A note on posting images

[TimD]

I'm loving these pictures that are being found of sixties club racing. It's inspiring me enter into a whole new field of research, and awakening a lot of wonderful memories. As the forum moderator though, I do have a couple of worries.

Can people please be sensitive to the question of copyright material? I've noticed a couple of pics show up which I know from memory have been published in the contemporary press, and I would ask all posters to be aware that we will be in trouble if the copyright owners complain.

Secondly, it might be worth seeing how the discussion develops over an individual picture, before more unrelated images are added to a thread. I almost missed a useful piece of additional information about one picture, because there were half a dozen more separating the new caption from it. Besides, the more text there is to read in a thread, the less arduous the wait for all the pictures to load up.

Thanks for your consideration, and keep those memories coming! I'm loving this!

Tim

[paulzinho]

Just thought I'd add a note on this myself.

I love looking at these pictures and reading the stories that go with them but there does come a point where we have to say slow it down, this is in the best interests of our users and guests. I am very grateful for some of these pictures, they have often proved to be very useful and I hope to see more of them as time goes by.

Thanks for your time and let the discussions continue!

[theracegypsy]

Perhaps we should be asking Craig for a "album" section, just to post pics. I know there are some great phot-hogs amongst us, so copyright is not always a problem

[TimD]

It's a thought, Bob. But I rather like the chance that interesting discussion might be fostered by an image, which might not be forthcoming in a gallery context.

I spent a little time last week splitting up some of the longer threads into more bite-size chunks - a thread on Anglias, a thread on Mustangs, and so on.

I would encourage people with pictures to look at what they've got, and if it looks like the picture could warrant a new thread, go right ahead and start one. I shan't complain if I have to go and visit 20 new (quick-loading) threads of a variety of topics rather than 1 big one.

[Andrew Kitson]

I've taken your lead and started doing that already TimD.
Started new threads on 60s/70s F3 for example and Crystal Palace pics.
Somehow, I can't see the F1/F3/BTCC etc of today being remembered so fondly in years to come!

[TimD]

Noted and appreciated, Andrew.

Half of the issue here is that the Historic Racing forum hasn't seen this sort of traffic in ages. It's overwhelming - and wonderful!

[Andrew Kitson]

Thing is, I don't have a scanner - don't know why, I should get one! So at weekends when not racing I upset my girlfriend by constantly scanning my old pics on her machine! A few of them I email back to myself to post in the week.
Mind you, after watching the GP Sunday, a lightning strike knocked out her PC, phones and TV, a hellova bang! Phones now repaired, TV seems OK despite having 'odd' colours on screen for a couple of hours but PC is at the repairers for an insurance quote.
MUST get that scanner!!

[djb]

Andrew, around here, there are scanners at around $100 can, (50 pounds) that are ample for the use of emailing photos etc. As usual, being the UK, you sods probably do not have the same prices as here (btw, something I just do not understand. If a doo-dad is made in Japan or somewhere, why should it cost twice as much in England than in Canada, but I digress)

If you do go looking to purchase one, good luck with your enquiries, and one main thing to look at is the Dmax number (2.8, 3, etc) the higher the better, meaning more of a range of black and whites, meaning more of a contrast range. I have a friend who has a 12,000 pound scanner for his photo lab scans (film scanner, not flatbed) and at home for his kids schoolprojects and fooling around, he has a 50 pound flatbed and he finds that it does the job. You can't expect it to do "professional" quality scans, but for everyday stuff, it works.

cheers, djb

[Ian Smith]

Andrew try jungle.com they do good scanners from about £38 but I am havin a Musak Bearpaw for xmas from my long suffering wife. It will cost £46 +P&P about another £5 but the delivery time is superb. When my CD-ROM died at 6.00 PM on a friday evening I rang them and It was delivered at 10.15 am om Monday

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by Ian Smith
Andrew try jungle.com they do good scanners from about £38 but I am havin a Musak Bearpaw for xmas from my long suffering wife. It will cost £46 +P&P about another £5 but the delivery time is superb. When my CD-ROM died at 6.00 PM on a friday evening I rang them and It was delivered at 10.15 am om Monday

I've got a Bearpaw. Very good and very cheap. Just watch out for one thing, somehow dust can get inside!

[Aysedasi]

I couldn't resist posting to this. You see, its a Hot Topic and yet the last post was by me on 22nd October last year - not so hot......

[paulzinho]

Yes but an important piece of information nonetheless! And yes I do realise you wrote that nearly 3 weeks ago!

[Aysedasi]

A reply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[greg.n]

I have access to a scanner and could get photos scanned for the site but most of the ones I have on files are too big to post. These are my photos so copyright isn't a problem. I have tried reducing them but then they aren't recognised as true Jpeg files. anyone got some ideas?

[djb]

if they aren't recognised as jpegs, then by god they must not be jpegs. Check when you scan to make sure that the files arent being saved as tifs or something else, and even then, just resave them as jpegs sometime down the process, along with resizing and using a low to med jpeg compression(smaller file size) to speed up photo opening for Craigs server and all of us not having to wait so long for them to appear on screen.

[paulzinho]

What I did was to use the resize button to change the size to 400 pixels using Photo editor.

Other than that I really dont have much of a clue! Hope its of use!

[thebear]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by djb
if they aren't recognised as jpegs, then by god they must not be jpegs. Check when you scan to make sure that the files arent being saved as tifs or something else, and even then, just resave them as jpegs sometime down the process, along with resizing and using a low to med jpeg compression(smaller file size) to speed up photo opening for Craigs server and all of us not having to wait so long for them to appear on screen. /QUOTE]

djb is right. The something else could be the file format native to your scanner. It could have any file extention.

[djb]

one other thing, there can be problems if a given file has anything after the ,jpeg or .jpg or .psd or .whatever

ie, jordan.jpgthateddieguy

so always make sure the file name ends with "point" and then only the file type abbreviation.

[driftwood]

its ok for u smart guys out there who can add a photo to the thread your typing but can you explain how to add to the 10/10 site please
i have some j pegs to add for other leads and no one has told me how to add on yet
im not computor "illiterate" but im no geek either
your advice will be most welcome Gentlemen

[paulzinho]

Sorry only just seen this.

If you wanted to add a photo to another thread which has been started by someone else then you can't do it using the quick reply feature unless your linking it from another site on the web.

Instead you need to use the post reply form which allows you to submit pictures.

Hope that helps.

[Peter Mallett]

At the top of the "Quick Reply" box you'll see the words "(Click here for full topic reply features.) That's where you find Paulzinho's info.

[Peter Mallett]

Hopefully you can see what I mean below.

[D-Type]

Can somebody who knows please explain the copyright situation? vis a vis

Scanning from a magazine or newspaper.
Scanning from a book who may not own the copyright anyway.
Copying an image from elsewhere on the net.
Linking to an image on the net.
Does date of original publication come into it? Say a photo of the 1899 Paris-wherever printed in an 1899 newspaper, a 1910 book or a 2003 book.
Does it make any difference if you say who the copyright owner is?
Does it matter whether publication is for gain or not?

[JimW]

Very complex subject which can't be summed up in less than an essay!

Generally speaking you can't copy something without the copyright owner's permission and then post it here or use it in other ways.

Linking to a copyright item is wrong if done without it being a clear link to the site which has it. It can be just a bit dodgy even when it is a clear link.

Have a look at http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html and a more formal (and hence less readable) document http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn185.pdf

Regards

Jim

[Kempi]

1. Scanning from a magazine or newspaper.
2. Scanning from a book who may not own the copyright anyway.
3. Copying an image from elsewhere on the net.
4. Linking to an image on the net.
5. Does date of original publication come into it? Say a photo of the 1899 Paris-wherever printed in an 1899 newspaper, a 1910 book or a 2003 book.
6. Does it make any difference if you say who the copyright owner is?
7. Does it matter whether publication is for gain or not?

Just some quick shots (I numbered the questions). Most of this applies only for analogue source media and is from a European point of view:

1. Legal for private use and sharing between a limited number of friends without the permission of the copyright holder. Sharing on the web only with permission

2. Doesnt make a difference. The fact that it was stolen before doesn't make it legal to further distribute it.

3. See 1+2

4. Should be okay, as long as you don't make it look like you're the copyright owner. Make sure the hoster doesnt get bandwidth problems, so ask for permission anyways.

5. Yes and no. Copyright is held for 70 years after the death of the author. If pictures fell into the public domain before that law was inacted, they remain public domain. Different countries, different terms, tho.

6. No.

7. No, not in the legal violation sense. It matters aftewards in the highth of the compensation.

These are some quick answers without going into depth. If I am incorrect on some of the issues and you get sued for it, I claim no liability.

Now off to Spa for the Six Hours.