388th BG pics

“thousands of our photos are used in publications worldwide each year”

Yes. At a price. (Although the money does go to a good cause, I know. Your Legends picnics!!!) I was referring to public display.

Skipper, don’t leave the forum.

“It’s intolerable, I lost my temper…” Familiar line? Now stop it, the pair of you. Before I pluck you both and roast you. Bloody geese. Key do NOT have copyright on the images – but they have copyright on the contents of the site. This is a different matter – if they are pulled from here to publish, it would be there right to pursue it. Now, take it from me Skipper – those images could NOT be erroneously published – because no author OR publisher would risk bad press or legal action.

Now SHUT UP HONKING DAMMIT!

Originally posted by Snapper
A Museum! ROTFLMAO! How many photo’s do you see at Duxford or Hendon, for example? Most of that which is given to museums never sees the light of day again. Dusty boxes on dusty shelves mate. We all know that.

That’s not strictly true…although only a limited number go on display in Museums, thousands of our photos are used in publications worldwide each year – now I don’t call that sitting on dusty shelves – the Museum’s photo collection is available to the public (and access has been made easier through the IWM’s Collection’s Online – http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk) so if stuff is sitting on dusty shelves, it’s because people are not interested, not through lack of effort on the IWM’s part.

Ashley (Honk Honk!)

P.S. This is not a blatant plug for the IWM’s collections (honest!) I just think we should make the most of what’s available to us

Bye 🙂

“I repeat I had full permission from the OWNER of the prints that were scanned (I even had their kettle lead as I had neglected to pack my own PC lead)”

I believe this to be TRUE. But I also believe there to be ANOTHER person involved who, as I said, when eventually consulted led to the thread being withdrawn. Again the anonymity of these individuals is for me to maintain. This is NOT the forum to be mentioning others. It has to be known o the others on this forum that there are other involved in this. Yes it woul be nice to hear there view. I shall see what they say. Should you wish to discuss further outside this forum which is where I believe it now to be going then we will have to meet up the next time I am down Knettishal way. We can talk specifics then and maybe sell a few tickets for the fight(!)

“flounce about on this forum with your pathetic ‘anonymous principals’ and the spectre of famous authors duplicating 72dpi scans for gain.”

I don’t doubt the integrity of the likes of Freeman, etc – that is NOT at all being implied. I am merely highlighting, by looking at Freeman’s latest book, how easy it can be for the shysters to profit from images that are not necessarily “top notch”.

“Push me any further and the scans go back up OK? And it will be your doing.”

I am not being blamed for you posting them again. Nice to see your into blackmailing – obviously gave you too much credit earlier. Based on this PATHETIC threat I SHALL LEAVE this forum now – WITH MY HEAD HELD HIGH!!

To al the rest of you guys – thanks for your previous comments and remember that there is FAR MORE to this story than what Moggy would wish you to believe!

Graham

Like I said Skipper – Bollox

There is no “permission seeking loop” other than in your own fevered imagination.

I repeat I had full permission from the OWNER of the prints that were scanned (I even had their kettle lead as I had neglected to pack my own PC lead)

What you are saying probably crosses the borderline of libel. I won’t threaten you with legal action, that would be too sad for words.

You accepted MY hospitality. That’s right, I am one of the legal tenants of the Knettishall strip and the hangar in which you no doubt sheltered. Now you flounce about on this forum with your pathetic ‘anonymous principals’ and the spectre of famous authors duplicating 72dpi scans for gain.

Get real.

WARNING

Push me any further and the scans go back up OK? And it will be your doing.

🙂 Moggy

Statement not retracted – I am led to believe that there was someone else in permission seeking loop who was not consulted and that it was after they were told of what you had done that led to your having to make your apology and take the images off the website!

Moggy
Such images (even if I were a fraction of an inch out) certainly hack it enough to make an impression and sell the mighty fine book I mentioned!
Skipper

Originally posted by Skipper1944
Moggy,

“I had all the permission I needed to scan them” – not from what I hear.

Skipper

OK that’s it!

Now I am getting angry.

Clarify that statement or retract

Originally posted by Skipper1944
Snapper

Moggy’s published images were huge (over 12″ wide)Skipper

I hate loose figures. 11.12 inches actually.

They could be squeezed down to 3″ x 2″ if a publisher really wanted to, but what would be the point of that, short of saying “Here’s a colour image”?

To be of any worth they need to be published BIG, and a second generation, 800 pixel jpg at 72 dpi just doesn’t hack it.

Moggy

Moggy,

“I had all the permission I needed to scan them” – not from what I hear.

“start giving me any bollox that the placing of these images by the photographers wife with the pub was in some way bound by covenant or restriction that would prevent this” – may be I gave you too much slack before?

Skipper

Snapper

One only needs to look at “The Mighty Eighth – The Colour Record” by Roger Freeman (only concidental Roger’s name iis mentioned again). Many of the colour prints in that are less than 3″ x 2″. Given Moggy’s published images were huge (over 12″ wide) then even though they are 72 dpi they could EASILY be used in such a publication – EASILY!!

As for display in the museum. Well, again it is my opinion, but would it not be nice if the photos were displayed in the 388th Collection at Market Weston, near the 388th old base. Dedicated to the 388th this display would provide a GREAT additional reason for people to visit this place. Therefore the 388th veterans’ memory is enhanced.

As for breaching the Flypast copyright – that proves my point exactly – now THEY have copyright of the images. What a mess!!

Skipper

Originally posted by Skipper1944
……got in the way of your fully exploring what permission was required to scan and preserve them.

Here I am on safe ground.

I had all the permission I needed to scan them, that of the owners, the current licensee of the Swan. She was only too happy to give that permission as she is leaving and was very pleased to be able to take copies with her.

And don’t start giving me any bollox that the placing of these images by the photographers wife with the pub was in some way bound by covenant or restriction that would prevent this.

Silly.

Moggy

A Museum! ROTFLMAO! How many photo’s do you see at Duxford or Hendon, for example? Most of that which is given to museums never sees the light of day again. Dusty boxes on dusty shelves mate. We all know that. Moggy’s scans COULD NOT be reproduced as even a (at best) mediocre image in a book / magazine – and if it were, well, you could call in the lawyers. For one, they would have breached Key Publishings copyright (its THEIR website).

Utter nonsense. Geese everywhere. 388th should bung up a website with them on, let people see them all over the world. What can be better than that?

Guys

I would just like to reiterate my part in this and also put across my views now I’ve had a little time to reflect (and am now enjoying the effects of the best part a bottle of Laphroaig malt whisky!!!)

Some confusion still seems to reign as to my role and representation in this. I do NOT purport to represent ANYONE except myself. I am merely an observer who does NOT represent anyone else connected to the 388th BG(H) Association.

My not “naming names” is quite appropriate at this juncture as they are all free to speak for themselves, should they wish. Let me make it clear that there is NOTHING sinister in my doing this – just my “protecting the innocent”, as they say.

I joined this forum to ensure that people are aware there is another side to this story which I believe was not being heard prior to my involvement.

Like you Moggy, I am VERY concerned that the 388th might be tarnished in any way from this episode. God forbid that such a thing should happen. There is no reason at all that anyone associated with the 388th BG(H) Association should be considered to have acted inappropriately over this – no reason whatsoever.

There only appears to be a great concern in this organisation that the correct balance is struck between satisfying what I believe are the photographers wife’s original wishes and the genuine needs of the veterans, their families AND THE PUBLIC. I strongly believe that there has never been any intention to keep these images hidden although there is now every intention to keep them safe.

I feel the time will come for the wider public (i.e. outwith visitors to the Swan pub) to view them in a “proper” environment (i.e. a museum). I do believe a few issues need to be sorted out before this happens to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands, i.e. some shyster who wants to make a quick buck – it has been known!!!

Moggy, I also still believe that your efforts HAVE resulted in the images being published where someone might be able to make something of them (even if they are only 72 dpi). At least when they are in a museum the public can still view them yet not be in a position to take a high enough resolution image that might be reproduced for profit making purposes.

I do, however, believe your intentions were out of a genuine interest. I also believe you were not aiming to profit financially from publishing them. To me, it appears that your understandable excitement at “discovering” them got in the way of your fully exploring what permission was required to scan and preserve them.

Your scanning efforts do sound like the best route to preserve these images should anything happen to the originals – perhaps they could indeed be used for such a use?

It’s just the “publishing issue” that I am concerned about. Apologies if I didn’t make things clear enough in the past (my sometimes fiery “Scottishness” wasn’t dulled then by the Laphroaig!!).

I think it’s great that there is such a strong passion for these photos. I’m sure it will only help to ensure that they are preserved and exhibited in a manner that is acceptable to EVERYONE – EXCEPT THE SHYSTERS!!!

“Showing picture online, is that considered reproduction?”

It’s been reproduced and distributed, so obviously yes, it is reproduction.

It is also publication – in that the images are reproduced and placed into the public domain.

String him up and stuff him with sage and onion.

Originally posted by Snapper
In a word: No. Moggy does not own the images, nor have reproduction rights. He only has some copies of originals belonging to him. And a parsons nose.

Honk!

Showing picture online, is that considered reproduction?

In a way, it could be considered that since everytime person sees it, they are making a duplicate on their hard drive.

Oh well, off with his head then. Lock him up and throw away the keys. Becasue he has done everybody a great disservice by showing pictures that might never have been seen again.

In a word: No. Moggy does not own the images, nor have reproduction rights. He only has some copies of originals belonging to him. And a parsons nose.

Honk!

Hello everyone.

Never posted on this forum before, but I have to tell you, one of the reason I got interested on this forum was because of the Pictures that Moggy had posted.

In the light of what has happen, if the owner of the photographer cannot be identified, and if Moggy was given permission to scan them by the person who had the possession, doesn’t that give him right to do as he wishes with the digitized pictures?

Suppose I took pictures of Mona Lisa, do I have to get permission from the Louvre, to show it online to people?
I think posting on a forum constitutes a personal usage. In US only restriction is Reproduction or Sales of the photograph. And as long as Moggy sells the scans, he shouldn’t have any problems.

Originally posted by Snapper
Beep! Beep!

Perhaps its like the pics of Mrs Moggy you keep hidden under the bed –
Honk!

Quack Quack!

Just you stop poking around under my bed.

Those pics are private!!! 😡

I’m damn well going to take them down the Swan at Coney Weston and hide them there – but only on the understanding that they aren’t published.

Moggy

Honk honk

Originally posted by Snapper

As an analogy, imagine a tin of Fussels condensed milk and a punnet of strawberries.

Honk!

Honk

No lets imagine that you get a really big washbasin made out of really dark, polished marble, as black as possible and deeply polished.

Then you go to somewhere like Barra OK? And you collect a large bucketful of the brilliantly white sand that you find there.

Now you put the bucket of sand in the washbasin right? And then you pull the plug out.

But first you set up a 16mm movie camers and when you pull the plug out you film the white sand spiralling down the plughole OK?

Now here’s the really cool bit. Once you get the film processed you take it and thread it into the projector BACKWARDS – you still with me?

Cool huh?

Much better analogy than Snapper’s. His was rubbish 😡