I just PM'ed Jane the following:

Hi Jane,

Quite a stir has been created in the forums over the picture you posted on 19 December 2007 of a tarp taken from the Oware.com website. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind deleting the picture?

To avoid this in the future, I recommend that Dave protect the pictures on his website so you can't save them simply by right clicking your mouse button. I don't personally know how to do this but have been to many websites where the pictures are protected by such a feature.

As someone who sells his photos professionally I understand perfectly David's objection to having his photos used without his permission. And there should be no objection whatsoever to his asking to have his photo to be removed. It doesn't matter if his photo has been up for a while or not (it is not possible to know all the instances of your online photos being illicitly used) or that it is possible to download or hotlink his images or that there is acknowledgment of the the source of the photo (but there has been no request by Jane to David asking him if she can use his photo); the fact is they are images that belong to David and are copyrighted on his site. The moment he asks to have his image removed they should promptly be removed, no arguments. I'm surprised the image of the copper tarp is still up, even after the many times David asked it to be removed.

The only time copyrighted images may be freely distributed is if the author has placed them into an open-use Creative Commons license, which is not the case here.

As to protecting online images, one method is to use Adobe Flash to present the images in the homepage. Flash images cannot easily be copied by clicking (though there are other methods... there really is little you can do to stop images from being copied if the offender really wants to get the image).

Hi all

My understanding of this issue is as follows:

* Michael has NOTHING to do with that photo at all.
* The poster of the photo correctly acknowledged the source of the photo and is not making illegal commercial use of the photo. I can't see a copyright violation at this stage.
* Dave Olsen is attempting to contact the poster of the photo to ask that she remove it. This is definitely the preferred solution.

We will wait to see whether Dave and the poster can reach a satisfactory arrangement together. Fair enough?

Cheers
Roger Caffin
Online Community Monitor

I received a couple of PMs today and I've removed the photo. My deep apologies to Mike and Andrew for the problem I unintentionally caused on this thread. I had not flagged the thread to watch it, so I was not aware of the controversy.

I publicly offer my apology to David for using a picture of his tarp. In hindsight, I should have only offered a description of what I was asking for.

I also apologize to the BPL staff and other forum members for having to field this problem. I have learned far too much from all of you to be interested in causing problems here at BPL!

My email address is, and always has been, posted in my profile, so please PM me as soon as possible with any problems or questions in the future. I hope there are no lasting hard feelings.

Hi Jane,

I'm sorry, too, if I came across as criticizing you. I certainly didn't mean it that way. I feel that you actually didn't do anything wrong, since you did acknowledge the source of the photo. And I certainly don't feel that you meant to cause harm in any way. You must feel mortified right now. Please don't feel as if you have to apologize to everyone. I think it was just a case of crossed intentions. No one was really wrong. My post about what to do with copyrighted images was just to clarify what the rights of image owners are, but not to put you on the spot or hurt you. Hope you're doing okay.

* The poster of the photo correctly acknowledged the source of the photo and is not making illegal commercial use of the photo. I can't see a copyright violation at this stage.

Hi Roger. True. But David did formally ask for the image to be removed. He has that right as the image owner and no one has the right to keep the image up if he doesn't want it to be. It is a violation of his copyright to continue to keep the image up if he doesn't want it so.

Edited by butuki on 07/17/2008 22:06:12 MDT.

I don't think Jane should have to apologize for anything. If Mr. Olsen properly identified his material as copyrighted then this might not happen, but his website is so poorly organized and you can get to all photos without going through any portal that indicates the material is copyrighted. If you're going to put material in the most publicly accessible place in history, the internet, without any indication that the material is copyrighted then start whining about people using it, then I think it's time you clean up your website and make it clear through any portal that someone might enter that the material is copyrighted. Here's a link to the photo, show me where there is any indication that it's copyrighted.

http://owareusa.com/images/tarpsm2.jpg

Keep making those tarps Mike.

Here's a link to the photo, show me where there is any indication that it's copyrighted.

If you look at the bottom left portion of the sidebar you will see this written:

All photos, artwork, web page
Copyright © 1998 David Olsen,
all rights reserved

Very clear.

Miguel, apparently you don't know how to follow a link. Try copying and pasting the link I provided into the address bar on your browser and let me know if you see a sidebar. As I stated previously, the site is poorly designed allowing access to photos with no indication that they are copyrighted material.

Hi all

The Berne Convention on Copyright makes the person who took a photo or writes something the automatic owner of the copyright. Any photo I take, any written work I create, is copyright me with or without a notice.

However, the fair use provisions do allow someone else to use a small quantity of what I have created for the purpose of research or study provided acknowledgement of the source is given. The laws of copyright try to strike a balance between my rights of ownership and the rights of the general public.

How this affects a mash-up is not entirely clear yet. Whether the use of a photo in this context is covered would also be unclear.

Anyhow, Dave and Jane have sorted the matter out to their mutual satisfaction, so how about we all let the matter rest now? There are many other more interesting bits of gear to consider, surely?

Edited to correct to 'Berne'. The Basle Convention is on the handling of hazardous waste! (um ....)

Edited by rcaffin on 07/18/2008 01:48:51 MDT.

Well I've never heard of the Basle Convention, but I have heard of the Berne Convention. Here in the U.S. we didn't recognize the Berne Convention until 1989, however it is still advisable to mark copyrighted material to prevent "innocent infringement".

Jane, I don't think you need to apologize for this, least of all publicly! This should have all been handled in private and should not have become the spectacle it is. As far as the post, I don't agree that it's blameable. The spectacle that's happened here is blameable, but not your original post. You did what I would have done in your shoes. In fact I probably wouldn't have thought to cite a source, although perhaps I would have chosen a photo with a little better contrast and clarity than that particular one. Hard to understand what's all going on in underexposed photography.

Edited by beenay25 on 07/18/2008 01:18:32 MDT.

Edited to correct to 'Berne'. The Basle Convention is on the handling of hazardous waste! (um ....)

Sometimes I wonder if that's what these online scuffles really are... hazardous waste! ;-)

To everyone here, if I came across as a know-it-all, please forgive! Just trying to ease the tension and be fair to everyone so no one feels like they are being stepped on. Regardless of copyright or legalities or whatever, in the interest of everyone here feeling they have a say in their own matters, and in the interest of just plain good ole' camaraderie and community spirit it would be nice if we are just simply did as someone politely asked for something that is important to them. Why always turn these things into impatient and nit-picking controversies?

One of the reasons that I love walking in the mountains is the sense of hospitality and joy in adverse conditions that characterizes most of the people I meet there. So much is done without expecting anything in return, just because it is the right thing to do and because it makes the experience so much more genuine. That is the spirit that I feel most people have on this site. Let's try never to lose that precious spirit, because it is part of what makes us the lovers of the mountains that we are. It is simply elegant and satisfiying to be gracious with one another, don't you think?

Edited by butuki on 07/18/2008 02:26:03 MDT.

Whoops, looks like we had a little mix up here on this thread (I've been out since monday)

However I'm pretty sure that this thread has covered all of the necessary bases and there arn't any hard feelings left