Watermarks on Retrobike Archive scans

[fiks]

First of all I'd like to say that I have scanned and uploaded catalogues purely to make them available to me and other people. I don't expect anything in return.

I don't claim copyright or ownership on the scans; they are merely reproductions. In fact a person who did the scans cannot claim any copyright purely for doing the scans.

However I object to this website putting their logo and name on the scans of the Pinarello catalogue:

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=96982&g2_imageViewsIndex=0

Please consider removing them.

The catalogues should appear in their original form, or not at all.

 

[john]

Fiks has already discussed this issue with another moderator. However he wishes to continue the discussion on the open forum which we're happy to do.

As such I'd like to make a few points on this topic.

No material is permenantly watermarked, the logo is added on the server at the point the image is served. No PDF catalogues are watermarked (bar one or two).

It was felt necessary to watermark the material because it was being copied and reused on other sites without permission and passed off as original content.

There is no suggestion of ownership or copyright on this material.

Although there is no claim on ownership I'm sure most would recognise the large amount of time many have put into making this archive one of the foremost (if not the foremost) resource for retro material on the web. The archive not only takes time but money. Quite a lot of if as it goes, to host this volume of content on a server with the capacity to serve it effectively to the large number of visitors retrobike recieves does not come cheaply. I know other sites charge to download similar content.

When obtaining content for the archive we were always careful to ask permission and give credit where due for items obtained elsewhere. I have a huge stack of material on my hard disk I could stick up in the archive but have not because I do not have the original scanners permission and in some cases because they are charging for it!

If anyone wants any material without watermarks for whatever reason I am happy to supply it.

If anyone is unhappy material they have supplied is watermarked I can remove the watermarks. Alternatively I can remove the scans.


Hope this clears up our reasoning. If people have any further comments happy to hear them.

 

[fiks]

It was felt necessary to watermark the material because it was being copied and reused on other sites without permission and passed off as original content.

There is no suggestion of ownership or copyright on this material.

That is the problem. IMO by putting a logo and name on the scans, you *are* claiming some sort of ownership or copyright on the scans and by extension over the original content.

Only the original creators, in this case Pinarello (or some other person if it has been passed on), have ownership or copyright of the catalogues, whether it is a print copy or a scan, a person who merely scans is is not in the position to give permission. That is not just my opinion but it is I believe also the copyright laws in some countries; a scan is not original content. For example, a 19th Century photograph is out of copyright, but a 21st Century scan of that photo has the exact same copyright status.

When obtaining content for the archive we were always careful to ask permission and give credit where due for items obtained elsewhere. I have a huge stack of material on my hard disk I could stick up in the archive but have not because I do not have the original scanners permission and in some cases because they are charging for it!

This where we might have to agree to disagree. A person can charge for doing the scanning but IMO they can't charge for the scans themselves or for the content. Accordingly once a scan is online, it's going to be copied and shared around.

In the end I can't stop anybody putting their logo on the scans that I did. I can only do what I think is right by sharing scans of the material in their original form.

And no I didn't have permission to scan from Pinarello, but that's different topic.

 

[john]

To return to your original issue I have removed the watermark as requested. If you wish to add further to the archive we can add any material verbatim.

That is the problem. IMO by putting a logo and name on the scans, you *are* claiming some sort of ownership or copyright on the scans and by extension over the original content.

The IMO part is key here. As mentioned it is not our intention to claim ownership or copyright.

This where we might have to agree to disagree. A person can charge for doing the scanning but IMO they can't charge for the scans themselves or for the content. Accordingly once a scan is online, it's going to be copied and shared around.

Interesting. What would your position be if I was to post some of the material for which I have paid in the archive - some of which is watermarked? I suspect the sellers of said material would be less than happy.

Once a scan is online it probably will indeed be shared around. However it seems courteous to ask permission from and to acknowledge the source - something we were always conscious to do.

 

[fiks]

Thanks. Can I say that I didn't actually put them in the archive, I uploaded the scans to an image hosting website and linked to them in a forum post. After that it's out of my hands.

Interesting. What would your position be if I was to post some of the material for which I have paid in the archive - some of which is watermarked? I suspect the sellers of said material would be less than happy.

Let's assume we are taking about people who are not the original creators of the material.

I would never pay for any watermarked scan. But if I did have a watermarked scan which I wanted to share, I would try to remove the watermark and then upload that. If it's a scan which was paid for, I'd expect it to be of high quality, like 600dpi, and that would make it easier to restore (by removing the watermark!).

As I said before, a scan, ie a 2 dimensional reproduction of a 2 dimensional image, is not an original creation. So I think there's nothing wrong with restoring the scan so it is faithful to its source. As for the sellers being unhappy, who is to say I didn't scan it myself or got it from somewhere else.

 

[Bendo]

To return to your original issue I have removed the watermark as requested. If you wish to add further to the archive we can add any material verbatim.

That is the problem. IMO by putting a logo and name on the scans, you *are* claiming some sort of ownership or copyright on the scans and by extension over the original content.

The IMO part is key here. As mentioned it is not our intention to claim ownership or copyright.

This where we might have to agree to disagree. A person can charge for doing the scanning but IMO they can't charge for the scans themselves or for the content. Accordingly once a scan is online, it's going to be copied and shared around.

Interesting. What would your position be if I was to post some of the material for which I have paid in the archive - some of which is watermarked? I suspect the sellers of said material would be less than happy.

Once a scan is online it probably will indeed be shared around. However it seems courteous to ask permission from and to acknowledge the source - something we were always conscious to do.

Hi John

I think you might be a bit confused about copyright and its implications. Someone who scans and uploads materials created by someone else does not have any ownership of that material. Watermarking it implies some claim to ownership which simply does not exist. I agree with the OP that it is unseemly for others to assume that the act of scanning gives them ownership, even in part.

As such, it is not necessary to ask permission of anyone who scans such material, as the copyright and ownership still resides with the originator of the content, e.g. in the case of a Raleigh catalogue, then it is the Raleigh Company. It would however be necessary for both you and the person who scanned the catalogue to have permission from *Raleigh* before you both scan and distribute the material. (In the case of a company that is defunct it may not be necessary although you might need to be careful that said company's assets, including trademarks, weren't purchased and now owned by another company).

The only way that someone who scans another's copyrighted material can claim immunity from prosecution is if they make it clear that the reproduction is not for commercial gain and that no ownership is stated or implied. A watermark would more than imply ownership in the mind of a reasonable person.

And if they spend a lot of time and effort on the scanning process then that's lovely, and an asset for them and us, but they can in no way *expect* remuneration or even attribution. They are neither the author, nor the publisher. They are simply a person with a scanner and time on their hands; a person who needs to take pains to make it clear they are not a thief.

b

 

[john]

Bendo,

thanks for taking the time to reply. I am interested as to what your experience in this field is, do you write as someone with a formal legal knowledge of copyright law? Or is your response based more on opinion and a personal understanding?

Many websites watermark images which they host, this is far from an unusual practice.

However the commentary in this thread has highlighted this is a grey area which we need to clarify properly. As such for the time being have removed the watermarks.

They are simply a person with a scanner and time on their hands; a person who needs to take pains to make it clear they are not a thief.

'Interesting' turn of phrase. I'd perhaps suggest people ought to direct their attention to those selling scanned material, organisations like the UK National Cycle Museum, http://campybike.com/ and various ebay sellers and other websites. In fact it's interesting to read some of the comments on the campybike site

campybike.com is not affiliated with Campagnolo SRL. Please visit the official Campagnolo website for information on current products. Electronic Documents are scanned copies of non-copyrighted publications. campybike claims no ownership or responsibility to the contents of these documents. Fees are charged only for the service of scanning, site management, distribution and CD production. Any unauthorized publication, posting, sale or re-distribution of campybike documents is protected as work property and is prohibited.

The archive here remains free for use and is still one of the most extensive on the web.

All The Best

John

 

[Elev12k]

I've scanned a substantial lot of what is available in Gallery 2. Personally when I put something on the scanner I made sure a magazine issue was at least over a decade old. I kept publishing relatively low profile: functionally. With mags it is not the same as with catalogues. I can't imagine Cannondale would sue me for scanning and publishing an old catalogue. It is 2011 and many illegal, grey, questionable things happen on the still new to everyone and flooded with information internet. Fortunately taking the time and effort to put decades old mags on the scanner is one of the more innocent things and I think it is a quite common practice also.

John can ad his watermark to 'my' scans for his pragmatic purpose. Not that he need my permission, as the general consensus is that once posted it is everyones

 

[Bendo]

Hi John

I don't know of any sites that routinely watermark images that they host. I think if somewhere like imageshack or Flickr routinely did so there would be an outcry. Or perhaps more simply, people would go elsewhere.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on the Campybike site as the link didn't work for me. But as far as your quote from there, I would say they have a cheek to include a copyright warning. Something of an ambit claim at worst, misinformed at best. People put all kinds of pseudo-legal disclaimers on their sites, many of which are unenforceable or have not legal power to annul the statutory rights of the individual. In Campybike's case, perhaps it is leverage to try and induce people to pay for the service?

As for my experience, I am not a copyright lawyer, but I do have an informed and professional interest as I was once a copywriter (as in I wrote advertising copy both freelance and under contract) and now am a high school teacher in the Media/Arts realm where the limits of student (and teacher) use of internet material is a hot topic and still being contested. I am also a Masters student myself so I am wary of "fair use" provisions for educational purposes under Australian Law.

Which is part of the problem I suppose because different countries have different laws.

In the case of a bona fide museum, they are institutions that are genuinely au fait with copyright law and its limits (and limitations). This is why most museums don't digitise and make available their entire collection online. But most are looking for ways of making their collections more available with some controls. An example of this is in my state, the Education Dept has cut a deal with some of the major museums to make content available to teachers and students, mainly because all Govt school teachers' identities can be verified online and they all have the same single access system. However this scheme has been slow to get off the ground because still the content being offered has varying levels of copyright restrictions applicable; from you can download it and do whatever you like to it, through you can download and copy but not alter, to you can download but not copy, to last of all you can only temporarily cache for viewing but not download and store. There is also conflict within two of the Govt's content portals: one says teachers can upload original content and that they license the Dept to use it but the teacher retains the copyright, and the other says anything a teacher uploads becomes the property of the Dept. A bit like this site actually, which says that "all content is (C) Retrobike Ltd unless otherwise stated." (I better not want to present this rant as part of my PhD in future or I might get sued... )

Finally I know it is standard practice nowadays for broadcasters to watermark everything they broadcast. I'm not exactly sure how this is negotiated between TV networks and their content providers, but I know filmmakers in particular HATE the practice (as do plasma telly owners). You think about it, a large team of professionals toil over creating technically and artistically superb images, only to have every single frame smeared in the corner. They may as well not bother checking the film gate and leave hairs in it to jiggle at the edge of the picture like an old home movie. I also love it when one network re-broadcasts a feed from another network and they have to blur the original watermark to fit their own. It's a branding battle, with content the loser.

Whether its legally right or wrong, I think it is, to use a very English term, a bit common. Would you whack a big decal of your name (or your family crest or personal 'corporate' logo) on the main tube of your best road bike, just because you own it? Some people might, just for the possibility that someone see the bike and wonder, "Did Bob Jackson make that bike for Joe Bloggs? Wow, he must be important."

That's pretty much both of two cents spent, for what they're worth.

b

 

[Elev12k]

Arrogant? My moral concerns are more with people copying the entire database 1 on 1 without asking instead of discussing parties can mean something for eachother, like decent people do.