , I was in the top goods link when Dr Beeching came to reck many lifes. Tim Pye was my driver the maverik mith was is came . I came of BR IN 1966 , I was 24 then I am now 73 , i was 14 when I started at springs Branch

Some horrible people on here! But most agree with myself and Ron.

Garry, it's not meant to be horrible to anyone and all the OP had to do was to acknowledge the photo to the photographer. Quite simple. i do not wish to offend anyone and admire ron's efforts finding photos of trains in Wigan. It's just an acknowledgement that is required. yesterday I watched a BBC programme called "The sheriffs are coming" They persued a claim of copyright in the high court and the person who had breached it was left with a bill of £5000+ OK the circumstances were slightly different but this can happen all to easily.

"Slightly different?" George I think you are being disingenuous - it's completely different. Who is trying to make a profit by publishing somebody else's photo on ww? Answer - no one, if anything they are publicising the work of others - free publicity, I agree an acknowledgement would be welcome and if possible should be there - but it's not always possible.